Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 08/09/26 - Tuesday 8 September 2026, 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 08/09/26
Tuesday, 8th 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.

Class C3 Loose and Associated Highway and Landscaping Works

Victoria Wharf, Stour Road, Beechey Road, London E32MT

A reminder to switch mobile devices to silent in the event of a fire

Exit through the door to my right

Now before we start, any progress on those questions I asked?

Yes, I can update you on that.

There's a further third addendum statement of common ground, went to Pins about 15 minutes

ago, which is agreed.

So that, and that seeks to answer your questions.

I don't have that yet, but I'll keep an eye out see if it comes through

Any other points to raise before we start

Okay, then today we're going to start by

Going through the section 106 and

conditions roundtable discussion so less formal. I think I'll start with the

section 106. I think the best place to start with the for the parties to just

I mean there's been some movement during the inquiry I think particularly from

the council I'd like to the parties to just explain their positions in relation

to schedule 12 let's start with the council so good morning perhaps I could

start with that so schedule 12 has been amended significantly since the version

that was in existence before the inquiry.

Essentially, there were discussions,

Council wanted it to conform to the guidance,

particularly in the Hackney Wick SPD,

appendix one on relocation strategies,

which we agree it now does conform. The second point is that it's also been amended in respect

of affordable rent for the workspace. And the workspace is now secured as affordable

workspace at an affordable rent. And the wording there is drawn from particularly policy B .4

in the local plan. So we say that is justified in Regulation 122 compliant. So those are

probably the two principle points of overview.

And so that's, start with that,

obviously I can try and field any questions

if there are any.

Sorry, have you finished?

Yes, sir.

If I go to the opponent then.

So thank you not much to add really from our side, you may have seen I don't know if they

actually made their way to you if you had a chance to look at them but you may have

seen earlier iterations of the draught that sort of had blue pencil clauses, and to sort

of advance both parties form of drafting that they were then contending for that's all fallen

away and so and so the drafting is now agreed. We've taken care I should add to

ensure that the definition of affordable rent for the affordable workspace does

fully comply with Policy B4 of the LLDC local plan and we've also

ultimately as Mr Flanagan explained agreed to the council's requests in

relation to the relocation strategy and so our position is that that satisfies

the requirements of an LDC policy b1 in relation to the relocation strategy

oh you say that that was you didn't mention b1 no so I didn't but it's right

mention it, it does provide a policy, development plan policy basis for requiring a relocation strategy.

And then the detail of what a relocation strategy should contain

is in the SPD guidance appendix 1, so that provides further support.

Perhaps I can expand. The particular things, for instance, that have moved on since the

last version is it provides for existing occupiers to be decanted to alternative accommodation,

pending construction of the new scheme, and then given a right of return, essentially,

to the proposed 1 ,500 square metres. Obviously this is without prejudice to our case about

the floor space, but insofar as it concerns that we provide 1 ,500 square metres, it's

certainly policy compliant, we say. Perhaps I could just as well, just to give you a sense

which also comes to mind, which might be useful to pick up now,

Sergeant Lenton mentioned blue pencil clauses.

I think there's a hangover which might need to be remedied.

On page 8 of the document, so not in Schedule 12,

but in the main body of the agreement,

clause 4 .5 hasn't caught up with the agreement.

to us to schedule 12 now it seems to us. So clause 4 .5 currently records the previous

disagreement as to schedule 12, but given that schedule 12 is now agreed, it seems to

me that clause 4 .5 should be capable of deletion I think. And hopefully that consequential

change can be perhaps picked up in a further draught but hopefully that's the extent of it.

One thing that would be useful for me to just clarify

is in what circumstances the council considers that this clause applies

in terms of the schedules rather than clause 4 .5.

I mean this inquiry is considered so many different alternative scenarios.

What's the scenario that we're talking about?

The scenario is the proposed development regardless of any permutations in the evidence as to

the amount of floor space.

So the schedule provides for 1500 square metres to be provided as affordable workspace.

That is essentially the full extent of what is being provided as employment floor space

in the scheme.

The parties obviously in the evidence there's a difference as to how much employment floor space there is at the moment

What its lawful use is?

On the council's case providing 1 ,500 square metres is not re providing everything that's there at the moment

Obviously pallet takes a different view

But what the should watch a schedule 12 does is secure that what is being provided it will be affordable

workspace.

We go back to the

we go back to the appellant. I mean your proposal was not initially to provide

any affordable workspace.

This clause obviously

secures it. So what's your position?

Our position is there's not a policy requirement to provide affordable

workspace here because there's none on site at the moment. There's only low cost

this is explained in my closing so that there's only low cost floor space on

site at the moment and not technically affordable workspace so there's not a

requirement to provide it and therefore had we had we continued not to offer it

I would have been closing on the basis that that wasn't a harm to be held against the scheme.

But that said, there is sufficient policy basis that allows affordable workspace to be offered in the circumstances that we're dealing with.

And so our position is that it's permissible for the workspace to be offered as affordable workspace,

and that that is a benefit of the scheme that goes beyond the policy requirements.

But it contributes as you'll hear later Sir to our case on significant additional

public benefits and so that's also part of the policy justification for offering it.

And we're talking about relocation strategy and is this relocation strategy applying?

I mean there's been discussion about this as well

What is the how much of the site does this relocation strategy?

Apply to it. It's simply 1 ,500 square metres

I'll try and fill that first.

It applies to the whole site, but it only obliges 1500 square metres to be re -provided.

So in theory, indeed more than in theory on our case, there is the potential for existing

occupiers to be lost because there's more space there currently than is being re -provided

for them to be relocated into.

We can't require more than 1500 because that's all that is big in the schemes and that's

extent of what Schedule 12 can actually do.

I just asked the question because it doesn't I'm not sure it doesn't say we in there what

the culture and creative businesses we're talking about are.

It's the reference to relocated businesses and then that's defined as the existing cultural

creative employment or affordable workspace occupiers within the site who are required

to relocate to facilitate the construction. And then they will, I mean, the clarity on

that will come when the creative business relocation affordable workspace plan is submitted

because that will have to I think spell that out. But that broadly is who they will be.

And I just want to clarify in response to Mr Flanagan's answer, this doesn't include

this only applies to workspace so it doesn't include Victoria Wharf Studios cultural and

event space or any floor space in two more years that is used for cultural and event

purposes rather than as workspace but that is consistent with policy because there's no

policy provision to have a relocation strategy for cultural or event space it's only workspace

business in B1 that is even theoretically caught by that. And then you'll see in under

the heading, this is page 69 I think, under the heading Creative Business Relocation Plan,

the requirement is to use all reasonable endeavours to secure, offer and make available suitable

alternative interim accommodation to each relocated business. Before that relocated

businesses required to vacate the site until such time as the affordable workspace can be made

available. So I agree that broadly the concept is that the existing cultural creative employment

or affordable workspace occupiers will be given interim accommodation and then the affordable

workspace will be made available to them once it's been built out. The point of

dispute and where I don't agree with Mr Flanagan's analysis of course is that we

say that the quantum of affordable workspace that's being provided is

sufficient to you know we provide the quantum that's being lost.

Guys, there's one point useful point for clarification.

And as I mentioned, the penance case wasn't was initially that there was no affordable

work space proposed.

That was partly on grounds of viability.

Is that not the case?

anymore. So the viability assessment had assumed a percentage discount I think to

the workspace I think off the top of my head that was 80 % and essentially the

appellant has made I mean you know we're not reopening the viability evidence but

it's a commercial decision on the part of the appellant that it's offered the

75 % I think it is that the council's now seeking and that's where we've got to

by there there are this does link with some questions I'm going to have about

conditions but I'll pick those up later

Anything else to say about Schedule 12?

No, sir.

Thank you.

I think that there are a few questions I've got in relation to the list of conditions

I've got that does seem to be

overlapping a few cases with the

section 106

so he might have to come back to the section 106 as we go through the conditions, but

just for now I'll pick out a few of the

bits

Just a question on the carbon offsetting contribution.

So the way it's been set out, it's not been directly linked to a policy, but a list of

policies have been given.

How's that got a specific policy base?

If you can just highlight which of those policies

haven't gone through them all to try and find it.

Good morning, sir. Just in terms of that point, just looking at the CL compliance statement

now, I can see that there are London Plan policies in there. In terms of the LLDC Local

Yeah, ideally, I guess there would be LODC local plan policies as well.

Well, I mean, the point is I can't just...

It's no good just having this is how much you have to pay.

I mean, it has to be a specific basis for that.

The problem with the SIL compliance statement is it just gives me a list of

there's this much to pay and it doesn't actually directly explain the basis for that in all cases.

So I think Mr Cheema might have a reference that's potentially helpful.

Yeah, so the core document is the energy statement, so 5 .16, and that refers to policy SI2,

which has the methodology for calculating carbon offset payment.

And the calculations themselves are on page 22

to 23 of that core document.

Are you able to similarly help out with these other sums?

I mean, have these sums come from your evidence?

So the sum that's arrived at in the S -106

are the £65 ,000.

Sorry, are we still specifically talking about the offset payment?

Well, I mean, this applies to all the financial contributions because none of them have got

any specific explanation of where they've come from.

I think, sorry, I think on part three of the still compliant statement and the financial contribution,

it does have some explanation of formulas under one, two, three and four.

That's as far as it's got at the moment.

So it's kind of outlined in terms of the formulas.

But, yeah, maybe more detailed formulas could be provided if needed.

Oh, yeah, it's certainly needed.

Like I say, you can't just have a demand for a payment

without explanation.

But if the parent can help out on any of these other sums,

so that's between i and IV.

I may see that the Department of Transport is referenced in I, but not any policy.

That is the typical amount that we secure, but yeah, we do need to provide a reason basis

for that. So yeah, I think we will need to come back on those points because we have

got comments from consortees that provide further details of the formulas. So yeah,

we need to do that.

I see there are some policies listed in a separate part of the document.

Can you just confirm that I'll find everything I need to within there or are these consortee

responses more useful?

I think it would be handy if we updated the list of policies because to refer to specific

LLDC local plan policies which would have more background in those and as well as that

I think we could provide the consortee responses

in terms of the more detailed formula

to include in the statement.

I mean, the question is when can you do that for?

Because obviously this is the last day of the inquiry.

Yeah, we could, I could action that request today and tell them that it's urgent, but

it realistically, you know, it might take a couple of days to iron all of that out,

I would say.

What does the parent think of that?

I mean, so we're obviously, well, it's important that you

have reasoning that you consider to be adequate,

you know, justifying the requests

that are being made financially.

So we're certainly happy for the council

to be given time to provide a more comprehensive account

of its reasoning on that.

Just to be clear, you're not disputing

any of these contributions?

No, so we have been reviewing them internally to our team.

It's just that I don't think Mr. Cheam off the top of his head has the sort of underlying analysis available to him, but we certainly

seek to assist Mr. Weir in

locating that so that an agreed position can be put to you as to what the underpinnings are.

The sums are not disputed and nobody I think suggests that there isn't an underpinning. It's just a question of setting it out so that you can

understand it

straightforwardly.

Okay, we'll come back to that later.

It would be probably useful if you could just set the board in motion now.

Now, one of the things we're going to probably have to come back to when we're talking about

conditions is the public realm requirements, because there seems to be a significant overlap

there with conditions.

I think there is as well when we come to sustainability when we're talking about Brienne.

Just on that Breanne point.

Do you want to query this requirement to construct the development to Breanne very good?

Is that a requirement to construct the whole of the development, which is the commercial part?

And so our understanding is it's the latter because Bream's not applicable to residential

elements. Point out that the requirement in part two for schedule eight doesn't make that

distinction. So thank you that's noted and we'll see if we can pick that up.

What we do for a minute is we'll move on to conditions and we'll possibly come back to

the section 106 where I think there might be an overlap.

So we'll just start on the conditions now.

Thank you.

I mean, I've got to get an email through with another suggested condition, a yard colonnade

management plan.

This is one of those conditions that seems to potentially overlap with the section 106.

We're talking about public realm management plans.

So that condition is also not agreed because we don't consider that it's necessary.

Okay, if the council can explain why you think it's necessary.

Sure, yeah just on that point, I think it was following up on a few points raised in

proof.

So one of the points was from Ms. Pack in terms of potential for noise from employment

units.

So I think it's just looking at the future and just trying to future -proof any kind of

potential conflict.

So I think I've said in my evidence that even though the development may not have been directly

designed in terms of taking into account noise from the employment units, we do think we

do agree that can be dealt with by condition.

So this, from my point, I think that this probably could have been picked up earlier,

but I would just say that if someone is bringing out, for example, you know, doing some sawing

in the yard, then maybe you would either say that you might not want them to do that or

you would say that you can only do that in certain hours.

So it's just in terms of picking up potential issues

So that's why I feel that it would be necessary and it would be helpful from my perspective

So is this less a yard colonnade management plan than just a management plan for the commercial

uses?

Yeah, yeah, sorry, maybe that should have been made a bit clearer.

Yeah, it is just for the commercial uses and how they would potentially look at using the

area directly outside of their units.

That's what it's aiming at.

What do you think of that?

I mean, so ultimately we'll leave it in your hands.

We don't consider it necessary on the basis that there's obviously

people living on site at the moment alongside, you know,

the same commercial business activity that will be going on in the new scheme

and that's not subject to any noise condition and I'm not aware while there's

certainly no evidence from the council that there's been any problem in terms

of the interaction of noise with current residents on site so I don't myself see

what the planning justification is for the condition but if you decide that it

meets the test and it is necessary then obviously it's open to you to impose it.

So just one more point, just to say that, yeah, from our perspective, there would be

a difference between the existing live -work relationship with work as opposed to the appeal

scheme separated, residential and work.

So that's all I have to say on that point.

Yes, just to respond on that, we don't accept there is a difference there because somebody

who's, you know, I don't know, operating a sewing machine in one live work unit or is

an artist or another creative who actually, you know, requires peace and quiet to undertake

their business at the moment is just as likely to be irritated by whatever might be going

on in the yard as are the new residents of the scheme. So as I explained in cross examination

of Ms Pack. First off, this isn't a point that's been properly brought out in the council's evidence

but we don't accept that somehow everybody who's living on the site at the moment is

peculiarly noise tolerant and the new residents will be in a different position in that respect.

Just again, how is this any different to the Public Rail Management Plan because we do

looking at bits of the public realm.

I mean, is the condition necessary on that basis?

Let me just take a quick look at that provision.

I mean, this is before we even get on

to the other condition that's already

also requesting the same thing.

I believe that yeah the Public Rail Management Plan in the 106 is quite broad so in theory

it could cover that if it was specifically outlined that would have been helpful but

in general it could fall under that. Ideally it would be made clear but I believe it could

fall under that.

So just in the definition of schedule 11, yeah, ideally it would be included in that

definition in terms of public well management plan.

I mean it seems to me that that's written in such a way that could mean pretty well

anything.

Could it include anything?

So we certainly consider that to be sufficiently broadly drafted.

I mean it says includes but isn't limited to access, cleaning, maintenance and so on

and then rules and regulation for the public realm.

So if the council were in a position

to justify rules and regulation governing noise, for example,

then that's something that could clearly be advanced

through that mechanism.

I'm just going on to the list of conditions then.

But I'd be right in guessing that a lot of these conditions have just been put in here

direct from consultees.

Yes, a lot of them have been checked with consultees in relation to the scheme and just

put in.

We do have a lot of conditions from the Environment Agency and the Canal and Rivers Trust specifically.

Now a lot of these conditions are incredibly wordy.

Conditions that take up one to two pages are a bit excessive.

So we'll go through them.

Just on the condition 3, then I think first of all,

You've got the Tower of Hamlets Code of Construction Practise, which is different from the National

consider a construction scheme, is that right?

Yes.

Now, how much?

This condition requires accordance

to the Tower Hamlet's Code of Construction Practise.

is how much specific detail does that contain that doesn't need to be duplicated?

The tail Hamlet's code of construction is relatively new, I believe. So I haven't conducted

I do believe there are more detailed considerations in the Tower Hamlets Code.

I mean, yeah, it's a bit of a slightly strange situation because yeah, we are still under the LLDC local plan

but in terms of transition for provisions

and dealing with

some of these

obligations

We have been that we've had to use

Some some of the tower Hamlet's documents

in some of the formulas

But for the sake of duplication, as the

tau Hamlet's code is relatively new,

we could possibly

just go along with that one rather than

having the obligation or could have one

or the other.

No, what I mean in terms of

duplication is in terms of the various

requirements of this and these conditions

set out in terms of construction activities.

How detailed is the Tower Hamlets Code of Construction Practise?

I mean, is it sufficient to refer to that?

Or do you need all these other detailed requirements?

You know, I'd ask that you send me the Tower Hamlets Coded Construction Practise.

So yeah, that includes quite a...

Yeah, that is the 126 page document from April 2023.

So it does include significant provisions in there.

I think usually when the construction highways team are consulted,

they would include this as a standard condition.

And I think that they pick out the points B, C and D

as three of their main points to be as a headline.

I would think that, yeah, I do believe that those provisions

are contained within the code document.

document, but I think they would seek to put these on as headline points specifically.

Any comments from the out -of -finance? Are you familiar with the Tower of Hamlet's Code of

section practise. I'm not, I don't have a detailed knowledge of the code but we

don't mind either way. I mean if points B to D are already in point A then as in

the code of construction practise then we're happy for them to be left out

that equally if the council feel like they need to be or if you feel like they

need to be emphasised as more important points,

then we're happy for them to be left in.

But yeah, we do acknowledge that there may be some duplication

there.

I mean, I'd say the same in relation to condition four.

I mean, how much of these general requirements

are actually in the Code of Construction Practise.

I don't know because I've not looked at the document.

But it seems to me that they might be.

So would it be helpful if Mr. Weir and Mr. Cheema

just took this away and sought to rationalise and reduce

the wording of the conditions so as to avoid duplication

with material that is already in the external documents

and just cross -refer instead.

That would be very useful, yeah.

Now condition five, there are lots of references

within these conditions to superstructure.

Could you just tell me what you mean by superstructure?

Yeah, I believe that definition would refer to

kind of like the

frame of the building above ground

Before any of the external cladding is installed

So it's not so...

So it would be correct to say that when you're dealing with a steel frame building that what

view calling superstructure might actually go underground as well.

Just looking at a quick definition it refers to above ground.

It could be sometimes we word it more clearly to state specifically to above ground works as well.

So my concern with this condition, which you may be able to see the comment on the core document,

is that the way it's worded at the moment is that to me it appears that you wouldn't be able to start Superstructure Works

and what the condition intends to, well the intention appears to be that it's,

you've got your superstructure and you should then have to discharge details of

the materials before you then put them onto the structure which is why I've

suggested that we amend it to prior to the installation of each external

facing material. But I mean just before we move on to that and more, what I

really want to do is just get a clear view of what superstructure, what

what stage we're talking about it's not

these components that you call a term in

superstructure obviously also go below

ground it's not simply a case of saying

above slab level

yeah I think my understanding has been

that it does refer to above ground level

but I think it would be I do agree it

would be clearer it could be clearer to

word it more specifically in terms of

being above ground above ground

works. So with slab level be better. I mean that doesn't stop you from

doing something above ground. Obviously if you're putting steel framework in

some of it's going to be underground and some of it's going to be above the

ground.

Like I said, we would be happy with above slab level to enable initial works below that to be undertaken.

Is that more clear?

Yeah, I agree that would be more clear than what's there at the moment.

it's just I suppose our position is that we would want the superstructure works to have already been done

before we start discharging the conditions for the materials, because the trigger seems too early to us.

So I would accept that if that's what the definition of the Council has just given, if that's what you prefer.

Just to clarify though, you're envisaging a scenario where the entirety of the superstructure is completed, aren't you?

I mean, do we know that that's how the development would actually proceed?

Not necessarily.

The way I wanted to have it worded is that before you instal any external material,

so it could be that you've got a superstructure for one block,

but nothing for another block.

I don't know exactly how the construction will be sequenced,

but it's just you wouldn't want all of the external materials

to be held up by all of the superstructure works,

which is when you have a material that's ready to be applied to the building, you then submit

that to the council and have the council approve the details.

I'll just say from the council's perspective we would kind of some possibly worry a little

bit that if the superstructure is built then that kind of I mean it the superstructure

might need to be I don't know it could need to be designed slightly differently depending

on what external materials are put on it potentially so I think that's why we try to be careful

in acquiring at an earlier stage generally.

OK, just thinking of the details of this condition then, A,

mock -up panels.

It tells you what these mock -up panels are.

It doesn't make any provisions for what's to be done with them.

Generally, if that's going to be an approach that you take, you want to keep hold of the panels somewhere.

But you can actually monitor what's going on.

Yes, we used to request lots of materials to be submitted to the town hall and then

we kind of got a bit overrun with materials and in terms of processing them as well. So

in the past few years we've been requesting for them to be put together on site and then

we would probably do a site visit with the design officer as well and the team, the development

team and then look it all together. That's how we've been doing it over the past few

years.

But I mean you presumably not want those panels then to be just chucked in the skip and then

you've got nothing to refer back to?

Yeah I think we've been usually having site visits with the design officer and having

a very good look on the site and then also taking photos as well and then looking at

that in comparison to submitted documents from the development

team.

They're just, the council's happy just

to work off a basis of photos.

Ideally, I think the design team would

like to visit and see the materials in person

on the site, ideally.

I mean, you wouldn't say that it would

be useful to maintain those panels so you can cross -cheque them against what's actually

done.

I guess ideally that would be a good way to do it, so if they were maintained on the site,

but you know if that is yeah we could accept photos I think ideally we would

you know maintain them in some way to be checked.

Does the opponent think it's only to keep a few panels somewhere?

We do feel it's a bit onerous but we need to know how long we need to keep the mock -up panels on site for afterwards.

Obviously it would be preferred if we could just do a mock -up panel and the photos would then be the evidence that would be referred back to.

Generally just we were a retention of a sample panel.

is required is generally you keep it till the development is completed so that

you know it can be checked against the end product.

So if you feel that condition is necessary then the appellant would be happy to

keep them on site although yeah we would prefer it to just be photos but if it's

necessary to you then we can accept that.

Just a general point, when the conditions are all facing materials, the conditions are

talking about more than facing materials, so it's really just external materials, isn't

it, that we're talking about in this condition?

Yeah, I think it is all external materials rather than just facing, I think that's correct.

I might just come back to the green procurement plan. So the feeling it might

Be something that better covered somewhere else

But for now just moving on to condition 7

Now what this is talking about here would be generally a

a tree protection plan so wouldn't it be better just to ask for one?

That would be a lot clearer yes I agree.

Condition 8, seems to me that this logically is just an aspect of the scheme landscaping

should just be rolled in with a landscaping scheme.

I agree that could be rolled into the landscaping scheme.

I think we would just, from our perspective, would like to include the specific number

of trees in their location in the landscaping scheme.

But that could be reworded.

I was going to ask you, what's the basis for asking for seven semi -mature trees?

I think that was just, I asked the appellant how many trees there were and what location

then they came back with that I do believe.

Yeah that's what's shown on the landscape drawings

so I can take you to the core document for that.

So that's core document 4 .7, the proposed landscape plans

which show the number of trees.

There's not, so you think that it's necessary to specify that?

I think in terms of the landscaping, I think it is necessary to specify that the number

and location of the trees.

I think in terms of landscaping we were agreeable on the landscaping point so

that's why we would like to try and secure that.

Just to be clear, there is a landscaping plan. Is that a plan for approval?

you've not given me the schedule of plans. So is that a plan for approval?

It would be a plan for approval. I think even yeah usually when we would seek further specific detail

in the in the fight in the final condition submission usually because there usually is a

further level of detail. Yeah when it comes to the final kind of installation we we usually

see. So this is a notwithstandingly submitted plan scenario.

We could say something like following the approved

landscaping plan potentially. I'm just going to let me just cheque the

landscaping condition.

I think ideally we would like to refer to the approved landscaping and this would be

the request for the final details, final specific details on these points.

Could you just explain to me this urban greening factor score and where reasonable endeavours

comes into it.

Sure, yeah that's what we usually put on in terms of if a site, I can't remember

what the score is for the site, it might be just below 0 .4 or you can correct me

if I'm wrong, so then when it comes down to the final landscaping details we

would kind of try and push in the direction that maybe a little bit more

could be achieved to potentially get to 0 .4, then if it's submitted that it just can't

be done, then we always have to accept that. That's how we usually go about this condition.

All right, moving on to A, 9A.

This condition generally seems to stray beyond landscape, I'd say.

I'll just pick out a few things.

Lighting and light spill drawings, lux levels, drains, CCTV.

TV, I mean, looks and lighting is anyway subject to a different condition. Condition 12 I think.

Sustainable inclusive public realm. I mean, just talking about sustainable inclusive public

realm materials, I mean what does that actually mean and is that not covered elsewhere?

Yeah I would accept this is a bit of a catch -all condition, it was beefed up in recent years to try

and capture everything although there are other conditions that do capture other parts of this.

In terms of the hard landscaping,

thing. Yeah, it is quite wordy at that point. And I think it's aiming, aiming for sustainable

inclusive materials to be provided, but it's quite kind of general as well. We, you know,

I would accept that to be narrowed down. And yeah, we could remove drainage as well, for

example, because I think that would be covered elsewhere. Yeah, I think this could do with

some narrowing down to be fair.

What does the uh dependent think of this condition?

I mean I feel that a lot of these points in here are covered by the already submitted material so

It doesn't feel too onerous on us in the sense that it would just be a reproduction of materials

that have already been submitted in support of this appeal, but again if you feel that

it is not necessary to have as much detail in here about what's required then we would

except it to be trimmed down.

I'm just checking.

Are there any provisions made within the scheme designed

for communal gardening?

I think on that point we usually just we would kind of when there are planters in the schemes

in communal gardening areas we would kind of put that provision in to see if that could

be I mean facilitated in planters for example going in some of the documents that we some

our documents they are that is looked at in a positive manner in the development plan.

Just on that point though is the development plan you're talking about is that

Talhamlet or LLDC because that would not put anything I've just done a word search of our

landscape documents and we've not referred to gardening? I think there is there's some points in

the the housing standard test LPG in the past few years for example in terms of communal gardening.

I could pick out some points if needed.

But I mean, if it's not something that's being proposed,

is it something that you think is necessary to require

by condition, which seems to imply that it's

something that's required?

Yeah, I would accept that it may not be necessary.

but I think in terms of kind of trying to get the most out of the scheme that's

why we would include that but yeah it may not be strictly necessary.

Can I just cheque, is public art proposed?

No, we haven't proposed that specifically.

So again, this condition seems to be suggesting that you should be providing it.

Yeah I think on that point we would accept that that could be removed on the scale of

this scheme.

I mean ideally it would be something to be looked at but it's not something that we would

say is necessary.

So biodiversity net gain tables, is this, do we really, should we be looking for that

in a landscaping scheme?

I think they could be updated based on the final submissions, but we already have biodiversity

net gain details submitted.

then with this, this does so often change the final kind of conditions submission of

biodiversity and landscaping information.

Just to be really clear, when you're referring to biodiversity net gain tables, the thing

you're really looking for is for the landscaping scheme to provide some sort of biodiversity

benefit? I would accept that would be that could be that provision could be

better covered under yeah condition 10 which which looks at biodiversity

mitigation though.

This scheme is pre -landitary requirement, isn't it?

That's true.

Just one final point.

In k, when it's saying the environmental measures

to make the landscape conducive, meaning,

I'm guessing that would mean some kind of shelter areas, possibly around entrances,

which I guess that would fall under the landscaping condition.

It would more just be looking at a shelter on top of an entrance if that is needed or

not.

I mean shelter over an entrance, if it's attached to the building it's not really a landscaping

measure, is it?

Yeah, I agree.

Is it really necessary for a scheme to make provision for use of amenity space in heavy

rain?

No, I think that K could probably be removed.

I'm just moving on to condition 10, which you just mentioned.

I mean in reality all this stuff except for bird boxes, insect boxes and nest boxes, again

it's all landscaping.

So as I said when you're talking about biodiversity net gain you're really just talking for a

planting specification that delivers some sort of biodiversity benefit.

Yeah I think we do usually have a separate biodiversity condition but in terms of the

landscaping and it does mention green roofs so I think thick wording in the

biodiversity condition gives a bit more guidance but yeah I agree that it

could be incorporated together. But this approach to providing so

much guidance within conditions is that really necessary? It makes for

incredibly long conditions.

Our conditions may be a bit long, so I think this is helpful guidance for us to take back.

We could look at ways of making them more succinct.

I think it can help certain smaller developers, or not all developers, but it does in particular

help smaller developers to have such guidance. It may not be needed in this case.

What does the, what is the apparent thing.

I mean my point is that, as opposed to that condition is landscaping related.

Yeah, I'd agree that there's a lot of overlap between the biodiversity and condition and

the landscaping condition and it could be trimmed down significantly.

I think clearly the bat insect and nest boxes is something separate to planting.

So I mean, I don't know if this is a helpful suggestion, but I'm going to suggest if it

is helpful to you that we can continue the session so that we can all have the benefit

of your observations and what you think can be improved in the conditions and then Mr.

Weir and Mr. Chemer take them away, as I said, rationalise them and send in hopefully a vastly

reduced set that gets rid of the duplication and addresses the points that you're identifying

for us now. I wouldn't want to leave you with the job of sorting all of that out. So we

will take it away and do that once we've had the benefit of your observations.

Yeah, that would be very helpful.

Now in condition 11 there's something that crops up a lot in these conditions

and it is maintained or retained for the lifetime of the development. Now I would

I would suggest that that's often not a reasonable proposition. Sometimes it's

not possible or sensible. What's the council think? I think we do look for

yeah so if we agree with the details that have been secured so we

would agree they're high quality and beneficial to the scheme of the local

area then we would look for them to be maintained for the lifetime of

the development usually yeah that's how we usually go about it. I think in this

case in terms of the pontoons, I would think that the appellant would like those to be

maintained for the lifetime of development. If there is a clearer wording then I'll be

open to suggestion of a best way of us to word these kind of things going forward.

My suggestion is that what you do is, as part of that condition is a long -term management

strategy, rather than saying you maintain it for a lifetime, you manage thereafter in

accordance with the strategy that you've approved.

I mean it's essentially an open -ended requirement but it provides scope for sensible management

rather than maintaining something that might at some point need to be modified.

Yeah, that's accepted. I would think that's a good idea as well.

Yeah, I agree that the wording you suggested there would be more appropriate.

So just here in 12, that's that point I raised earlier in the landscaping scheme.

C12 is securing CCTV details of light spill.

So that's an example of an overlap with that landscaping condition, something that's not

Condition 13, movement by water, is that likely to be realistic in this case?

We don't think it's likely to be realistic.

Why does the council think it's likely to be realistic?

I think this is an environment agency condition. We do see that a lot on schemes which are

next to a water course to look at the feasibility. Often a feasibility study comes in and it

may not be feasible, but then sometimes it is and it may not have been fully assessed

in terms of feasibility at application stage, which is why we usually will often put this

on.

Right, you're looking at conditions 14 to 16. I'm guessing these

are probably conditions that have been given to the council by possibly Canals and Rivers Trust.

Are these, I mean presumably works to the river bank would require planning permission.

Are these conditions that could be combined?

So 14 is a pre -works survey of the condition, 15 is a post -works survey, so I think that

they could be combined into A and B of a condition.

What about 16?

Because that's a sort of a,

something on,

seems to be something that comes after.

Yeah, so it looks like 16 relates to after the works of the river wall have been completed

it seems to be.

So yeah, that could also, it all relates to the same thing.

So I think it could be rolled into one condition, hopefully trimmed down a bit as well.

Orsay, what do you think?

We're happy for them to be combined into one.

I think it makes sense, given that they're all

covering the same topic.

I'm going to take a break in a minute.

Before we do, I just want to look at these very detailed

noise conditions.

Now these conditions are asking for a lot of preparation of evidence whilst also specifying

specific requirements.

The question is, wouldn't it be simpler to pick out of those conditions, say 17, 18,

19, the requirements that they contain.

In relation to 17, you've got specific noise targets

in there.

My question would be, why doesn't the condition just

say that they have to be met. In terms of condition 17, yeah, as long as those

those targets are met then I believe that that would be sufficient. However it

just needs to be made sure that the testing is done at the time to take into

noise from levels for example, so it should be at whenever they have events going on there.

We would like that to be made clear ideally, just to cover it off at that point, make it clear.

I suppose I would guess that that is something that you established by the verification.

So I mean I think condition 19 seems to be more straightforwardly drafted and is more

typical of, in my experience, of noise conditions because it's just more straightforwardly that

you have to, you know, design and maintain the plant and equipment so that the rating

level doesn't exceed the background noise and then it gives a bit more detail about

what is the rating level and how you ascertain that and then there's a test about, you know,

B is about the verification report. So my suggestion again would be that we seek

potentially to combine 17, 18 and 19 into a more streamlined condition that deals

with noise more comprehensively but takes the approach whereby the relevant

limits are identified for the different elements and then makes provision for

verification reporting. That would be a far more straightforward way of doing it

that we're certainly more concise.

Before we finish on the same point, 20.

It seems to me that 20 is not necessary because it's effectively something that's covered

within the scope of those noise conditions that precede it?

And obviously glazing will need to be specified in order to meet the target.

So why is the need for details of glazing options?

Yeah, I accept that that could be covered under the previous conditions.

I think the reason why we put this one on generally

is when we're dealing with, yeah, if we know there are some cultural venues in the area

and it's not always clear cut in terms of where the noise comes from, is it from that venue,

or is it from people leaving the venue, which is hard to cover in planning, so that's where

we've put that on in the past, but yeah, I accept that could also probably be rolled up into the

other conditions if it was worded more precisely. You might just need a I think

I might just need a noise officer to help to roll this up just to make sure

we're covering everything when we trim it down. Just a word of

caution on going for the non planner specialists just there might

be a tendency to put stuff in which is not necessary and is a bit too wordy.

Right, we'll just have a break now. If we have 15 minutes, so we'll adjourn until

20 past 11.

About a third addendum statement of common ground.

I've read that.

So carry on then with condition 21.

Can I just say the reasoning, the council's reasoning for this condition.

I mean obviously the reason you've given is to protect culture and create an employment

function.

and with that all that condition does is restrict the floor space to a certain

use class. So yeah so it restricts it to EG3 so light industrial which is the

sort of new class we think that that creative and cultural workspace would

within. To the extent that the EG3 could also have uses which are not creative

and cultural, that is we agree correct, and that is addressed via the schedule 12

provisions which it's paragraph 14 of schedule 12, the 106.

which provides a restriction not to occupy your use other than by cultural or creative

occupiers or other such occupiers as the council may approve in writing. So safety valve provision

there. So those two work, that works together with the 106.

I think on these specific conditions I don't see that they're adding anything that the

description of development doesn't also already provide. It specifies the youth classes and

indeed the sub -youth classes and just say classy generally so yeah I think they could

potentially be removed from outside.

From a council perspective we would say that in the description of development outlines

it as is it outlined as light industrial or just a light industrial so then I

think that attempts to secure what's in the description development and the

condition is required I mean I don't think that's actually correct as a

matter of law but we'll leave it to you sir

Yes, so just to clarify, the description development does refer to EG3.

That's right.

The description of development doesn't remove

permitted development rights to move within E use classes though.

Which is what condition 21 is doing.

I mean that might be true, but I don't know what the justification is for imposing that

on condition 22 as well.

There also does seem to be some overlap between the conditions under section 106, which in

any event actually has a more, you know, a still more restrictive provision in relation

to use.

I think so the other point that occurs to me is whether potentially the Section 106

provision is actually the most apt way to govern this because that as I

understand it essentially allows the council to you know approve alternative

uses it just it seems to me there could be I don't know series was sewage and

there is but eg1 proximate type creative uses that the council might not have any

objection to that could probably more straightforwardly be allowed in via the

section 106 than through having to require you know section 73 application

to deal with this condition that's just an observation. Did you say EG1?

Oh if I did I'm at eg3 sir sorry.

Okay I just left that door open would you mind shutting?

Well, just in terms of that, you mentioned the condition 22.

What's the rationale for condition 22?

I guess it's quite, yeah, by the nature of the design of the units and everything, it's

point, yeah, it's obviously they're residential, however, just to secure that as a condition,

because yeah, even if it's outlined in the description of development, it's to secure

the operative parts of the description development in the decision.

I mean, that condition specifically restricting the use of residential units.

I mean, what is it that you were worried the residential units might be used for?

I guess they could be used for short lets, for example.

But yeah, you would need permission to change use to short lets.

I mean, is there any need for that condition?

So can we take that away and put it in the category of things to be considered with Mr

Yes, we understand the point you raised.

It seems to me quite an unusual restriction, but if you want to keep it, some more rationale

would be is required.

Now, condition 23.

Is something that potentially seems to overlap with the schedule 11 requirement for a public

realm management plan.

Okay, similar to that, similar to the issue we had with that proposed condition about

the yard and colonnade.

And what's the difference?

I think in terms of the communal amenity space, yeah, that would fall under the public realm

management plan, I accept.

In terms of the play space on the fourth floor, I think that would be a separate point just

to ensure that it's open for residents before the residential is occupied.

Yeah, that's what the main purpose of that condition is in terms of the playspace.

My thought on that one as well for the playspace element is that it could potentially be subsumed

to condition 9, the landscaping condition.

I would agree, as long as, yeah, it's just made clear that it should be open and available to use prior to occupation.

I mean, again, it is something that's covered in Schedule 11, all this is, specification,

implementation.

So there's a lot of overlap.

Now, condition 24.

Well, there's a whole sequence of conditions here, actually.

Twenty -four to twenty -nine.

It seems that the purpose of these conditions is to restrict what might be permitted development

rights but what in fact might not be permitted development rights.

To what extent are all these conditions necessary?

We feel like yeah we do put these conditions on generally major development just to ensure

that no yeah so for 24 for example you know you can get you what you do sometimes get

new barriers put up, but they would meet planning commission to be fair.

But yeah, sometimes you get them put in and then they kind of remain for quite a few years.

And yeah, some of them, some of these could be more like informatives where, because planning

commission would be required anyway, for example, for 26,

potentially. I think for 25, that's in terms of the painting.

I think that could be a PD, right? And it's looking to

because, you know, in terms of the architecture of the scheme,

I don't think there's any dispute about that. And, you

know, looking to maintain that quality would be in terms of

25. But 27, I don't think you need, well, I think you would need, I think you might

need planning permission for roller shutters. So yeah, in a way that could be seen as a

more of an informative, in a similar wording, just trying to maintain the initial design

quality of a scheme in some way. Well yeah, these could possibly be better worders.

Yeah we'd like to trim these down, that's probably one foot Mr Waring and I to take away,

but yeah we share your view that some of these may not be necessary.

Again, I would suggest, obviously, if you're seeking to restrict something that is a permitted

development right needs to be worded properly, but there's a question as to whether any of

these are PD rights anyway.

and 24 would seem to be something that would in relation to public realm covered

in the management plan and public access provisions I would have thought. Also

yeah particularly in terms of any temporary closures.

I think, did I say 24 to 29?

I mean I see what 29 is trying to achieve there but obviously just stopping people from

putting stickers on a window is not going to stop people from blocking a window by means

that don't require planning permission or any form of consent.

Yeah I think this conditions more when you're dealing with retail units and supermarkets

trying to allow some visibility mainly in those cases.

Condition 30, so if you could take those conditions away

and just make sure that they are necessary and relevant

and properly worded, if they are actually necessary

and relevant.

So condition 30, again this is a condition

that says retained for lifetime.

I mean the obvious problem with that

is if technology becomes outdated

and there are better ways of achieving those objectives. Forcing people to keep

obsolete technology in the future would be a bit unreasonable.

Again, the point has been raised about this specific need for power rating.

Is that in part B?

Yeah, that's in part C.

Yeah, with our sustainability office, they do tend to look at what is proposed by the

applicant in a energy statement and then try to fix that clearly on that point as a minimum.

But in terms of the lifetime of development, yeah, I take your point on that.

Now, D, the interesting thing with D is that it's not consistent with the Section 106,

because she's looking for excellent...

Oh yeah, over 500 square metres. Yeah, I think this was, the conditions were done quite a

bit before the 106, so some things have to be, yeah, kind of regularised together. We

would need to amend this.

So there's a requirement here to design and construct

a heat and water supply system for future connexion

to a district heating network.

I mean, having regard to the context, I mean, this being a site which sits amongst other

sites which have been recently developed, what scope do you see there being to attach

this development to a district heating network?

Yeah, that was a specific comment from the energy officer. But yeah, I need to interrogate

that further, to be fair, to be honest. I don't know, I know that the borough is on

trials for district heating networks in different ways. There is a plan policy which pushes

this forward but in this specific area I don't need to cheque that I think

double -cheque that when you think as I can appreciate there are things that

the council would like to achieve it if you require someone to do something that

has to be some realistic prospect I think that might actually be worthwhile

Yes, sir, I'll have to double cheque whether that is a realistic prospect in a specific

So condition 31 looks like it's another one that seems to be trying to control a permitted

development right which perhaps doesn't, wouldn't exist but I perceive that what that's trying

to achieve is details of how the various units are going to be connected to TV or

telecommunications networks and where and how on the building that's going to

be achieved you know in order to be compatible with the design of the

building. Yeah that's right yeah we we do we do often put this condition on in a

in a quite sensitive areas where we,

if we see that there is,

the building's been designed in a certain way

and in a sensitive area and to try and look at

areas and antennas and not being placed

in sensitive locations which could harm

the visual of the building.

And so yeah, looking at those being submitted,

The details has been submitted and the PD rights being removed.

I mean just to be clear, would there be any PD rights to add additional areas in Antennae?

Generally there are PD rights for buildings to include that kind of infrastructure.

in terms of a new building such as this I'd have to double cheque that.

We're only talking about commercial units and flats

aren't we? Not talking about anything else.

We may have to double cheque to see if that is necessary

if there would be PD lights that would

that we might think would need to be removed from our side.

I mean the condition could be, I mean what you're obviously trying to achieve with the

condition is that the infrastructure is put in at the beginning and there would never

be any need to add anything else.

So I mean if that's what you're trying to achieve you could word it in such a way that

that was clear.

Sure, yeah, yeah, I can look at, I can do that.

I'll try make this one more clear.

Got any comments or?

Now I'm happy to review a reworded condition

to provide more clarity on that.

These conditions relating to piling and boreholes

that they come from the environment agency?

Yes, sir.

So in terms of condition 35, who's asked for that?

That would be a standard condition from the Environmental Health Team, Air Quality Department.

We'll come back to that condition because it seems to overlap with some of the things

that are required later on.

Right, condition 37.

He's talking about non -road mobile machinery and he's making reference to a dusting emissions

during construction and demolition, SPG.

Now I don't think I have that document and I don't know if you're familiar with it.

But again, similar to the question I asked earlier, are a lot of the things in condition

36 and 37 all covered within that SPG?

So yeah, so 36 talks about the dust management plan being in accordance with that SPG that

you just mentioned.

But I don't think it is like the previous condition because it doesn't say that the

the entire development needs to be in accordance with that SPG.

So I think it just picks out some specific points like the DNP,

and then with 37, the NRMM,

I think that's diggers, making sure the diggers comply with air quality targets.

Just to be clear, it wouldn't be easy just to say it complies with that SPG.

In terms of development as a whole, just to say that it complies with this SPG, I guess

in a similar way as the Code of Construction management practise, going by that same logic

it could be done in that way.

I think we usually do pick out this NRMN point because it is often picked out by highways

and air quality officers specifically at this point because I think maybe there is a specific

issue on construction sites with these diggers and their emissions.

What do you think about that?

So yeah, we prefer to just be condensed into one condition that requires compliance with

the SPG.

We obviously need to go away and have a look and see whether these things are in fact covered

all within that SPG and also send that SPG in to me.

Sure, yeah, we will do that.

I made them on to condition 42.

This is about cycle storage and numbers of parking spaces for cycles.

Obviously there's implementation in there, which I understand.

And in terms of, you know, as this is stuff that is shown on the plan, is that not adequate

in itself?

I mean, is it necessary to say no less than such and such?

I think from the council's perspective, we would say it's necessary because I believe

that that's the number of spaces that the development will be providing and

it's just about ensuring that that's that number is but then if if yeah if

those if the number of those spaces is outlined on a plan specifically then

yeah we could just say it's in accordance with that plan I just need to

cheque that the plan clearly states how many spaces there are

Yeah, we'd say that it's not necessary because it's shown on the plans and you'd read that

alongside the transport statement, which I'm just trying to pull up the core document number,

but that will also specify the number of spaces and the facilities as well, the showers and

the lockers that go alongside it.

I think we would just say that we would like the condition to point out that they should be provided

prior to the first occupation in terms of those facilities.

But isn't that just the more general requirement to build in accordance with the drawings,

would cover that anyway?

Yeah, I think we do usually have more specific policies in terms of certain points though.

So for example, certain points, certain parts being delivered before other parts, just to

make that clear in the condition. It would not be unusual to request to secure

the provision of parking shown on a plan before occupation, otherwise it may not

be available when people occupy the site.

Yeah, that's agreed.

So yeah, again, maybe one we can take away.

But in principle, we'd just be stripping away

the specific numbers.

And it would just be about the timing of delivery condition.

Now jumping on to condition 44.

Now this is picked up to some extent in some informatives at the end.

As you probably know, informatives are not attached to appeal decisions so really they're

not relevant.

This is securing an implementation of a programme of recording.

Normally such a condition will refer to a specific level of recording with reference to Historic England.

It's not clear here what level you're looking for.

I would need to cheque the Historic England response one more time just to get the specific

details on that.

If they've included that, what if I'd have to...

You're talking about Historic England's response to the previous game, not to this game?

Oh no, sorry, it's Historic England in terms of the Greater London Archeological Service.

Any idea from your side?

Yeah, we just need to see a bit more detail on the reasoning, but I don't have that response from Historic England's archeological team to handle.

but I can find it and investigate further when discussing Mr. Ware.

I do have that in front of me. So in the condition wording, it doesn't mention the level of recording,

but then in the later one, it does mention that so I can we can incorporate that in the condition

What a great resort

Bear with me one second.

Thank you.

Alright, I suggest what you need to do is you need to look at the latest historic England

and guidance on recording,

and make reference to that.

Okay, 45.

Looks more like an advisory to me,

given that this is obviously an issue

is covered by separate legislation.

Yeah, I'd agree that we would be happy

for that to be removed.

How about you Mr. Wayne?

Yeah, I agree it is covered by separate legislation

that is implicit of what should be done in that scenario.

We do

usually put this condition on but yeah, I agree that that

would be the case.

Now, condition 46 is a condition that I question.

I mean, it seems to be anticipating that there will be some kitchen uses installed, which

haven't been accounted for within the design of the scheme.

I mean the obvious issue being the extent to which the design that has been submitted

would be compromised by these requirements.

Is this a matter that is better, would be ordinarily better dealt with, at the point

at which a commercial user decided to occupy a space?

Yes, I think that we do often deal with it in that way as well.

that could be a better word in this case, I agree.

What I mean to say is this condition anticipates

that this is gonna happen.

First of all, is it gonna happen?

Secondly, is it something that is going to potentially

fundamentally change aspects of the design of the scheme

that are otherwise for assessment?

I wouldn't, yeah, I don't know if the commercial kitchen

would fall under the light industrial use class.

I mean, yeah, generally, of how the scheme is designed,

you wouldn't expect there to be such a use.

So, I wouldn't... it's tough to anticipate that or not if such a kitchen use would fall

under a light industrial use or if one of the units may want to instal a larger type

of kitchen rather than just a kitchenette.

That would be better dealt with in the wording that you specified earlier rather than just

expecting it to happen.

There's a point here not if a commercial user did want to occupy the space then they'd need

to apply for planning permission to secure these sorts of things and it would just be

dealt with via that application rather than a condition discharge application where we're

not certain whether it will or won't happen.

I guess I was looking at more of a scenario of if any light industrial use could have

more of a commercial kitchen element to it. It was in that scenario of potential.

I mean there are obviously some commercial kitchens it would seem on the site at the

are relocating into this development?

Depending on what use class they fall under I don't know if they would be

eligible to I mean they are existing commercial occupants of the site which

could fall under the relocation strategy but I don't know what use class I

haven't analysed them I'm not sure what use class they fall under at present

I was there on the site now.

Yeah, we've not proposed any kitchen extract uses.

but I mean if, like I said before, if those types of users did want to return to the site

then it would be better addressed I think via a planning application to specifically meet whatever

needs they have. But I think as a condition that just generally applies to the development,

I don't think it's appropriate given that we have no certainty on whether

those users would actually be on the site.

Yeah, I think we were just thinking that those kind of uses could potentially fall under

light industrial but yeah, then you might possibly they might possibly need permission

for any, when if they deem it appropriate to, you know, to take a lease of the site,

they might deem it whether it's appropriate if they can if they need any other infrastructure

to be installed or not, or whether they can go by the system, that's there now.

But that could also fall under this condition in terms of giving them some scope under the

condition as well.

My concern with taking your approach is that you are therefore anticipating that it might

be acceptable to instal flues to this development.

And you know your conventional extract that attached to

to a

building of this height

It's going to fundamentally change the way it looks

Maybe maybe possibly if it falls under the condition it could be a sensitively designed in essentially

Again, it assumes that it's possible, but I don't have that information, I'd have to

express some doubt.

Again, any comment?

Yeah, I mean I'd have a similar concern, because if you were to instal the flu, then you'd

be changing the approved drawings, so I don't think the condition can be used to then alter

what's already approved.

So yeah, like I said before, I think it would be better dealt with via a separate application

if that were to ever come to pass that a kitchen user needed flus or otherwise.

Looking at conditions 47 and 48, I suggest that a lot of the detail here is not necessary.

Their purpose primarily is to trigger optional requirements under the building regulations

and that's all they need to do in relation to triggering those requirements.

The rest is down to the council's building control to look at.

the one thing in here which is potentially falls outside of that would be phasing in

terms of when the lifts are operational. But even that might be something that Building

control would be interested in. That's accepted but possibly on the part E that

would be beneficial for the housing team in terms of using these spaces. I was

gonna ask you I mean but what is the need for a marketing strategy for

wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable units?

Why, what's, the units will be marketed,

why is that needed?

I believe they may have, I think from their experience

they may have seen circumstances where they may not

have been marketed clearly, so then it results

in them not being delivered.

So I've never seen that condition I don't agree that it's required here

I would suggest that condition 50 is not necessary because it falls within the scope of a sustainable

urban drainage scheme.

And obviously if infiltration is not possible you can just go to the next tier of that.

I would agree that they that could be amalgamated with condition 49 or removed.

I think the only point in there is about

should be supported by an assessment of the risks to controlled waters

which could be amalgamated into the drainage statement for condition 49.

I think there was a one of the original refusal reasons was about controlled waters and then that

was dealt with by the appellant at the appeal stage so I think this came from that from the EA.

All right.

So condition 51, there seem to be aspects of this condition

that there appear to be things that have just been pulled

from a guide rather than things that are necessarily

should be in a condition.

Floor to ceiling heights of at least 2 ,500 millimetres.

I mean, the floor to ceiling heights

will be what whatever is proposed and I'm gonna thought internal blinds you

know that's that's that's not part of the building fabric blinds blinds can go

up or come down and do you agree there's some things in there that shouldn't be

yeah I agree yeah I agree that this is the standard overheating condition that

we use but yeah it might not have the best wording to be honest and some some

parts might be covered in the sustainability statement as well so yeah

we should rationalise this. Just on that last point that Mr. Wig made, we do have a

specific overheating assessment it's called document 5 .33 so yeah I'm not

sure how this condition ended up in here I don't know if the council's

sustainability team weren't satisfied with what was in the overheating assessment but

it is common ground between the parties so I didn't see there being any issue with what

we submitted.

OK, well I would suggest that if that's the case then the condition that requires compliance

with whatever is in that statement would be more sensible.

Condition 52 is not really specific about what it is.

what it's relating to. I would assume that this is to do with the commercial

uses rather than seeking to restrict residential properties from receiving

deliveries outside of those hours or days. Yeah that's right I think that

those timings are generally on the commercial uses.

So obviously that would need to be made clear that that is not applying to residential properties.

It's a minor point but also you know you might want to make reference to public holidays.

Yes, I would look to, we would look to amend this to be more specific.

Condition 53 is another extremely detailed condition.

Is it not good enough to simply ask for a site waste management plan?

I think in general it is, however, there are quite a few detailed points such as the internal

waste storage in each unit. That's not always provided but going by the SP, well going by

we assess schemes usually you need to kind of make sure that the internal waste storage is the correct

sizes to kind of correspond with the bin stores downstairs. Yeah I mean some of this does go quite

far that is points that the refuse team have raised as being issues but it might not all

strictly be relevant in the planning perspective and yeah I think these could be slimmed down if

work together. Is this an area where the council has any guidance?

Tower Hamlets has a refuse waste SPD which a lot of this would come from that

but I have to double cheque the LLDC. Again this one might fall into a similar

category to the overheating assessment because we submitted a site waste management plan.

It's caught up in 5 .42. So I don't know if this condition has been reviewed against that

and whether it could potentially fall into that same category where it's just compliance

with what's been submitted.

I think from our perspective, when you're on a waste management, there are some more

detailed points that would be helpful to secure.

But we could review that one together just to make sure

that everything's been covered in what's been submitted

or not.

54. I mean I suspect it might have something on this as well but it's a bit of a vague

condition. It doesn't really say what it wants.

we don't specifically have a secure by design document,

but there's security measures that are detailed

in the design and access statement.

But I agree that usually there's some level of accreditation

that's specified in these sorts of conditions,

which yeah, we do see a lot of,

but I agree that this condition

maybe lacks a bit of specificity.

Yeah, I think from a council perspective,

I'm not sure if the police responded.

I have to double cheque that.

But then, yes, so they may, as Mr. Cheema said, they may often outline, you know, achieve

gold, achieve silver for this element of the scheme.

Then sometimes that's also a bit, it can be onerous in some, in some developments.

So then we've kind of referred to the secure by design, but haven't outlined an exact standard.

I think on this one it would be handy if I just double -checked what the if the police have responded on this they may not have

But even in either way we would

Look to put these on

as a

Standard for residential or developments of this scale residential and commercial

Just to ensure they meet the actual standards then the police would have to review that

So just to clarify, you're looking for the police to clear this condition?

No, it would be the LPA that clears it, but we would, on this item, we would consult the

police for their advice.

Potentially on that one as well, because I'm just looking at part B of the condition that it talks about

appropriate certificates being secured. Presumably that means from the police, so if we were

to have to go and do those, secure those certificates and then submit them to Talhamlet, I don't

know, well maybe they would still want to consult with the police but yeah I'd imagine

that that covers that anyway.

Yeah I think usually the developer go, they sort it all out of the police beforehand and

then they'll, then the police would send us a letter to say that it's okay or that it's

good then we would just start we would just we'd still consult the police just

to double -cheque then it'll be signed off in that way usually

just on that point though so it's not appropriate for a third party to be put

in a position potentially to veto the ability to bring forward development. So the condition

shouldn't put the police in a position where effectively they can withhold certification

and put an end to the matter. Ultimately it's just a question for the council as local planning

authority to be satisfied whether you know enough has been done from a secure

by design perspective.

There was some input I thought during the application stage on this wasn't there?

So the Metropolitan Police's crime prevention team were consulted and

didn't have any comments.

I mean is that a basis then to impose this condition?

I would say there is a policy basis in the London plan and the local plan which I could

reference that and make it clearer.

We wouldn't be seeking to include the police on the condition but we would consult them

just in the same way as we would consult the EA on their conditions as well but it would

the ultimate judgement of the LPA?

I think there's no difficulty in the local planning authority electing to consult a third

party.

I think my concern is just around the reference to appropriate certificates because a, it's

not clear what that is and b, that to me does contemplate a certification process that's

external to the local planning authority, which wouldn't be appropriate.

Okay, you can think about that some more.

And condition 55.

Why why should the light industrial be completed and available for occupation before the residential

units?

I believe it does specifically lay this out in the local plan.

I do I need to find the reference but I have seen that specifically referenced

It would have been more hand it would have been handy if I put the reference on that before

It's probably policy B16, which says that proposals that are considered under 4 to 5

will only be acceptable and then this is B, where any new uses including residential development

are phased behind the intensification or consolidation of the industrial functions. So I think it's

presumably there in policy to stop a developer from just building out the residential aspect

of the scheme and then never delivering the workspace provision.

I suppose that makes more sense in relation to skiing where the spaces aren't on the ground

and first floors of some high rise buildings.

Yeah, I think on the facts here, I can't really see the practical utility of it, but we don't

objection from a council perspective we do sometimes see developments where the

the ground floor commercial units are not fully finished and available for

occupation so that yeah that's relevant from our perspective

I think it's interesting in that number 10 of your list of informatives does say the

applicant must seek the advice of the police. I mean obviously you know these

are these are informatives but they sort of indicate where the council seems to

be coming from. Yeah I think we I think that is usually included on the letter

that the police sends out and then I think even though it might not be

technically kind of what we should be saying and how the process goes I think

to kind of ease the process for the developer

in the long term.

As I say, all these informatives would not be

attached in the event that the appeal was allowed.

So that's the end of the conditions.

Is there anything to add about conditions

and the relationship between the conditions

in the section 106? I think myself and Mr Chima will need to sit down for a couple of

hours and look at, because the conditions were put together quite far in advance of

the 106, we'll just have to double cheque whether there's any overlap and what should be taken

out I would say. Yeah I'd agree with that, I don't have anything further to add on that

to be a good point.

Okay, obviously I need to set a time limit for that,

but first of all, I'd like to know how long it's gonna take

to provide a completed section 106.

So that means we're going to have to do a little bit more

My note from the discussion this morning was that I think the only two points that we need

to revisit on the Section 106 drafting are narrowing or being more precise about Breen

and the fact that that only applies to the commercial elements and then as Mr Flanagan

explained deleting the wording about the blue pencil clause in relation to Schedule 12 which

is no longer needed.

So if we were given two weeks from today,

we would expect to be able to execute the final copy

within that time frame.

How does that sit with the council's arrangement

for sealing these documents?

So that's accepted to us as Sealing Days Thursday, I'm informed.

And given the modest nature of the amendments, 14 days would seem sufficient to us.

So that would be 22nd of September at 5 o 'clock.

I would say just it happens so often that the completed document is sent in and it's

not complete.

It just needs everything with it.

So conditions, it would be useful to have them, I should think you can get those done

bit sooner.

Can we say for the conditions in one week, 15th of September. Yeah that's fine with us though.

I mean obviously I say that's the deadline.

and

Soon as possible is is what you should aim for

Okay, next next will be closings which I suggest we do after the lunch break

Just a recap, no change in your position on costs.

Okay, we'll have lunch break now.

Just before we do, can I just ask you how you're doing with your timings for your

closings?

So about an hour and a half for mine I think.

Yeah well we've got time then.

Can I also ask that you email those into the case officer and I guess you've got printed copies.

So I don't have a hard copy just because my practise is to sort of edit and finalise mine in response to the council's closing

but I can email it to pins and hopefully the case officer will forward it through to you

upon receipt and then we can go from there.

Obviously he emailed it to Mr Flanagan at the same time.

Okay then we'll take a lunch break now. So until 25 to the enquiries agenda.

Now, before we start with the closings,

just a couple of points.

Just a couple of points following on

for my discussion of conditions.

Just to remind you, you're going to send in,

with the conditions, any supporting documents

that you haven't sent in already.

So that would include the Code of Construction Practise

and the Control of Dust and Emissions, SPG.

You are also going to send in some more justification

for the financial contributions.

One other thing, inquiry documents. In case I don't mention it when we finish,

we'll need a finalised list of those. Obviously that list is not going to be completely finalised

until all these extra documents are sent in, but they'll all need to be included on it. So I suggest

that that final finalised list is sent in with the with the section 106.

And of course your extra justification as well.

Okay, then we'll start with the council's closing, if you've got a paper copy to hand

in my judgement, thanks,

because we'll have enough Nahum to sayances in the 65th

Thank you sir. We're starting from the top, we're saying closing the following. The

appeal site is a key part of what makes Hackney Wick and Fish Island a unique and important

place. The evidence heard during the inquiry has shown how the appeal scheme fails to recognise

and respect this contribution that the appeal site makes to the area. The appeal scheme

causes real and substantial harm on a number of levels, particularly in cultural, creative,

with townscape and heritage terms,

which means that the proposals,

notwithstanding their benefits, are unacceptable.

These closing submissions will deal with those harms in turn

before turning to the benefits and the planning balance.

I start with loss of cultural event space.

The appeal scheme will result in the loss

of two cultural venues,

Two More Years and Vittoria Wharf Studio.

There is no justification for the loss of either of them.

The loss of Two More Years in particular

is acutely harmful.

It is flatly contrary to policy at all levels.

Two more years is at the heart of Hackney Wiccan Fish

Islands identity and importance.

It is a vibrant and valuable cultural hub,

providing workspace, both co -working space

on the ground floor and offices and workshops

on upper floors and flexible event space,

which is in constant use by the creative

and cultural occupiers.

It acts as, as Pat explained, essentially as a living room

for fish island creatives, residents,

businesses and visitors. It is also a destination venue attracting people to

its events from across London as Mr. Weir explained. It is long -standing

having existed first as Stour Space now as two more years since 2009 providing a

community and cultural anchor as Hackney Wick and Fish Island evolved around it.

Its location on Fish Island is important. There is a significant cluster of

cultural venues in Hackney Wick,

that is to the north of the Hartford Union Canal,

which are essentially those listed in Ms. Paxproof

at Para 513.

But to the south on Fish Island,

there is nothing comparable to Two More Years,

as the voluminous third party representations

to the appeal make clear,

and is also obvious from walking around Hackney Wick

in Fish Island as a whole.

The nature and extent of the use of Two More Years

from its inception around 2009,

as stour space to the present day,

seems largely to be agreed. They're set out in Mr. Weir's proof 8114 to 130 and Mr.

Cheema did not disagree with that factual account.

In short, the Stour Space occupiers appear to have moved in around during

2009 and started cultural events from 2010 at the latest. In 2011,

Planning Commission was obtained which permitted the addition of a D1 art gallery use and

and ancillary A3 cafe use to the existing B1 use,

which comprised artist studios at that time,

thereby creating a lawful mixed B1D1 use.

I refer to the decision notice

and the land use section of the officer report.

A broad range of cultural activities

continue to take place on a very regular basis,

including exhibitions, markets, talks, meetings,

festivals, parties, music events, food socials,

yoga arts clubs, life drawing, film school,

body painting screening and including various late night events. The evidence shows thousands

of events taking place between 2010 and 2020 with that evidence based only on a few internet sources

which are still accessible in 2026. It is clear that the actual number of events would be much

higher. On 31st of March 2021 Stour Space closed its doors for the last time but by 1st of May 2021

a new lease had been granted to the operators of Two More Years.

And by July 2021, Two More Years was advertising itself as bar restaurant studios with day and

night launch party and resident DJs. The council says that Two More Years has a lawful and existing

so generous use as a multi -purpose cultural venue comprising light industrial space at upper floors

and a ground floor in use for co -working gallery and event space and a cafe bar as set out in the

second addendum statement of common ground.

This is a broader mixture use than that originally permitted

under the 2011 planning commission,

as it cannot be said that the cafe bar use,

which was in practise,

as it cannot be said that the cafe bar use

was in practise only an ancillary use.

The overall so generous use has become lawful

through passage of time,

given that the building has been in this use

for over 15 years since around 2010 or so.

Mr. Shima rightly accepted that the changeover between stour space and two more years in

spring 2021 would not be sufficient to comprise a break in continuity for the purposes of

the 10 -year period.

But even if lawfulness is determined by reference to the 2011 planning commission, that still

shows a mixed use referred to as a cultural hub, reason one on the decision notice, with

primary studio spaces and art gallery B1 and art gallery D1 uses.

Mr. Cheema says that the use is sui generis, but, quote,

with a predominant workspace function.

The upper floors, roughly half the space, are workspace,

but the ground floor is a mix of coworking space and event space.

But the suggestion of a predominant workspace function

is inaccurate, given the prominence and importance of the event's use.

The evidence in third -party representations is compelling.

The local community plainly do not perceive two more years as having a predominant workspace function.

Its importance and draw are much more due to it being a multi -purpose cultural venue.

The GLA agree. They talk about it as quote a combined workspace and cultural venue,

providing artist studios, co -working, cafe bar space and music and events programming. This continues a continuous history of cultural use

dating back to 2011 when Stour Space operated from the site.

The loss would therefore remove 15 years

of sustained cultural and creative activity.

The appeal scheme re -provides class EG3

employment floor space, but that is no substitute

for the cultural hub that exists at present.

There is reference in Ms. Young's proof

to a workspace gallery unit in the proposed development

and quote ancillary cafe use,

but the proposed spaces have not been designed to accommodate a significant cultural hub as exists at Two More Years at present.

There is no reprovision of Two More Years' large event space or its cafe bar,

which is more than just an ancillary use, or its capacity and ability in terms of relationship with neighbouring uses to host large events

including into the evening and night.

The loss of two more years leads to direct conflict with London Plan Policy HC5 Part

A1 which provides that development proposals should protect existing cultural venues, facilities

and uses where appropriate. And Policy HC6 Part B6 which provides that planning decisions

should protect and support evening and night time cultural venues.

There is also conflict with Policy HC5 Part A3, quote, identify, protect and enhance strategic

clusters of cultural attractions, given that the evening and nighttime economy, SPD, identifies

Hackney Wick and Fish Island as an internationally renowned cultural nighttime and economy destination,

truly defining what nighttime economy means, and states that currently there is a unique

cluster of cultural venues, including theatres and community projects, nightclubs and music

venues, late night bars, art galleries and affordable workspaces.

There is also conflict with MPPF policy HC6. This policy represents a strengthening of

protection for cultural and community venues as compared to the previous MPPF,

C -para 98 of the 2024 MPPF. Mr Cheema said that it provided quote more explicit policy protection,

but the change is substantive not just one of emphasis. There is now an express direction that

development proposals, quote, should not result

in the loss of key community facilities.

It is agreed that two more years is a key

community facilities for the purposes of HC6.

The HC6 requirement to avoid loss is subject

to three carefully drawn exceptions.

The appellant accepted that neither of the first two apply.

In cross -examination, despite not having raised it

in evidence in chief, Mr. Cheemer suggested

that consideration should be given to whether

the third exception in paragraph C applied.

He did not appear to go so far as to say that it did apply,

but in any event, there is no proper basis

to conclude that paragraph C applies.

Paragraph C requires the decision maker to be satisfied,

quote, that there is sufficient alternative provision

of the type of use concerned in the local area,

such that the facility's loss will not diminish access

to key community facilities.

That policy requires a proper assessment of alternative provision. There is none before this inquiry.

Mr Cheema pointed to the levels unit at Carpenters Wharf, but there is no evidence that this unit functions as a cultural hub, like Two More Years.

Mr Cheema then pointed to Ms Pack's proof, Para 513, which refers to a number of other Hackney Wick venues.

When questioned, however, Mr. Cheamer was unable

to provide any detail on those venues

and appeared unaware that they are located

in Hackney Wick, not Fish Island.

They're separated from the site

by the Hartford Union Canal.

If a case was to be made that the loss of two more years

was justified by reference to MPPF HC6 Paris C,

then that is a matter that would obviously have needed

to be put to the council's cultural and planning witnesses,

Ms Pak and Mr Weir in order for those witnesses to be able to fairly comment on that unfounded

suggestion. It was not, despite Mr Weir in chief expressly relying on MPPF HC6.

Given the strong level of protection provided by MPPF HC6, conflict with HC6 is in principle

capable of resulting in the tilted balance in S4 coming down in favour of refusal because

of the benefits being substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. On the facts, the

council will say when coming to the planning balance that this is the outcome in the present

case. There's also conflict with local plan policies

CI1, which requires existing community facilities to be protected, subject to similar exceptions

to HC6, which do not apply in the present case.

CI1 says existing community facilities are quote generally within use class D1 and indeed

the planning permission for two more years included a D1 use.

That two more years includes uses which extend beyond D1 does not make it any less of a community

facility.

Mr Cheema suggested that if two more years got policy protection under development plan

and national policy on protection of cultural facilities, then it could not get protection

and under policies protecting employment floor space,

IAB .1 of the local plan.

That is wrong.

The local plan does not say that the employment use

needs to be the sole use to get policy protection.

In the present case, the workspace and cultural uses

coexist at two more years, so both should get protection.

As Mr. Weir explained, the cultural use

often has more of an evening and weekend focus,

with the workspace use being concentrated in office hours.

and the temporal extent of that use needs to be recognised.

But even to the extent that the uses do overlap,

for example, with weekday, daytime cultural events

and community activities,

that reflects the multi -purpose nature of the space.

It would drive a coach and horses through policy protection

for both employment uses and cultural uses

if spaces lost the benefit of one or the other

of the protections simply because there was dual use.

This accords with the recognition in the LLDC's

evening and nighttime economy SPD,

that cultural uses may exist in the same space

alongside other uses.

The SPD expressly recognises the cultural

and creative contribution made by the former Stour Space.

As to Mr. Cheema's argument that the loss

of the cultural use is outweighed by reprovision

of that floor space as employment floor space,

It needs to be recognised how threadbare the appellant's case is on this point.

Mr Cheema asserts that the loss of two more years is justified in just one sentence.

He undertakes no assessment whatsoever of the cultural and community contribution of two more years in his proof or rebuttal.

No conclusion can be reached on whether the loss is outweighed without a full and proper assessment.

It's in stark contrast to other areas of Mr. Cheema's evidence.

Compare, for instance, his lengthy survey of evidence regarding housing need in his

evidence in chief, which informs his weighting of that as a benefit.

His failure to conduct any parallel assessment for the loss of two more years makes his evidence,

with respect, completely unbalanced.

In reexamination, it was suggested that Mr. Cheema could avoid undertaking this exercise,

as Mr. Weir had already done it

and Mr. Chima was not disagreeing.

But Mr. Weir's assessment would need to be incorporated

into Mr. Chima's evidence if that was the approach

to be taken, which Mr. Chima did not do.

Imagine a heritage witness purporting to conduct

a heritage balance without providing an assessment

of the value of the existing heritage assets

that were to be lost.

That is the appellant's approach in respect

of the proposed loss of this cultural and community asset. When that assessment is properly

conducted, the council says that it's obvious that the loss of two more years is a fundamental

flaw at the heart of the appeal scheme, which, when we get to the planning balance, should

lead to refusal.

Vittoria Wharf Studio. Vittoria Wharf Studio is a multi -purpose cultural event space. At

153 square metres, it is physically smaller

than two more years, and it is not such

a significant iconic venue as two more years.

It is, however, a well -used and valuable facility.

153 square metres is by no means

a negligible amount of space.

Mr. Weir explained that its capacity was up to 200 people,

which Mr. Chemer did not disagree with,

which is plainly big enough for it to be,

for it to serve a beneficial community

and cultural function.

It hosts events on a daily basis and sometimes more than one per day, which

the council says is a significant level of usage and contribution. The range of

events is wide and inclusive. Its loss leads to conflict with London Plan

Policies Hc5 and Hc6 as Mr Cheema conceded. Mr Cheema also agreed that it

engages MPPF Hc6 because it meets the definition of key community facility.

There is conflict with MPPF HC6 given that none of the exceptions apply. As with two more years,

there is no proper basis to conclude that the MPPF HC6 Paris C exception applies.

The appellant has observed that loss of Vittorio Wolf Studio did not feature in the officer report

or reasons for refusal. That is because the appellant had inexplicably failed to recognise

is that Vittorio Wolf Studio existed.

It was Mr. Weir who had to bring it

to the appellant's attention,

despite the fact that an applicant

should properly describe their site

as part of any planning application

and have proper regard to existing uses

when considering what is appropriate

in terms of redevelopment.

More generally, the appellant's apparent insinuation

during this inquiry that issues or policy conflicts

raised in the council's statement of case,

but which did not form part of the reasons for refusal

should somehow get less weight is plainly wrong.

Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning and Development

Management Procedure Order makes provision as to what should be

in a decision notice.

It does not make any provision about what can or should be

raised on any subsequent appeal in an LPA Statement of Case.

It is entirely proper and usual for an LPA to review matters on

receipt of an appeal and to raise any planning matters which

they consider sufficiently important and relevant.

The council does not say that loss of Vittoria Wharf Studio taken on its own would lead to the planning balance coming down against the scheme.

But it is a valuable facility and its loss contributes materially to the harm and weighs further in favour of refusal.

The loss of two more years must attract substantial adverse weight in the planning balance and the loss of Vittoria Wharf Studio further exacerbates the harm and materially contributes to the substantial adverse weight.

That waiting is accentuated by the fact that this loss

would be taking place in a creative enterprise zone,

which is a location where there is a particular emphasis

on supporting creative and cultural uses.

I then turn to employment floor space, paragraph 30.

The loss of employment floor space has various aspects.

It is important to identify them individually

and to understand the full extent and nature

of the loss and resulting harm.

They are loss of employment floor space

in terms of quantum,

loss of employment floor space,

which is affordable and which is creative

and cultural workspace,

loss of the live -work typology

and the inferior and inadequate functionality

of the replacement floor space.

But before a conclusion can be reached on the weight

to be accorded to the loss,

the nature of the loss needs to be established

in terms of the quantum lost and its lawful use.

So what is being lost, quantum and its lawful use.

The way that the appellant's case has emerged

from employment floor space has been unsatisfactory.

So your determination must of course be based

on the evidence as it stands at the end of the inquiry,

which includes the evidence which has emerged

relatedly immediately prior to and during the inquiry.

But late evidence affects the extent to which

evidence can properly be scrutinised or relied upon. In making the application and appeal,

the appellant does not appear to have properly grappled with the importance of identifying the

existing land use on site and whether it's lawful. That is an obvious prerequisite for anyone

promoting a scheme which would result in the loss of existing and or lawful use. It is notwithstanding

that LRDC handover note records that there may have been some live on the site but this was never

lawful. The applicant has stalled on this but I understand they are gathering

evidence to demonstrate the lawful use. The issue was also squarely raised in

the council's delegated report in December 2025. On chasing by the council

the appellant did finally undertake a survey the results of which were provided

to the council on 2nd of July 26 and then significantly amended on the 21st

of July, by that time only one week before proofs of evidence were due. The detailed

reasoning in support of the appellant's claimed position on lawfulness by 10 years'

use only emerged in the second Adendman's statement of common ground dated 2nd September

in the middle of the inquiry. In chief, Mr Cheema was still supplementing that by seeking

to correlate photos of his proof of appendix 2 with contemporaneous documents. The process

even continued in re -examination, with further additional photos being referred to for the

first time. Turning to what the facts show us, the extent of the existing floor area

is agreed. The council has also shown and the appellant has not disputed that the mezzanines

are lawful. The appellant contends that they would not need planning permission to remove,

but policy, e .g. B1 of the local plan, does not say that they should be excluded on that

basis and there is no reason why they should, given that mezzanines provide floor space

and policy seeks to protect floor space.

Footnote nine, I just observed that even if the mezzanines

were found not to be lawful and discounted,

there would still be net loss in floor space

on the council's case.

Paragraph 36, the existing and lawful use of two more years

has been dealt with above.

The council says that the lawful use of the Hackney Cut,

Victoria Wharf and Gate House buildings is a mixed use

of uses which would fall within use classes B2, B8 and EG.

That appears to be the historical use of these buildings and clear evidence that this mixed use comprises the lawful existing use is found in the documents referred to in the second demonstration of common ground power 8.

A mixed use comprising B2, B8 and EG is a typical use mix of such buildings as Mr Weir explained,

in answer to your question, sir, and is referred to as, quote, hybrid industrial space and flexible B1C, B2, B8 hybrid space in the London plan,

power 626 and policy E4, part A8, respectively.

There remain units in standalone employment use in

Vittoria Wharf before U1, U2 and U3. There is also the unit in cultural events

use in Vittoria Wharf. The council does not accept that in respect of the other

areas in Hackney Cut, Vittoria Wharf and the Gate House, the evidence shows on the

balance of probability that there is a lawful existing live -work use. For Hackney

cut there is a single statutory declaration from a single occupier for

the whole of the building circa 565 square metres or 6 ,000 square feet. The

statutory declaration is very brief does not present any details of how different

spaces with an acne cut were occupied, how many residents there may have been

or how the usage may have changed over time. There is no plan attached

to the statutory declaration. The author states I occupied the property for my

work and for residential purposes, end quote.

Mr. Weir accepted in cross -examination that he could not

dispute the factual accuracy of that brief

and unparticularized statement, but that is a long way

from adequate evidence of continuous occupation

of the entire large premises for that dual purpose

for the necessary 10 -year period.

Further, there is a planning commission from 2012

for temporary change of use from B1, B2 to A3.

That is clear contemporaneous evidence

of the existing and proposed use of the Hackney Cup building

being at least in part for a different

non -live work purpose in and around 2012.

That is after the 2009 date that the author states

he started occupying from.

For Vittoria Wharf, there is another short

statutory declaration from a single person

for what is referred to as Unit 1A, with no plan provided.

The points above about lack of particularization

apply here as well.

Further, it is not possible to be sufficiently sure

about the error in question.

Mr. Cheema identifies it as B4D4,

but that is an irregular shaped unit,

with the first floor element appearing in some respects

to have a more extensive footprint

than the ground floor element.

Part of the difficulty is due to the way

in which the appellant has presented its case,

with a brief statement in the Second Amendment

statement of common ground,

asserting that unit 1A is B4D4,

supplemented by some references to photos in all evidence.

It has not been set out clearly in written form,

which can be properly understood and tested.

As to the rest of the Vittoria War from the Gatehouse,

there are no statutory declarations.

Certain images and descriptions

from the creative factories report are relied on, but to the extent that they show or describe

spaces in live -work use, that is only evidence at 2013, not for any subsequent part of any 10 -year

period. And the difficulties of identifying the boundaries of the space similarly apply.

There are also significant un -surveyed areas to which access could not be obtained,

and in respect of which the appellant particularly relies on second -hand evidence from speaking to

site manager which was first referred to only in Mr Chima's oral evidence. Again the probative value

of such evidence is limited at best. There are some building regulations records from 2010 which

state that units may be live work but also record the council taking steps to ensure that no

residential usage happened again. If you so do conclude contrary to the council's case that it

has been shown that the live -work use is lawful,

then an issue arises about how much work use is being lost

with the appeal scheme.

In that scenario, the LPA considers that 206 square metres

of space attributed by the appellant as live space

in Hackney Cut is actually flexible workspace,

and 282 .5 square metres of space attributed by the appellant

as live space in Vittoria Wharf Studios,

Block 4 is also flexible workspace. In total this 488 .5 square metres workspace

in addition to the 1475 .8 square metres already attributed by the

appellant as workspace would equate to 1964 .3 square metres existing employment

floor space, i .e. significantly more than the 1530 square metres being replaced.

being re -provided, that should read this way.

The disputed spaces are particularised

in Appendix 1 of the Addendum Statement on the ground.

We invite you, sir, to prefer Mr. Weir's view

on the characterization of these,

based on the photo shown in Mr. Cheamer's proof,

Appendix 2, and your site visit.

As a general remark to all these spaces,

the nature of the live -work typology

needs to be kept in mind when considering whether they are live or

work spaces or a mix of the two. Live work is a typology where there is often

no hard boundary between areas used for living and areas used for working. Spaces,

both communal areas and bedrooms can be multifunctional. The fact that no

work activity is taking place when the photo was taken should not of

itself lead to the area being characterised as a live area which

appeared, for example, to be Mr. Cheemer's approach to the long galleried area identified

as B4D2F001 on page 244 from his oral evidence. Next subject then, loss of employment floor

space in terms of quantum. The LPA's primary position is that the appeal scheme will give

rise to a loss of 1786 square metres of employment floor space. This is based on the LPA's view

of the lawful use set out above.

Given that there is 3322 square metres

of lawful employment floor space currently,

and 1536 square metres being re -provided,

there is 1786 square metres loss.

And end of statement on the ground, page 20.

This loss is contrary to policy B .1 of the local plan.

As a non -designated industrial site,

B .1 requires that the appeal scheme should maintain

or re -provide existing employment capacity.

That's the headline requirement of B .1 power five.

Sub -paras A and B of power five

explain how that is to be done,

which depends on whether the change is from B2, B8,

or from B1, now EG.

The scheme does not satisfy either sub -paragraph A or B.

There is significant net loss of floor space

and a reduction in job density.

See Scenario One in Mr. Weir's updated density table

in the second attendance date for common ground.

The appellant has queried some of the density assumptions

in that table for the two more years co -working space,

but no rival density analysis has been presented,

nor has it been shown that those queries

would make a significant difference to the overall position.

In footnote 10, I say Mr. Weir's density table

also makes clear that even on the appellant's case,

the overall result would be a reduction in job density,

especially taking into account the event space.

Mr. Chemer has also queried whether policy B .1 should protect employment land which comprises

a component part of a mixed or sui generous use, although he has gone on to apply B .1

in any event. The LPA's position is that B .1 clearly should be read to protect land

in B, use classes, and now EG, even in this scenario

of a mixed or sui generis use.

A mixed use technically does not fall within any use class.

It cannot be a sensible reading of the policy

for this to mean that policy protection does not apply.

That could lead to significant quantities of employment land

not being subject to any protection,

simply on the basis that there was an additional

primary use happening within the same planning unit,

or within the case of a sui generis use like live work,

the employment use was closely bound up

with residential use.

It would defeat the expressly stated policy objective

of maintaining or re -providing employment capacity,

given that a mixed or sui generis use of this sort

would contribute to employment capacity.

Clear indication in policy would be needed

to construe it as excluding protection for employment uses

which are part of a mixed or sui generis use.

There is none.

Some questions were put to Mr. Wearing

cross examination to the effect that because B .1 .5b

is only engaged by proposals involving a change

from B .1 use and the scheme re -provides

rather than changing from B .1 use,

that B .1 .5b is not engaged.

That is incorrect. There is a change from B1 use because whether using the LPA's figure of 3322

square metres, that's their primary case, or 1964 .3 square metres with lawful live -work,

the LPA secondary case, there is loss of employment land and so a change of use.

In any event, Mr. Cheamer in cross -examination confirmed that he was not pursuing this argument.

The inspector, Sejusa, asked about whether and if so how the weight to the loss of B2B8EG

usage should be affected by the fact that no B2B8 use is currently taking place.

The council says that does not significantly reduce the adverse weight to the loss.

Local plan supporting text para 4 .16 provides that even B2 workshops can be compatible with

mixed use development.

Further, even if B2B8 was challenging,

or there was limited demand for it in Hackney Wick,

then the employment land could be used for EG uses,

either as part of the current mixed use

or by a change of use application if required.

Either way, the employment function of the land

would be protected in accordance with the policy aim.

Then turn to loss of employment floor space,

which is affordable or low cost,

and which is creative and cultural workspace.

Para 52, the fact that the floor space being lost

is affordable, low cost, and is creative

and cultural workspace is a further basis of objection.

The employment floor space on site at present

does not appear to fall within the definition

of affordable workspace in the London Plan

glossary definition, given that there is no clear evidence

that it is provided at rents below the market rent.

Mr. Weir mentioned two more years as a possible exception,

given the approach to letting space apparently taken

by the two more years operators,

but that would not extend to the rest of the site.

However, the space certainly is low cost.

It is affordable in the more general, non -technical sense,

in the creative and cultural occupiers

can currently afford it.

Provisions have now been agreed in the Section 106 agreement as between the LPA and the appellant

as to how 1 ,500 square metres of employment floor space in the proposed scheme will be

affordable workspace and will also be secured for creative and cultural occupiers. That

only applies to the re -provided space. It does not get round the significant net loss

of low -cost creative and cultural workspace. The fact that the floor space being lost is

low cost and has creative cultural occupies in it

leads to additional policy conflict beyond the conflict

with B .1 in the local plan.

Policy B .4 provides that existing low cost business space

shall be retained or re -provided.

In respect to the existing floor space beyond the 1500

square metres being re -provided, that is not happening.

Policy 1 .1 provides that the overall amount

of existing floor space, including that used

by creative and cultural industries and operating

as low -cost workspace, shall be maintained.

The policy refers back to B .1 and B .4,

but it's a specific policy about Hackney, Wick,

and Fish Island, and it is emphasising

the particular importance of maintaining low -cost workspace

for creative and cultural industries in this area.

So I just pause there to diverge from the written text and can I add this?

I have two points to pick up from the section 106 session this morning.

Firstly, the appellant said that there is no policy obligation to provide affordable

workspace because there is none at the moment.

Council say there is a relevant policy obligation.

that contained in policy B .4 and policy 1 .1. It is an express obligation to maintain, not

lose, low cost space. You only address that policy obligation by re -providing affordable

space and I refer to Mr. Weir's proof 8 .66 to 8 .69 and 8 .102 to 8 .109.

Second point is that the agreed relocation strategy as discussed in the 106 session only

re -provides and can only re -provide 1500 square metres. So the rest of the low -cost

workspace in creative and cultural use is lost. And the council say it is a significant

amount on any view.

I then return to the written text at paragraph 56.

London Plan Policy HD5 is concerned with supporting London's culture and creative industries in

its heading and seeks to protect existing cultural venues, facilities and uses where

appropriate, which the loss of low -cost creative and cultural workspace runs contrary to.

The London Plan provides that cultural venues

and facilities include, inter alia,

creative industries workspace, it's power 752.

The fact that the appeal site lies within

and is important to the Hackney Wick

and Lower Lee Valley Creative Enterprise Zone

adds a further layer of objection

to the loss of low cost creative and cultural workspace.

Ms. Pack's evidence explains how the appeal site

is one of the key remaining sites

of grassroot creative production and consumption that brings together the local community in

the area, how the loss of low -cost employment space is harmful for local creative economy

because many creative businesses depend on affordable, flexible and adaptable workspace,

and how the appeal scheme would cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem of cultural facilities

and creative businesses and talent in the Hackney -Wickinfish Island area.

CEZs exist to establish clusters of creative production

which provide affordable premises

and enterprise related incentives

for artists and creative businesses.

Pro -culture planning and housing policies

and offer career pathways and creative jobs

for local communities and young people.

It's in the London Plan Glossary.

London Plan Policy HC5 Part C,

although a plan making policy,

which does not provide development management tests

for whether development is acceptable,

does identify policy objectives for development within CEZs,

which are relevant in a decision -making context,

including to develop, enhance, protect,

and manage new and existing creative workspace,

help deliver spaces that are suitable,

attractive, and affordable for the creative industries.

The CEZ provides Hackney Wickenfish Island

with an overarching economic strategy,

as explained in the local plan case study one.

The CEZ designation does not itself impose express development management tests.

That comes through into the LDC local plan and evening and nighttime economy SPD.

But it means that the loss of low -cost creative and cultural workspace caused by the appeal

scheme attracts even greater weight.

The failure of the appellant's case and evidence to engage with the CEZ designation is a further

floor. There was only one passing reference to the CEZ in the entirety of Mr. Cheema's

proof and rebuttal, and Mr. Cheema accepted in cross -examination that it would have benefited

from fuller consideration. Then turn to loss of live -work as a valuable

typology. If you, sir, consider that the live -work on the Peel site is lawful, then there is

net loss of employment floor space when counting the work element of that floor space, as I've

set out above. In this scenario, there is additional planning harm by the loss of the

live -work typology itself. The live -work typology is important and valuable in how it facilitates

creative and cultural industries. I refer to the explanations in the LRDC live -work

of Live study, the Made in Hackney Wick Fish Island report,

and the GLA's letter the 22nd of May, 2026.

In light of that evidence, loss of live work is contrary

to the requirement in London Plan HC5 Part 1

to protect existing cultural uses where appropriate.

And the policy objective of HC5

that the continued growth and evolution

of London's diverse cultural facilities

and creative industries is supported.

Further, although existing Development Plan policy does not contain an express specific

protection for the live -work typology, policy in the Council's emerging Development Plan

does.

See the draught submission local plan in policies EG1 and EG4, the latter stating expressly

that development proposals resulting in a net loss of warehouse living, sui generis,

floor space within the CEZ will not be supported

and supporting text at 515 .64.

The council say that EG1 and EG4 of the emerging plan

should get moderate weight in accordance with policy

on giving weight to emerging policy in MPPF -D and 4.

The emerging plan is at a relatively advanced stage

having passed the Reg 18 and Reg 19 stages

and having been submitted for examination.

There are no unresolved objections to EG1 and EG4 insofar as concerns protection of live work.

See the evidence in Mr Weir's proof appendix 20, in particular the emails from Tin Fern, principal planmaking officer at the council dated 8th and 21st of April.

There is no suggestion that EG1 and EG4 are not compliant with the new, or not consistent with the new MPPF.

Given that the emerging plan identifies warehouse living as making a valuable economic contribution

and the MPPS focus on supporting economic growth, there is no inconsistency.

Mr Cheema has identified instances in which the council has given the emerging local plan

limited weight, but those references are all generalised, referring to the plan as a whole.

Employment policies may have been engaged in the applications referred to,

but when referring to the plan as a whole in this way, it's understandable

that the overall judgement is limited weight. Mr Weir's Appendix 20 evidence

clearly shows that policy officers at the council consider that EG1 and EG4, in

the context of a warehouse living proposal, should attract moderate weight.

That specific and reasoned evidence is plainly more useful in the present case.

Mr. Cheema made the further suggestion

that the red, amber, green weighting

referred to in Appendix 20, including medium and highest,

were gradations of limited weight.

That obviously is not what the emails are saying.

It would be a futile exercise

to start creating gradations of limited weight.

Mr. Cheema queried how an emerging policy

could have highest weight,

but that clearly means highest for an emerging policy,

which will not be the weight of an adopted policy.

I then turn to the inferior and inadequate functionality

of the replacement floor space.

Finally, there is harm in the fact

that the proposed replacement employment floor space

is inadequate in terms of its functionality

and inferior as compared to the existing floor space.

In terms of ceiling heights,

the LLDC employment space study

advises a 2 .9 to 4 .4 metre range for ceiling heights

with preferred minimum ceiling height of 3 .5 metres for studio type space.

The proposed scheme has a 3 .4 metre ground floor ceiling height

and 2 .8 metre first floor ceiling height,

such that all the proposed employment floor space falls below the preferred minimum

and the first floor ceiling height even falls outside the recommended range entirely.

For small industrial warehouse type space, which includes makerspace,

the minimum ceiling height is 4m, which again is not achieved anywhere in the proposed scheme.

Mr. Achema observed that this LRD study identifies this category of use, that small industrial warehouse type space,

as typically being within B2 or B8,

and he noted that there is no active B2 or B8 uses

on the site at present.

But that ignores the lawful use on the council's case

of a mixed B2, B8, EG use,

and the fact that the local plan recognises

that some workshops in B2 uses can be compatible

with mixed use redevelopment, Para 416,

a point made also by Mr. Weir in oral evidence.

The LRDC's pre -application advice was that this type of small industrial space was appropriate

and they referred to relevant parts of the employment space study accordingly.

In terms of servicing, the employment space study advises for studio -type space that dedicated loading access to the building and operational parking is required.

and for small industrial warehouse type space,

some large entry access points are required

with minimum openings of 3 .7 metre height.

The access and servicing requirements for the proposed scheme

does not comply with this advice,

given the absence of direct loading access

and the reliance on the loading bay on the side of Beachy,

on the other side of Beachy Road.

The Appellant's workspace strategy

envisages a variety of creative businesses using the workspace including metal and woodworkers,

but Ms Pack explained that those types of uses may well want to spill out into the yard,

which is unlikely to be compatible with proposed use of the yard.

This is in contrast to the current specifications and setup whereby a number of the parts of the

buildings have high ceilings and the yard servicing and access are more compliant with

what the employment space study envisages.

Overall, for the reasons explained by more detail

by Mr. Weir, the specification of the employment space

will mean that it more resembles flexible office

or retail space than creative studios or maker space.

I then turn to Townscape and Heritage

and start with height, scale, bulk and massing.

Power of 72.

Townscape and Heritage impacts are closely connected

in the present case, such that these closing submissions will initially deal with them

together, although the legal and policy framework is different and needs to be applied separately.

The existing position on site is important because judging whether the proposed scheme

is acceptable involves understanding whether the loss of the current contribution the site

makes is outweighed by what is proposed.

As to the Fish Island White Post Lane Conservation Area Appraisal, Dr Meaney explained in chief

that all parties agree that it's up to date and provides an accurate summary of the area's

special interest. As you saw observed during the inquiry, the CAA is also an assessment

of Townscape given the close relationship of Heritage and Townscape in this area. The

appraisal is clear that the appeals site contributes positively in both Townscape and Heritage

terms. The appeals site forms the central part of the Stour Road cluster, one of three

clusters identified in the appraisal under the heading of individual heritage

assets and their significance. The appeal site buildings are not architecturally

distinguished but together and taking into account creative uses are of

interest and in their form of materials and uses contribute positively to the

townscape of this part of the conservation area. Stour space and the

building to the south beyond a recent metal clad block relate well to the

As those quotations make clear, it is not just physical buildings which contribute positively to the character of the conservation area and its setting, but also the use.

Quote, the cafes and mixed use venues such as Stour Space, Cafe, Gallery and Artist Studios form part of this character.

The appeal site, with the exception of the pontoons, is outside the conservation area, but has a very close relationship to it.

It adjoins the conservation area on two sides, all of the canal frontage and in the south -west corner.

The close relationship is illustrated by the fact that the appeals site was included in the draught proposed extension to the conservation area in 2013 -2014.

The appeals site was not included in the final adopted extension to the area, as explained in the LLDC Board Report, dated 30th April 2014.

The reasons are explained in the board report, including that the appeal site buildings,

quote, are not identified as buildings that fundamentally contribute to the character

and appearance of the conservation area, but acknowledging that the updated conservation

area appraisal identifies them as adopting a form of materials that contribute positively

to the townscape and that the contribution of the site to the setting of the conservation

area would remain relevant.

Dr. Mealy expressed confusion as to the appraisals treatment

of the appeal site in relation to the conservation area

itself as opposed to its setting.

In truth, there is no confusion.

The Stour Road cluster straddles the conservation area

boundary as the cluster also includes the former

Broadwood Piano Factory, which explains why the appraisal

discusses the cluster as both part of the conservation area

and part of its setting.

More generally, the very close relationship

between the appeal site and the conservation area

sitting in the immediate setting of the conservation area

explains why the appraisal gives such prominence

to the appeal site when discussing the conservation area

and its setting.

Indeed, it was concerning that Dr. Mealy

in his written evidence referred to only two clusters

and suggested that the appeal site is proximate to one,

the Stour Road cluster.

The appeal site is not proximate to the Stour Road cluster.

It is within and comprises most of the Stour Road cluster,

something which Dr. Mealy did not appear to have appreciated.

It is important to recognise how policy approaches

development within the setting of a conservation area.

MPPF policy HE9 expressly recognises

how development outside, but within the setting

of a conservation area, can affect the significance

of a conservation area.

Development proposals within or affecting the significance

of a conservation area should,

which is where that policy makes clear

the setting is relevant.

Policy HE4 -2 similarly explains that harm

to a designated heritage asset,

including from development within its setting,

should have a clear and convincing justification.

It is correct, as Dr. Meaney pointed out,

that in the present case section 72 of the Planning -Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Act 1990

is not engaged by the appeal scheme because the appeal scheme is outside the conservation area.

This is with the exception of the pontoons which are in the conservation area.

But the conservation area is still of significant importance in the present case

because the appeal scheme located in the conservation area setting

harms the significance of the conservation area and policy provides protection.

As explained by Mr. Justice Easley

in the safe Rottingdean case, I quote,

this is the case I've handed up, sir,

but I've extracted the relevant paragraph

for my purposes here.

Paragraph 88, as I've set out,

states development outside a conservation area,

but affecting its setting is not covered by Section 72,

although the harm to the setting of the conservation area

would nonetheless be a material consideration.

This is because Section 72 applies

with respect to any buildings or other land

in a conservation area.

This, however, is one aspect where the framework

goes further than the legislation.

It makes the setting of a conservation area

part of what makes it significant.

This makes it significant to planning decisions.

It appears to make harm to the setting

of a conservation area of equivalent importance

in terms of the justification required

to the setting of a listed building.

C, Paris 194 and 195, that's one of the previous versions

of the MPPF, but it does so as a matter of policy

rather than a statutory duty,

which does have different legal consequences.

Those comments were made in respect of an earlier iteration

of the MPPF, but apply with equal force

to the current MPPF.

In the Fish Island and White Post Lane

final management guidelines, as in the appraisal,

it is also notable how prominently the appeal site features.

The council says that the appeal scheme

causes significant harm in townscape terms.

As Ms. Chung explained, blocks one and three

adopt broadly consistent height and gable massing,

closely reflecting the scale and form

of Carpenter's Wharf to the north.

Along the canal frontage, block one's continuous

gabled roofline produces a uniform rhythm.

The limited variation in height and relief

across the composition results in a relatively flat and repetitive arrangement with insufficient

stepping between bays. Whilst block two introduces a taller element, the overall composition does not

establish a strong distinction between individual blocks, resulting in a relatively consistent built

form across the canal edge. Further reinforcing this lack of differentiation is the colonnade

across both blocks one and two which pushes the building directly to the water's edge

and creates a continuous and visually dominant base to the proposals.

This reinforces the perception of a wall of development along the canal frontage.

View 1 from the HTVA illustrates this clearly.

The canal elevation reads as a long and uninterrupted built edge,

with the distinction between individual blocks perceived primarily through changes in brick colour,

rather than through meaningful variation in height, massing or architectural expression.

A similar issue is evident in view four, where the limited height change between blocks one

and two results in an unconvincing transition.

Block two steps down directly onto the monotonous elevation of block one, then onto Carpenters

Wharf, offering little opportunity for a series of graduated changes that could introduce

greater animation and interest to the roofscape.

The removal of the link building as part of the appeal amendments introduces a gap between

the two blocks, but this reads as an empty and unresolved space rather than contributing

to any meaningful modulation.

In new view 11b, the lack in variation is particularly striking.

Blocks 2 and 3 appear essentially as a tall group of similar height, rather than block

2 performing its intended standout landmark function.

Policy in BN5 imposes a 20 metre height restriction. All three new blocks proposed materially exceed

that restriction at 22 .7, 28 .6 and 23 .2 metres. The wayfinding justification for the extra height

only applies to block two and in design terms blocks one and three do not need to be above

20 metres. Indeed, their height works against the proposed wayfinding function of Block 2,

meaning that it does not stand out as a marker building as it should.

Ms. Young said a two -storey height variance provides a smooth transition, but applying

the appellant's own wayfinding rationale, a smooth transition to eight storeys is not what is required

here. The Block 1 and 3 heights cannot fairly be described as a minor exceedance within the

of policy BN5. Both are over 13 % taller than threshold. Of course the impact on the ground

needs to be taken into account rather than just a numerical approach. But looking at

these 1, 4 and 11B, the lack of height contrast between blocks 3 on the one hand and block

2 on the other also weighs against the idea that this is just a minor exceedance.

Dr Mealy emphasises that the exceedance comprises a gable, not a full -width storey, but the solid

facade of the gable is clearly perceived as adding height, adding to the height

materially. The appellant's reliance on heights in the locale is misplaced. The

starting point is the development plan, not what may or may not have been

consented locally. Certain buildings above 20 metres have been consented but

as Miss Chung's survey of consented schemes locally shows, many predate the

introduction of the 20 metre height limitation. In the 2015 version of the

local plan, to the extent that some schemes post -date the 2015 local plan, the 20 -metre

height restriction was re -imposed in the 2020 version of the local plan. Local exceedance

cannot therefore be a justification for going above 20 metres when the development plan

considered appropriate to re -impose the 20 -metre threshold, notwithstanding those exceedances.

Secondly, to the extent that the recently consented schemes exceed 20 metres, they generally

do not do so across whole sites. Taking two of the schemes closest to the appeal site,

the 90 Monier Road scheme directly to the west of the appeal site ranges from one to

seven storeys, providing significant variation in height. The Piano Factory scheme was inaccurately

described by Dr. Mealy as comprising a building of more or less uniform height and scale at 20

metres plus in places. In fact, the blocks of that scheme were separated by significant

one -storey elements and it was only one set back storey on one block that breached the 20 metre

threshold. As to the adverse impact on the conservation area by development in its setting,

which harms the significance of the conservation area, there are three particular areas of focus.

First, there is the effect of the appeal scheme on the canal side setting of the conservation area.

Views 1, 4 and 8 demonstrate that the appeal scheme would substantially alter the current

experience of this setting. As outlined above, the limited variation in height, together with

the continuous building frontage, would create a dominant and uninterrupted wall of development

along the canal edge, which would fail to preserve

or enhance the setting of the conservation area.

Rather than responding with a more considered composition

and clearer transition in scale,

the proposal would introduce a heavier

and more imposing built form

that diminishes the modest proportions

and human scaled rhythm currently experienced

along this part of the Lee Navigation.

Secondly, the chimney of the pioneer factory

currently performs an important townscape

and wayfinding role and as an important marker on the approach towards Fish Island and the

conservation area, helping to signal and orientate the experience of entering and moving through

this part of the historic environment. The proposed piano factory redevelopment carefully

pulls back the new buildings to frame the chimney and sit below it, reinforcing its

prominence as the principal projecting element within the composition, with the new development

as subservient.

The introduction of block two within this composition

would alter this established hierarchy.

Rather than allowing the chimney to remain

the principal element, drawing attention towards

and signalling the conservation area,

the more dominant massing of block two would compete

for visual attention and diminish the chimney's prominence

as a landmark.

Whilst the effect would not be as pronounced

as the single block building considered in the H. Forman and Son scheme, which was recommended

for refusal, the principle is similar. The introduction of competing massing would diminish

the prominence of the chimney and consequently its contribution to the legibility and appreciation

of the conservation area on approach. It would diminish the contribution that the chimney

presently makes to understanding and appreciating its setting. The appeal scheme would not therefore

or preserve or enhance this aspect

of the conservation area setting.

The observations of historic England on the H Foreman scheme

support the council's position in the present case.

The assistant inspector explained how the H Foreman scheme

being directly bounded on the east and west

by the conservation area,

made it a highly sensitive location.

That applies to the present site also,

which is also bounded on two sides by the conservation area

and sits just a few metres away

on the other side of the bridge. The assistant inspector noted how the

Vittoria Wharf building, albeit then in its untrunkated form,

maintains the character of the area. The eight -storey building proposed on the

H Forman site would compete with the Piano Factory

Chimney, diminishing its prominent landmark role

and lessening its importance as an important historical feature.

The H Forman building obviously was of a different design,

but in its eight storeys and location close to block two,

there are obvious parallels.

Thirdly, there is the impact of the appeal scheme

on the established mix of cultural, creative,

and employment uses, which contribute to the character

and identity of the conservation area,

particularly within the Starrow Road cluster,

where the appraisal and guidelines recognise creative uses

contribute positively to its interest.

Their loss would result, would contribute to eroding the established relationship between the areas surviving industrial buildings and the creative and cultural activities that have adapted and sustained them.

For the reasons set out in Mr. Weir's evidence, the appeal scheme would not adequately re -provide these uses.

There is breach of the Conservation Area Management guidelines, in particular by

by not respecting the role that these landmarks, such as the Piano Factory Chimney,

play in the legibility of the area and by diminishing their landmark status through

inappropriate location, bulk or form of the new development. In terms of height and scale, by not

responding positively to the characteristic height, scale and massing of heritage buildings,

and which successfully relates to the area's streets,

yards, waterways, and human scale.

By not nurturing creative industries,

by failing to recognise that uniformity in matters

such as parapet line and form is not a characteristic

of Fish Island, and by not adhering to the guidance

that changes in scale and materials should be proportionate

and sensitive as foils to heritage buildings.

There is also harm to the locally listed gatehouse, which is agreed to be a non -designated heritage asset and identified as such in the appraisal.

While there are some benefits arising from the appeal scheme in terms of the retention and refurbishment of the gatehouse,

and in respect of the pulling back of Block 3's western building line, which would allow the profile of the gatehouse to be more clearly revealed in some views,

this benefit is undermined by the scale and massing of the proposed development.

The overbearing mass of the new buildings would overwhelm and crowd the modest single -storey building,

diminishing its visual prominence and the ability to appreciate it as a surviving building of heritage significance.

The quality of the proposed courtyard would also fail to provide the high quality, immediate setting

that could have enhanced the experience and appreciation of the Gate House.

The retention and refurbishment of its historic fabric is insufficient to safeguard its significance,

where the surrounding development fails to provide the breathing space and quality of setting necessary for the building to be appreciated and understood within its wider setting.

Dr Mealy's view was that the function of the gatehouse is as a subservient structure, such that its significance would not be lost by erecting tall buildings behind it.

That is unconvincing when the scale and proximity

of what is proposed is understood.

Six and eight storeys tightly enclosing

and dominating the gatehouse,

certainly by comparison to the 2016 consented scheme.

Ms. Young explained that reducing the height

whilst maintaining the same quantum of development

would result in a lower but broader

and more cramped development.

That is approaching matters on the basis

is that there should be some fixed quantum of development.

That is not a design led approach.

Optimising the site involves considering

what quantum of development is compatible with good design.

Turn to public realm.

The proposed public realm within the appeal site scheme

has serious design shortcomings,

which are symptomatic of overdevelopment

seen in the excessive scale, bulk and mass.

First, the colonnade is an unsuccessful space.

Rather than setting the building back

to establish a generous and clearly defined waterside edge,

the proposal brings the built form directly

to the cow's edge and accommodates pedestrian movement

between the beneath the upper storeys of blocks one and two

through the introduction of the colonnade.

As a result, the public realm is experienced

as a space carved from beneath the building

rather than as a deliberate and generous element

of the waterfront environment.

Whilst the proposed fountains increase the amount

of usable space adjacent to the colonnade,

they reinforce the impression that additional public realm

is being provided to offset the constraints created

by the building form itself.

This approach fundamentally alters the existing character

of the Canal Edge.

The relationship between the existing buildings

and the waterways characterised by a relatively intimate

and human scaled environment,

whilst also maintaining a strong sense of openness

to the water. By extending the building line to the canal and introducing a tall and continuous

colonnade beneath the development, the proposal creates a more enclosed and building -dominated

edge, with a relentless repetition of heavy columns that erodes the openness and informality

of the current canal -side experience.

There is also a risk that the colonnade would be experienced primarily as an extension of

the commercial units it serves, functioning as a spill -out space associated with those

uses rather than an inclusive and welcoming

waterside environment that encourages the public

to pause, dwell, and engage with the canal,

irrespective of whether they are visiting

the commercial units.

The deep and covered nature of the colonnade

would reduce its attractiveness outside daytime periods.

The enclosed form and limited natural surveillance

afforded by the continuous overhead structure

would create a space that feels less welcoming

and less inviting during the evening and nighttime hours.

The LLDC's Creating Places That Work

for Women and Girls Handbook recognises

that the proportions of a space

and the height and transparency of boundary treatments

influence how a space is perceived and experienced.

In this case, the depth and enclosure created

by the colonnade, together with the limited transparency

along its edge, would contribute to a less welcoming

and less inviting environment outside of daytime activity.

The new access from the bridge to the Canal Edge is tucked away under the building, which compounds the problem.

The appellant has emphasised the double height form of the colonnade, but at this key location, the colonnade is only single height,

making it less open and inviting at precisely the point at which it should be more so.

The contrast with the spacious and generous colonnade at Carpenter's Wharf where the building

does not extend to the canal edge emphasises the shortcomings.

Secondly, the courtyard also falls short of high quality design. In terms of usage, the

courtyard is intended as the primary communal residential amenity space. However, the sheer

number of activities that the courtyard will be required to accommodate means that it's

to become an over -programmed space which would significantly limit the courtyard's ability

to operate as high quality communal amenity space for residents. Access to the residential units,

access and circulation to the residential and commercial units, spill out space from the

commercial units, servicing access including the bin storage, incidental doorstep play space

and amenity space. It would not be a place to rest or relax nor would it foster meaningful

social interaction as a communal residential

amenity space should.

Miss Young in oral evidence referred to a space, quote,

genuinely carved out for residents.

That plainly has not been achieved.

The physical characteristics of the space

would compound the problems.

The space is enclosed by tall and closely spaced

buildings with limited variation in height or relief.

This is reflected in the daylight and sunlight

assessment, which identifies that the courtyard would not

achieve the BRE guidance targets for Sun on the ground. Taking the ground floor

public realm as a whole including the pontoons, 40 % of the area receives two or

more two hours or more of Sun on the ground on 21st of March. That is below

the guidance of 50%. The appellant refers to the summer solstice figure on 21st of

June of 69 % but the guidance requires the equinox to be used to capture an

average position across the year.

The figure for the courtyard on its own is much worse.

0% of it receives two hours or more of sun on the ground

on 21st of March.

Designing in a failing such as this plainly falls short

of the exceptionally good design that BN .1 requires.

The appellant indicated that it did not consider

that sunlight was a significant issue in the appeal

emphasises that it did not comprise a standalone reason for refusal. That

overlooks that it has consistently and expressly been raised as a concern

contributing to the inadequacy of the public realm. I refer to the fourth

LLDC pre -application response dated 25th October 2021 and the LPA statement of

case. The combination of enclosure, overshadowing and limited sunlight is

likely to reduce the usability and attractiveness of the space, undermining

its ability to function as meaningful community immunity provision.

As a related issue, the courtyard is insufficient in scale.

Policy B .N. 4 .11 requires all mixed -use developments to incorporate sufficient, well -designed and

appropriately located communal immunity space.

London Plan Policy D .6, Part B and Table 3 .2 explain that communal outside immunity spaces

should, quote, provide sufficient space to meet the requirements of the number of residents.

The adopted development plan for the area does not specify what a sufficient quantum

will amount to, but the council considers that it's reasonable to apply the quantum

figures which are found in the council's High -Density Living SPD, the council's adopted Tower Hamlets

local plan 2031, for its area excluding the former LLDC area where the site is located.

that's policy DH3, and the council's emerging local plan policy HF9 part 6C.

The SPD only applies to developments above 30 metres but the adopted local plan

figure, it's the Tower Hamlets local plan figure, applies to all developments with

10 or more residential units without any height threshold, see policy D .H3 part 5C.

That leads to an agreed figure of 112 square metres.

The appellant claims that there is 112 square metres

which can serve as communal residential amenity space

in the courtyard.

But the council say on any sensible analysis

the figure is less.

No more than 75 square metres as shown

in Mr. Weir proof figure five, seven,

five, six and seven, sorry that should say.

Particularly given that parts of the appellants claimed 112 metres would cross circulation routes through the development and the collection point for the refuse.

All of the fifth floor terrace in this scheme is required to achieve compliance with policy requirements for play space quantum.

Indeed it actually falls short of strict compliance with the council on balance.

to consider that it is acceptable,

explaining Mr. Will's proof.

It therefore cannot be counted to remedy the shortfall

in communal residential amenity space.

Nor can the colonnade and pontoons be counted.

The colonnade is a route through the development

and the pontoons are closely related to that route

and the ground floor employment units,

such that they cannot function as meaningful

community residential amenity space.

I then comment on expert views and the design process.

Ms. Chung has significant experience in these areas

and is plainly qualified to offer an expert view on them,

and also has a specific experience of these matters

in and around the locale of the development.

The appellant asked why other officers qualified

in design and heritage matters

have not given evidence instead,

but given that Ms. Chung has the relevant experience

and expertise, that goes nowhere.

The views of the council, including Ms. Chung,

on these townscape and conservation matters

are strongly supported by the previous views expressed by the LLDC in extensive pre -application

commentary and in its detailed handover note. It is expressly recorded that the LLDC design

officers inputted into that process, see the two design officers listed in the April and

July 2021 responses. That advice, which was expressed in notably forthright terms, repeatedly

explained why the scale, bulk and mass of the proposals was inappropriate in

townscape and heritage terms. For example, from the first pre -application response

we stated that the prevailing height for sub area 1 of which this site is part is

20 metres above existing ground level to set out in the local plan. There are

buildings in the area which exceed the 20 metres height as identified in the

presented height analysis but these are part of a composition of height and

and cannot be looked at in isolation.

It should also be noted that taller elements on other sites

have been considered as part of a wider planning balance

and cherry -picking heights,

as a justification for this proposal is not encouraged.

For example, Breen Street Heights were balanced

with the provision of a wholly commercial building.

90 Monier Road site, whilst reaching seven storeys,

was viewed as a whole composition

and has elements of one, two, five, six storeys, et cetera.

Development on the site is considered to be excessive and is not supported.

The focus must be on optimization.

There should be a variety of height in line with the character of the area.

This means elements that are less than the prevailing height.

The built form should respond to the positive and distinct character

and urban grain of the conservation area.

Currently the proposal dwarfs the gatehouse and is overbearing.

The setting and relationship between the proposed massing and existing form

needs more careful consideration.

So I then quote from the second pre -application response

over the page, the third application

and the fourth application.

I don't read those out now because you've got them there,

but I ask you, sir, to have regard to them.

So I pick it up on page 34, paragraph Roman five,

middle of the page, the LLDC handover note, December 2024.

Two reasons for refusal based on townscape and heritage were proposed. The LLDC was also critical

of the way that the applicant had not responded to advice and had not explored scale, bulk and

massing in a meaningful way. It said that the proposed height and scale and massing and the

impact on the townscape in the context is not supported. The landmark and height of the block

two is only considered acceptable if the heights of the other buildings blocks three and one are

are reduced in height so that there is a distinct difference

in height between block two and the other elements.

Previous suggestions to reduce the height

of blocks one and three by a storey to both

have not been considered.

Then we've got the text there.

I just pick it, the emboldened text

at the bottom of page 34,

where it states greater variation in height

as well as a reduction to height to prevent overdevelopment

has been encouraged but not explored.

Then pick it up at paragraph 118.

The account of the design process

set out in the design and access statement

and reproduced in Miss Young's proof

illustrates how in terms of height, scale, and massing,

only one option was ever presented.

The scheme went through various iterations

in terms of detailed design,

but no meaningful alternative scale or massing

was ever presented or explored.

The fundamentals never change.

See the six stages in the design concept section

of this young's proof showing the evolution or lack of it

from January 21 to November 21.

There were changes in roof line and fenestration

and in links between the three main blocks,

but that is not meaningful exploration

of the key parameters of scale and bulk,

which the LLDC was deeply concerned about.

More generally at this inquiry, Dr. Mealy and Ms. Young often answered questions in cross -examination about scale and mass by changing the subject to detailed design.

But given how influential scale and mass are to a viewer's perception of a building, scale and mass are fundamental considerations to assessing townscape and design.

The appellant's desire to focus on detailed design must not distract from these issues.

Policy D3 of the London Plan requires a design -led approach,

and that approach requires consideration of design options

to determine the most appropriate form of development

that responds to a site's context and capacity for growth.

That did not happen in the present case.

It is a conflict with policy,

it prevents proper assessment of what is appropriate for the site,

and it appears to have led to the unsatisfactory scheme

presented to the inquiry.

Neither Ms. Young's nor Dr. Mealy's evidence engaged with this.

Dr. Mealy has only been involved with the scheme since around June 2026,

and did not purport to provide evidence on the design process.

Ms. Young is employed by the scheme architects,

but she was not involved at all in the design process,

having only joined the firm a year ago,

and when asked about the response of the designers

to the strongly worded feedback at pre -application stage,

she made clear that she could not give evidence

on how that design advice had been taken into account

or not as it appears.

She candidly stated in evidence in chief

that she was quote,

someone who doesn't really know the area

and her first site visit was not until 6th of July

of this year.

The appellant places great weight on the feedback

from the quality to review panel

that the feedback,

at least by the second response dated November 2021

one was broadly positive, careful regard should be had to it, no more and no less. That is

what policy in the new MPPF says, that LPAs should quote, take into account any design

recommendations made by design review panels. The council says however, that the evidence

of this chunk should be preferred, supported by the views of the LLDC design and planning

offices in the LLDC pre -application advice and the handover note. The council

invites you sir to have regard to whether the QRP comments convincingly

engage with or provide an answer to the criticisms and concerns of the LLDC

which the LLDC were raising and Ms. Chu now raises. The council submits that they

do not. Further, the importance of the QRP feedback should not be overstated. The

The QRP's input is valuable, but it is an advisory panel only.

It is the LPA, originally the LLDC and now London Borough Tower Hamlets, which is the

statutory and expert body, which includes expert designers, which Parliament has made

responsible for judging the acceptability of planning applications, having regard to

the development plan and other material considerations.

In light of that role, which the QRP does not have, the views of the LPA, two of them in this case, should attract significant weight.

And on harm and policy conflict. In light of all of the above, this scheme is significantly harmful.

There is a significant adverse impact in townscape terms along with heritage harm.

In terms of harm to the locally listed gatehouse

and taking account of the heritage benefits

to the gatehouse, the harm is of a moderate degree.

In terms of harm to the significance

of the conservation area through development in its setting,

Ms. Chung's proof identified harm

at the lower end of the spectrum

of less than substantial harm.

The new MPPF no longer refers to the category

of less than substantial harm,

but requires the harm to the significance

of the heritage asset to be identified.

In accordance with that,

the harm is at the lower end of the scale.

In accordance with framework HE6 powers one and three,

substantial weight should be given

to the conservation of the conservation area,

and the harm to the conservation area

is a matter of considerable importance and weight.

The harm leads to conflict with policy and guidance.

There is conflict particularly with policies D3, D5, D6, D9 and HC1 in the London Plan

and policies SB3, SB5, BN1, BN2, BN4, BN5, BN6, BN17 and BN1 .2 in the Local Plan.

Conflict with BN5 is central given that it's a specific policy for tall buildings.

The proposal does not achieve the exceptionally good design required by BN5

and fails to satisfy criteria numbers one, four, five,

and six in BN5.

Given the design and heritage shortcomings,

those aspects of the scheme do not contribute to meeting

the required significant additional public benefit criterion

and wider planning matters relevant to this criterion

I deal with below.

The appellant has made reference to policy on tall buildings

in the emerging local plan, but in this respect,

there is no suggestion from anyone that this emerging policy should get anything other than limited weight,

such as it cannot be justification for departing from the locally specific policy on tall buildings in Bn5 in the adopted local plan.

There is also conflict with MPPF policy DP3, in particular Para 1 and Para 2 E, F and G.

Paragraph 3, which is one of the new MPBF policies that provides that development proposals

should be refused, is engaged because without clear justification, the development proposals

conflict with DP3 Para 1, the proposals conflict with relevant principles in DP3 Para 2, and

the proposals conflict with explicit design standards set out in the development plan.

Conflict with only one of those three matters is sufficient to engage the direction to refuse in DP3.

The Council says that all three are satisfied, such that it may not matter whether the Council is right to say that Local Plan Policy BN5 contains explicit design standards.

The council does say that, however. The phrase explicit design standards is not

defined, although the paragraph can be seen to give a pointer in referring to

those in locally specific policies, guides, codes or master plans. BN5 is a

locally specific policy. It sets a locally specific approach to tall

buildings, not just in the LLDC area, but in respect of the relevant sub -area and

and the applicable height threshold for that sub -area,

20 metres for Hackney, Wickenfish Island.

It then imposes a number of detailed

and specific requirements, which are plainly standards.

Firstly, for exceptionally good design,

and secondly, criteria's number one to six.

Dr. Mealy drew a distinction in oral evidence

between more general design policies

and the greater specificity he would expect to see

in order for something to be termed an explicit design standard.

There is force in that, but it is seen in BN5.

BN5 refers to a specific form of development, tall buildings,

of specific parameters depending on the location, i .e. 20 metres in our sub -area,

and then imposes specific requirements in respect of them, the ones I've set out above.

Dr Mealy indicated that similar policies in respect of tall buildings apply

in other areas, but that does not take away

from the specificity of this set of standards

in BN5 for this location.

Ms. Chun, when asked in cross -examination

as to whether there was any conflict

with explicit design standards, said there was not,

albeit after some considerable hesitation.

In re -examination, she explained that her hesitation

was because she was pondering whether BN5

might fall into that category.

She then said in respect of BN5, quote,

to my mind, to my view, that was an explicit design standard.

Ms. Chum's answers overall were therefore

somewhat equivocal, but she ended by indicating

that BN5 did contain explicit design standards.

To be fair to Ms. Chum, she had only had

the new MPPF for a week by this point,

and it was plain from Dr. Mealy's discussion

of it in cross -examination that he did not consider

the meaning or parameters of that phrase

to be straightforward either.

In any event, the interpretation of policy

is a matter of law, which the view of a witness

cannot determine.

The council says that BN5 is a locally specific policy which

contains explicit design standards for the reasons

I've set out above.

I then turn to benefits and the planning balance

and start with the benefits.

The provision of a denser quantum of development

on an occupied Brownfield site to contemporary sustainability standards

attracts substantial weight in accordance with MPPF policy L2 Para 1B in particular.

The provision of 72 homes including three affordable homes attracts significant weight

in the council's view. The council is acutely conscious of the importance of new housing

as supported by policy in the new framework and the substantial weight that this benefit

would otherwise attract is only tempered to significant given that the mix proposed does

not respond to need. There are only five three bedroom units out of 72 and no three bedroom

affordable units which is not supported by para 511 of the local plan which provides

the proposal should provide quote an appropriate balanced mix of one two and three bedroom

units and there should be an equal mix of one, two and three bedroom properties. The

second is referring to affordable properties. That the scheme meets a separate requirement

in Para 5 .11 for proposals to contain more two bedroom plus units than one bedroom units

does not avoid the need to comply with what Para 5 .11 provides in respect of three bedroom

units. The appellant places much weight on the recent housing delivery test results which

are important, albeit they must be seen alongside the continuing existence of a five -year housing

land supply in the Duck Borough, which remains national policy in the framework. Job creation

and local spend attract moderate weight and which of course need to be weighed against

the overall net employment loss on the site.

The provision of 1 ,500 or so square metres of new light industrial floor space attracts

limited weight because of its shortcomings in terms of functionality.

And the planning balance.

The new framework does not and could not alter the fact that the development plan is the

starting point for determining this appeal.

Section 38 .6 must be applied.

There is direct conflict with the Development Plan in a number of respects, which mean that the proposals are not in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole.

There is also direct conflict with policy in the new framework, which further weighs in on the fact that the new framework is a very important part of the development plan.

That must attract substantial adverse weight.

The loss of VITO studio should also attract substantial adverse weight, albeit not so substantial as two more years.

The loss of such a venue as two more years leads to stark conflict with the strong policy protection in local plan policy CI1 and framework policy HC6.

And the fact that not one, but two key community facilities are lost by this single scheme of redevelopment gives rise to a remarkable level of policy conflict.

The Council considers that the adverse effects in this respect are sufficient in themselves to substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme applying the tilted balance in Framework Policy S4.

The harm from loss of creative,

cultural affordable employment floor space

and jobs capacity in the CEZ attracts substantial weight.

It was put to Mr. Wearing cross examination

that the new framework does not expressly say

that substantial weight should be given

to the loss of employment floor space.

That is with respect to bad point.

Framework policy E2 provides that substantial weight

should be given to the economic benefits

of proposals for commercial development

which allow businesses to invest, expand and adapt,

especially where this would support the economic vision

and strategy for the area.

It plainly and logically follows that if a proposal results

in the loss of employment floor space falling within

that description, that must attract substantial

adverse weight, just in the same way that loss of housing

for which there is a need would attract substantial weight

in the light of H*** even though the MPPF does not

expressly state that.

It's also notable that E2 places weight

on supporting the economic vision and strategy for the area.

In the present case, that engages the CEZ,

the aims of which the appeal scheme conflicts with.

The loss of live -work floor space as a typology,

that's going beyond the loss of the work element

of live -work, attracts significant adverse weight.

The townscape and heritage harm attracts substantial weight.

There is conflict with framework policy DP3,

which is a policy which directs refusal

in the case of breach, engaging S4 to paragraph C.

Inadequate communal residential immunity space

attracts significant weight.

Policy BN5 requires a tall building scheme

such as the appeal proposal to meet the criterion

of significant additional public benefit. That criterion is not met. For the criterion

to be meaningful, it must be requiring an extra level of benefit than otherwise might

be expected on a scheme. The present case does not offer that.

In terms of public realm, there is new public access along the canal, but the design of

this route is heavily compromised.

In terms of affordable housing,

only three affordable units on a 72 unit scheme

cannot be said to be a significant

additional public benefit,

particularly when seen in the context

of a policy target of 50%,

which we approve Parrot 82110.

Mr. Chemer agreed that this benefit on its own

would not be sufficient to meet the criterion.

The appellant places weight on the affordable workspace

secured through the proposed 106 agreement. That does secure the

workspaces affordable, which is positive, but the additionality is limited given

that at present all that workspace is already low -cost workspace which has

been occupied for many years by creative and cultural occupiers. The 106 would be

maintaining the status quo in terms of their occupation rather than bringing

additional creative and cultural occupies to the site. Further, the

affordable workspace provision cannot be divorced from the fact that the scheme

is resulting in a significant net loss of creative and cultural workspace.

Significant additional public benefit must have regard to the net position and

hence what is being lost. The provision of affordable workspace cannot justify a

conclusion that the scheme is providing significant additional public benefit

when the scheme results in a significant net loss in employment floor space.

The appellant put to Mr Weir that the significant additional public benefit

must be applied in a proportionate way relative to what is being proposed.

That may be so, but here the whole site exceeds 20 metres

and block two exceeds it by nearly 50%.

The comparison to the piano factory for example,

where the exceedances were limited but a significant package of additional public benefits was provided is illustrative.

The appellant has argued that a lesser quantum of development, so as to respond to the council's design and townscape criticisms,

would not be supported by the viability analysis.

Viability does not allow design and heritage harm to be set aside, however.

Further, no alternative viability analysis or design with a lesser quantum of development

has been presented for this proposition to be tested, for example in a scheme with greater

variation in height.

There is no exploration of what could or could not be viably achieved with alternative scale,

massing and quantum before the inquiry.

Nor is there any basis to suggest that viability would preclude a scheme which did not result

in the loss of the cultural venues and the creative and cultural workspace.

In conclusion, Tower Hamlets' offices, LLDC offices and GLA offices all agree that the

appeal scheme is in conflict with policy and will cause substantial harm in multiple respects.

No material considerations indicate that the appeal scheme should be determined otherwise

than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the Council asks you to refuse

permission and dismiss this appeal. Thank you. Okay thank you. We've got time for a

break now. Are you happy we can fit in a 15 minute break? Yes I might I don't know how

I don't think it will be much after five o 'clock, but given that Mr Flanagan had

Yeah, he had a good opportunity to make his points. I would like the same

Yeah, it doesn't matter if we spill over a little bit over five and I think is it

Okay until half past three the inquiry is adjourned

Now we'll hear the opponents closing.

And thank you sir, I've sent a copy to your case officer, Mr Brown, I don't know if it's

made its way to you yet.

It hasn't got to me yet, so I'll just listen and hopefully it'll turn up at some point.

Thank you, sir. Since the Council refused planning permission for the scheme last December,

matters have moved very significantly in the scheme's favour. In particular, of the nine

reasons for refusal originally identified by the Council in its decision notice, only

four remain. Secondly, the new MPPF, which is now identified not just as a material consideration,

but as a material consideration of critical importance, has been introduced.

As a result, the scheme now benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development,

which I refer to as the presumption, as set out in Policy S4 .1 of the MPPF,

which requires the scheme to be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects.

Mr Weir accepted that in revising the wording of the presumption to substantially outweighed from significantly and demonstrably outweigh in the old tilted balance,

the government had sought to strengthen the presumption in favour of granting planning permission, substantially being a higher threshold than significantly and demonstrably.

Mr Weir acknowledged that the change in wording had been done to facilitate development and to meet housing targets. Those were his words.

The latter point is important. In publishing the new MPPF, the Government emphasised that

under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, the Government is more focused than ever on

building the homes our country needs and delivering good growth in every postcode, and that the

new MPPF incorporates a number of substantive reforms designed to boost housing supply and

unlock economic growth in the years ahead. The Government's intention is of particular

relevance given that in contrast to the position last December there is now a

serious evidenced unmet need for housing in the council's area. The latest 2025

housing delivery test result is just 47 % of the London Plan housing target. As Mr.

Cheamer explained, in real terms that amounts to a shortfall in delivery of

more than 6 ,000 homes over a three -year period from 2022 to 2025. It's also important to

note that the housing delivery test result has nearly halved from the council's previous

result which was 92%. Rather than properly acknowledging the above, the council has persisted

in shifting its case at every opportunity.

First, by the addition in its statement of case of arguments

and alleged conflicts with planning policy that are nowhere mentioned

in either the officer's report or the decision notice,

then by the addition of yet more alleged planning policy conflicts

not mentioned in the statement of case in the council's evidence,

and even by putting points to Mr Cheema in cross -examination

that had formed absolutely no part of the evidence of the council's own witnesses.

That approach is not indicative of a strong case. It does not suggest that here is a scheme

that is so obviously flawed that it should be refused planning permission, even with

the benefit of the new MPPF. Rather, it serves only to emphasise the Council's inability

to identify clearly, consistently and convincingly sufficient reasons for upholding its decision.

In reality, at the end of this inquiry, the evidence plainly shows that applying the new

presumption in policy S41, the very considerable benefits of the scheme

would not be outweighed by its adverse effects and would certainly not be

outweighed substantially. It follows that under the government's latest national

planning policy the scheme should be approved. I'll go on sir to address the

main issues in the order that they were heard at the inquiry so beginning with

character and appearance. First on designer townscape matters the

assessment of the scheme provided by Dr. Neely and Ms. Young should be preferred

to that advanced by Ms Chung. Dr Mealy is both a Chartered Town Planner, i .e. a member of the RTPI

and a member of the Institute of Historic Buildings Conservation. He has 35 years of

professional experience in the historic environment including seven years working for English Heritage

who are now Historic England. He's acted on many former industrial sites in the council's area and

on numerous projects under the aegis of the MLDC including the piano factory and Swan Wharf. Ms

20 years of professional architectural experience and of particular significance here, she has more

than a decade of continuous service on independent design review panels. She's currently a member of

numerous London borough panels. In contrast, Ms Chung is not a qualified architect and has never

practised as such, nor is she an accredited member of any professional body such as the IHBC or the

RTPI. She described herself as a planner with an architectural and conservation backgrounds.

It should be noted that the Council does employ more specialist officers on both urban design

and heritage matters, but that no such officer was called to give evidence.

Leaving aside the question of expertise and experience, the views of Dr Mealy and Ms Young

accord with those of the LLDC's Quality Review Panel, the QRP.

Significant weight should be given to the QRP's views in assessing the design and townscape

merits of the scheme.

The MPPF explicitly requires the outcomes of design review to be taken into account,

as did the previous version.

Policy D4d of the London Plan requires borrowers and applicants to make use of the design review

process and Policy D4e1 notes the importance of ensuring that design reviews are carried

out transparently by independent experts in relevant disciplines.

The QRP process that was followed in relation to the scheme satisfied that requirement of

transparent, independent review informed by relevant expertise.

There's been no suggestion to the contrary from the council.

The purpose of the QRP is set out in paragraph 6 .9

of the supporting text to the MLDC local plan.

And I've set that out there, so you'll see that it says

an independent quality review panel has been created

to provide advice to the Planning Decisions Committee

and goes on to explain the experience of panel members.

That was done, as we see from the first line, as part of the LLDC's commitment to achieving high quality design in new buildings and outdoor spaces.

Policy BN4 of the LLDC Local Plan then requires all major development schemes to demonstrate an acceptably high quality,

and that's to be done through independent design review undertaken by a panel appointed by the Local Planning Authority.

Of particular relevance here, Policy Bn5 also identifies the QRP as the mechanism through

which the requisite exceptionally good design is to be demonstrated.

And I've set out the policy extract there.

The fact that the local plan explicitly and repeatedly identifies the QRP as the mechanism

through which schemes should evidence the requisite design quality is a clear indication

that significant weight should be given to the QRP's views. Paragraphs 123 and 124

of the Council's closing submissions entirely fail to recognise the specific role that the

LLDC Local Plan assigns to the QRP. The Council has failed to take that approach of according

significant weight to the QRP in advancing its case on design and tailscape matters.

Ms Chung would only accord medium significant weight to the QRP's views on the scheme's

but her position on that point is unjustified for the reasons I've explained.

Perhaps still more significantly, it was apparent from Ms Cheng's evidence that she had not only failed to record sufficient weight to the QRP's views,

but had in fact entirely failed correctly to understand what those views actually were.

In her proof, she purports to summarise the evolution of the proposals prior to the scheme's transfer back to the Council, including the QRP process.

But there's no mention whatsoever of the fact that the QRP's ultimate conclusion in November 2021

was that the scheme met the criteria for BN5 and that detail points could be picked up between the

appellant and officers. Instead, Ms Cheng wrongly and inaccurately asserts that feedback consistently

highlighted recurring concerns relating to height scale massing, public realm quality and the

relationship with the non -designated heritage asset on the site. That is a one -sided partial

account of the position that ignores the QRP's final position entirely.

In cross -examination Ms Cheng contended that the QRP couldn't have been satisfied as

regards the third of the six criteria listed in Policy BM5 on acceptable access and servicing

arrangements. That contention is though flatly contrary to the clear statement at the end

of the report of the November 2021 QRP meeting which I've set out there. Nor is there any

indication in either of the QRP reports that the QRP had concerns about access and servicing

arrangements. On a fair reading of the November 2021 report, it follows from the fact that the

QRP concluded that the scheme meets the criteria for BN5, that the QRP was satisfied that the

scheme exhibited exceptionally good design, that the QRP was satisfied that the scheme met the

requirements of policies Bn1 and of Bn4 and that the QRP was satisfied that the scheme

met all of criteria 1 to 6 as set out in policy Bn5. The QRP also considered that the form,

scale and massing of the scheme's blocks provided what it described as a sensitive response

to the local context, that the introduction of the double height opening in block 1 at

of Roach Road and Beechey Road created an important link through to the canal,

that the courtyard would struggle to get sufficient daylight, but the QRP did not

suggest that the courtyard couldn't succeed. Rather it said that for this

space to succeed the choice of planting and materials is critical to ensure the

space is inviting and not always damp. Finally the QRP's view was that the

success of the scheme would depend upon the quality of the detailing,

materiality and finishes used. It's common ground that the council's not

criticising detailing materiality or finishes.

Ms Chung relies heavily on the views of LLDC's planning officers as set out in the handover note.

But the views of the QRP should plainly be preferred on design matters because unlike the QRP,

LLDC planning officers were not providing independent expert design advice.

Ms Chung's evidence also relies extensively on both the scheme for the site that was previously granted permission in 2016,

which I'll call the previous scheme, and on numerous other proposed or consented schemes

in the vicinity of the site which are referred to as nearby schemes. Over 20 pages of her proof

are devoted to this analysis but a significant degree of caution should be exercised in

considering it. First as Ms Chung agreed, nearby schemes that have been constructed

are relevant to the assessment of the appeal scheme because they form part of the baseline

against which the latter falls to be assessed. The fact that some of the

nearby schemes were given planning permission in a different policy context

does not alter that fact and Ms Chung accepted this. Paragraph 88 of the

council's closing submissions fails to reflect Ms Chung's oral evidence.

However the task for you sir is to consider the scheme on its merits and

that is not a comparative exercise. So by way of example the fact that the second

H -formulance scheme was recommended for refusal is nothing to the point.

Ms Chung confirmed in cross -examination that she was not suggesting that because that scheme

had not been granted planning permission, the appeal scheme should similarly be unsuccessful.

She went on to acknowledge that the appeal scheme is, in any event, not proposing anything

like what's shown in Figure 19 in her proof. Paragraphs 94 and 95 of the Council's closing

submissions don't reflect this aspect of Ms Chung's oral evidence. Similarly, whilst Ms

provides brief analysis of the public benefits of some of the nearby schemes in her proof,

she conceded in cross -examination that it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you so on the information

available to you to compare the public benefits of different schemes and that she wasn't asking

you to do so. Insofar as Ms Chung's written evidence does seek to compare the public benefits

of nearby schemes with those of the appeals scheme, that evidence should be disregarded.

Ms Chung conceded in cross -examination that she had nowhere even attempted to assess the

appeal scheme's full package of public benefits. Moreover, as I'll come on to explain, even

if a comparative approach is taken here, that analysis doesn't support the council's case.

Reason for refusal for and Ms Chung's evidence raised two specific criticisms as regards

design and townscape matters, the third is heritage and I'll come back to that. Those

two specific criticisms are first that the scheme's scale, height and massing would

allegedly result in a negative impact to the local context and townscape and secondly that

the ground floor arrangement would result in poor quality public realm. On scale, height

and massing the QRP was correct to conclude that the form, scale and massing of the scheme's

block provides a sensitive response to local context. The scheme's scale is, as a matter

of fact, consistent with the scale of recent development nearby, both constructed and consented.

This is acknowledged by Ms Chung, who notes that blocks one and three adopt broadly

consistent heights and gable massing, closely reflecting the scale and form of Carpenter's

Wharf to the north. Ms Chung explained in cross -examination that her issue in terms of scale

and massing was the alleged monotony of the composition, but she was unable to identify anything

in design policy or guidance that requires what she referred to as a strong distinction between

the individual blocks and or different differentiation. She conceded that this was

simply a personal preference on her part and something that she would have enjoyed.

Moreover none of Ms Chung's monotony themed criticisms are made out in any event.

The scheme's massing was informed by a rigorous and iterative design process.

It's been broken down into distinct elements that reinforce the site's industrial grain,

create a varied townscape composition and establish an appropriate relationship between the scheme and its surroundings.

With Chung is incorrect to assert the view one, the scheme's canal elevation reads as a long and uninterrupted built edge,

with the distinction between individual blocks perceived primarily through changes in brick colour.

Even at the distance shown in view one, block two is plainly of a different form without a gable and height to block one,

as well as being of different materiality. Moreover, Ms Chung conceded that there is,

appreciably, stepping between the bays of Block 1. Nor is she correct to contend that the scheme's

colonnade creates a continuous and visually dominant base of the proposals that is in some

way objectionable. In the appellant's submission, the adjacent colonnade of Carpenter's Wharf is

more dominant and is at least equally regular or, to use Ms Chung's terminology, monotonous in form,

see figure 30 in this chunks proof. The scheme is a perfectly appropriate

response to the site's wharfside location and heritage. In this regard and

if comparisons are to be made, the appellant submits that it is obviously

more successful than was the previous scheme, which made no attempt to reflect

the site's industrial heritage. It's common ground that the scheme does

reflect the industrial heritage of the area. In its closing submissions the

Council criticises the design process for having allegedly failed to consider a sufficient

number of options. That criticism is unsupported by Ms Chung's evidence and goes nowhere.

Ultimately, the question is whether the scheme design, as proposed, is satisfactory, which

it plainly is. Furthermore, none of the witnesses who gave evidence on design matters was in

a position to provide any evidence on what was done at pre -application stage, the Council's

witnesses because the Council wasn't the local planning authority at that stage, and

Many Appellant's Witnesses, because their colleagues who did have first -hand involvement

at pre -application stage, were unavailable for the inquiry dates. Neither explanation

for the temporal limits to the Witness's evidence merits any criticism.

As to height, Ms Chung is wrong to contend that all three blocks within the scheme demonstrate

more than minor exceedance of the 20m height, such that all three of them are tall buildings.

Block 1 is 22 .7 metres and Block 3 is 23 .2 metres, exceedances of only 2 .7 and 3 .2 metres.

Those are lower than the maximum exceedance of 5 metres that was in play on the Carpenter's

Wharf scheme but was accepted as only a marginal exceedance.

So Ms Chung's approach to the appeal scheme is not consistent with the approach taken

to Carpenter's Wharf.

The additional height of Block 2 does not lead to any harmful impact on the character

appearance of the surrounding area, including the conservation area. Rather, it serves a clear

townscape purpose. It forms a clear gateway landmark, reinforcing the strategic connexion

between the H16 bridge and the Hackney Cut. Ms Chung complains that the distinction in height

between block two and blocks one and three is insufficiently pronounced in all views to

establish a clear hierarchy within the composition, and she contends for a more meaningful reduction

and variation in the heights of block one and three. As she accepted however, the differences

in height between block two and blocks one and three are greater than the stepping down that

was proposed and found to be acceptable for the previous scheme. Similarly, Ms Chung points to

the retention of low -scale one and two storey elements as a positive feature of the 19 Monieu

Road scheme, but as she conceded, the scheme also includes a low -scale element by retaining the gate

House. Ms Chung also refers positively and ironically that's including by

reference to the QRP to the stepping down of elements on the 79 to 85 Monier Road

1 Snead Road scheme from six storeys to four or five. But when asked how

the scheme's height and massing was materially different she was only able

to comment that the scheme was too smooth. That assertion is simply not

persuasive. Ms Chung's observation that neighbouring schemes demonstrated

deliberate contrast between taller and lower elements rather than a consistent height across

an entire development is also well -wired of the mark because, as she conceded, the appeal scheme

is not proposing a consistent height across its entirety. Finally, of course, if blocks 1 and 3

were lower that would result in a less efficient use of the site and indeed would compromise

delivery of the scheme. There is some suggestion in Ms Chun's proof that the height of block 2 is

problematic because it would compete with the chimney of the former Broadwood piano factory.

That suggestion is without foundation. There's no allegation of any harm to the chimney in the reason for refusal,

nor even in the council statement of case, which Mr Weir drafted and Ms Chung reviewed.

The chimney is a non -designated heritage asset, but it's not listed. As Dr Mealy explained, landmarks function at different scales.

The chimney is a local landmark which creates pleasure and interest and provides a point

of orientation when one's walking through the streets in and immediately surrounding

it.

Block 2 is of a different scale.

It would provide a proper entrance to the area because it would be associated with an

important crossing, the H16 bridge, that's being constructed as part of the strategic

planning of the area.

Turning to the ground floor arrangement, the scheme's public realm is high quality.

Perhaps most obviously, unlike neighbouring developments including Carpenter's Wharf,

where waterside spaces remain private, this scheme proposes a continuous, publicly accessible

canal edge that would transform a previously inaccessible waterfront into a new public

destination.

It's important to note here that Ms Chung drafted her proof on the erroneous understanding that Carpenter's Wharf was publicly accessible.

It is not. It follows that Ms Chung can't properly have appreciated or assessed the value of the scheme's public realm contribution in producing her proof.

Ms Chung event is a concern that the colonnade would feel less welcoming and less inviting during the evening and night time hours.

That concern is baseless for the reason identified in Ms Young and her rebuttal.

Also the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention was consulted on the application and it had no comment, that is it raised no concern.

The proposed courtyard is not at risk of becoming over -programmed.

There's nothing remotely unusual about the mix of uses that's anticipated,

so the communal amenity space, circulation for the residential entrances,

cycle parking and refuse facility access, very temporary refuse storage, potentially

on Ms Chung's evidence, incidental doorstep play and potentially informal

spill out activity from the creative employment floor space. Indeed the

multifunctionality of the existing yard space on site was previously celebrated

in one of the LLDC's own documents, the creative factories document and it's

important to note that the scheme would beneficially remove vehicles from that

space. The references within the council's evidence to daylight in the

courtyard are with respect entirely bogus and it's disappointing to see that

the council persists in pursuing this non -point in its closing submissions.

There is no reason for refusal on daylight and sunlight grounds nor is

there even any mention of daylight or sunlight in any of the nine reasons for

refusal that were originally advanced by the council. LLDC instructed external

consultants Arup to review the appearance daylight and sunlight assessment and having

had regard to that assessment work, the conclusion of the Council's own case officer was that

daylight and sunlight matters were acceptable on balance. Ms Chung confirmed in cross -examination

that she was not changing the Council's position so as to argue that sunlight to the courtyard

would be unacceptable. In any event, the daylight sunlight assessment shows clearly that in

for the courtyard to meet BRE guidelines, which are only guidelines, the massing of

blocks 2 and 3 would need to be reduced to a maximum height of 10 metres. That is lower

than the site's existing massing. Unsurprisingly, given the council's dogged and wholly and

justified refusal to accept that it simply doesn't have any case on daylight and sunlight,

the council's closing submissions entirely fail to recognise this very important point.

The apparent hasn't designed in a failing, because the position as regards sunlight to

the courtyard is simply unavoidable.

Overall, the scheme does not demonstrate an excessive intensity of development.

It's common ground that at 1 .86, the sub -scheme's floor area ratio is below the average of 2

for Fish Island that's been identified by the council.

Ms Chung was right to concede that the scheme's far does not suggest excessive intensity.

There's no suggestion that the scheme's density is inappropriate, nor is there any mention in the

reasons for refusal or in the council statement of case of any other symptoms of excessively intense

development such as an inadequate standard of accommodation or adverse effects on surrounding

buildings. Aspects of Ms Chung's evidence on design were simply divorced from reality. Perhaps

most obviously her assertions that the scheme would not be better than what's there at the

moment, that there was not a single view in which the scheme would be an improvement on

the existing situation, and that there was no view in which the scheme would make any

sort of positive contribution to legibility at all. None of those assertions is remotely

credible.

In reality, the scheme satisfies all relevant designer -townscape policies within the Development

Plan and the MPPF, including BN5 and NPP Policy DP3. It's important to note that in producing

her evidence, Ms Chung ignored both policy GG2 of the London Plan and policy SD1 of the

LLDC plan, despite the fact that both policies are, as she conceded, relevant to design matters.

It's necessary at this point to address one particularly disappointing aspect of Ms Chung's

evidence, which was her illegitimate and entirely unconvincing attempt to revise in her re -examination

the perfectly clear answer that she had given three times over and under no pressure of

time in cross -examination on the application of NPPF policy DP33. And I've set out there

the exchange that took place in cross -examination. You'll see, sir, that Ms Chung confirmed twice

that she didn't think that what she was thinking of was an explicit design standard and ultimately

was unable to identify any explicit design standard that the scheme would

conflict with. Then in re -examination it was put to Ms. Cheung that she'd said,

I don't know what I'm thinking, I don't know whether what I'm thinking of is an

explicit design standard. The appellant notes that that wasn't an accurate

account of Ms. Cheung's answers because she'd said twice that she didn't think

that what she was thinking of was an explicit design standard. She was then

asked what she was thinking of and she identified the criterion BN5 1 to 6.

Now, Ms Chung's answers on this point in re -examination should be disregarded entirely.

First, because they were given in response to an inaccurate statement of what she'd said

in cross -examination, and secondly, because it's simply not legitimate for a witness to

seek to use re -examination to revise their cross -examination responses in this way.

If it were otherwise, there would be little point in engaging in cross -examination.

Ms Chung's approach was obviously unfair to the appellant, who was deprived of any opportunity

to question her on her revised position and couldn't mitigate that disadvantage by asking

questions of Mr Weir because he's not the council's professional witness on design matters

and in any event he simply adopted Ms Chung's answer. This wasn't a case of a witness seeking

to correct a mistake in their earlier evidence. Ms Chung had been given well over a minute to

identify the explicit design standards that she was relying upon and had confirmed twice that what

she was thinking of was not in her view an explicit design standard that she did not want to

include it in her evidence as such and that she could not think of any explicit

design standards that the scheme would conflict with. No explanation was given

by Ms Chung for her vault fasten re -examination and the appellant

hasn't had any opportunity to seek one from her. So the appellant submits that

the only explanation is that Ms Chung extremely belatedly changed her

position because she considered that doing so would assist the council's case

and the appellant invites you sir so to infer and to disregard her

examination response accordingly. The scheme does not conflict with any explicit design standards.

Criteria 1 to 6 within BN5 do not set out standards against which a proposal can be

measured and they are conspicuously general rather than explicit in their content.

The relevant aspects of design are required to be appropriate, acceptable, positive. There is

nowhere because the scheme complies with criteria one to six in BN5 as the QRP found.

Mr Flanagan appeared to suggest that the reference within BN5 to a minor exceedance of the prevailing

or generally expected height was somehow a design standard. It is not and neither Ms

Chung nor Mr Weir suggested that it was. As Dr Mealy correctly explained, that reference

simply establishes a policy threshold beyond which an additional policy requirement, the

significant additional public benefit one is engaged. The reference is anyway

not explicit because the question of what constitutes a minor exceedance

requires an exercise of judgement. Exceptionally good design, which is

another requirement of BN5, is insufficiently explicit as well and

again neither Mischung nor Mr. Weir contended that that was an explicit

design standard or even a design standard at all. Finally significant

additional public benefit is not even a design focused policy element, it's a question of

planning judgement and again there was no suggestion from Ms Chung or Mr Weir that it was relevant to

MPPF policy DP33. So the interpretation as a matter of law of MPPF policy DP33 for which

Mr Feigen apparently contends is incorrect and is unsupported by any witness to the inquiry.

The elements of BN5 to which he referred are generic, not explicit. If they constitute explicit design standards, so do most development plan policies on design.

That cannot have been what the government intended in revising the MPPF to facilitate development and to meet housing targets, as Mr Weir put it.

In any event, this scheme fully complies with all of the elements of LLDC policy BN5.

I turn to heritage. The scheme would not cause any harm to the significance of either the

conservation area or the gatehouse. To the contrary, the canalside setting of the conservation

area would be enhanced by the provision of a building of appropriate design and of attractive

public realm that provides views over the conservation area of the canal. Similarly,

the scheme would conserve and restore the gatehouse, integrating it into a wider development

and so providing for its long -term beneficial use. The proposed new buildings would be set

back from the gatehouse, which has a distinct identity arising from its scale and form,

which stand out. Overall, therefore, the setting and significance of the gatehouse would be

enhanced. In the apparent submission, significant weight should be placed on the fact that Historic

England hasn't commented on the application. It's obvious from Historic England's comments

on the later H. Forman and some application that when Historic England has concerns about

proposed development in this area, it expresses them. Ms. Chung's assessment of the scheme's

effect on the significance of heritage assets, both designated and non -designated, is seriously

flawed. First, she acknowledges at paragraph 2 .9 of her proof that relevant guidance from

Historic England is a material consideration and it's common ground that that relevant

guidance includes the three Historic England documents that are mentioned in the officer's

report and also GPA 3. But despite identifying those Historic England guidance documents

as material considerations, Ms Chung conceded that she had not actually applied them. Ms

Chung also conceded that she had failed to analyse the contribution that the setting

of the conservation area and of the gatehouse made to the significance of each of those

heritage assets. That's an important step in the overall analysis of the effect of

development proposals on heritage assets, yet it's one that Ms Chung failed to

turn her mind to. Ms Chung's analysis of the conservation area is, with respect,

confused and that confusion continues in the council's closing submissions which

at paragraph 97 seek to apply this conservation area management guidelines

to the site without acknowledging that the site is not in the conservation area.

Whilst Ms Chung notes in her proof that a significant portion of the active floor space

within the conservation area is occupied by creative industries, she accepted that none

of the creative floor space within the site lies within the conservation area, because

the only part of the site that's within the conservation area is the pontoons in the canal.

Ms Chung also refers to the area street art, but again, the graffiti and street art that's

on the site at present lies outside of the conservation area. The same point falls to

made in respect of the reference to artist studios. None of the artist studios that might

be within the conservation area are located on the site. Similarly, as regards Two More

Years and Victoria Wharf Studios, neither of those is located within the conservation

area. Contrary to what Ms Chung says at paragraph 5169 of her proof, the scheme would not affect

the established mix of cultural, creative and employment uses which contributes to the

and identity of the conservation area, because whilst that mix of uses is present on the site,

the site's not within the conservation area, save for the proposed pontoons.

Whilst the existing buildings on site were referred to in the conservation area appraisal and in the 2013 guidance to which Ms Chung refers,

they were ultimately excluded from the conservation area.

Ms Chung accepted that the final sentence of paragraph 4 .22 of her proof should be revised as I've set out there.

Whilst Ms Chung refers to policy 1 -1 of the LLDC plan sub -area 1 policy, she conceded

that there was in reality no issue under either policy 1 -1 or the guidelines to which she

also refers because the gatehouse isn't proposed for demolition whether in whole or in part

and the other buildings on site are not heritage assets for the purpose of applying planning

policy.

This last point is common ground.

At paragraph 457 of her proof, Ms Chung boldly asserts that any replacement development should

deliver a building or buildings and place of equal or greater value in townscape terms.

She conceded, however, that there was no policy or guidance requirement to that effect and

that it was simply what she would like to see. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme

plainly is of greater value in townscape terms than the buildings on site that are proposed

demolition. Paragraph 5171 of Ms Chung's proof is simply wrong as she

conceded because section 72 .1 of the 1990 Act doesn't apply to the setting of

conservation areas and I've noted that although Dr Bealy was challenged on that

point in cross -examination it's now understood to be common ground which was

confirmed in the council's closing submissions. Finally the suggestion that

the gatehouse is accurately described as the prominent subject in the view shown

as figure 14 within Ms Chung's proof is simply not credible. Moving to main issue

one and the effects on employment floor space provision, the council's criticisms

of the timing of the evidence on employment floor space are not accepted.

It's entirely obvious that owing to the nature of the site, the disposition of

uses across it is likely to fluctuate. Against that context it was appropriate

for the apparent to seek to provide this inquiry with the most up -to -date account

possible of the position on site. Moreover, the Appellant made perfectly clear what it was proposing

as regards employment floor space evidence at the CMC. The Council didn't at any point suggest that

it needed additional time to consider any of the information provided and it is not appropriate

for the Council to complain after the fact. As to the Council's reference to the second addendum to

the Statement of Common Ground, that document was produced like the first addendum in response to

request from NUSA and in line with the suggestion that you made in your post CMC note, the appearance

sought to agree a statement of common ground on employment floor space with the council

prior to the inquiry opening but that wasn't taken forward by the council. Criticism of

Mr Cheema for referring to his photographs in his oral evidence is also obviously unfounded

because they were provided with Mr Cheema's proof and the council has had several weeks

to consider them. Turning to the substance, the scheme would not result in a loss of employment

provision. At present, there's 1475 .8 square metres GIA and 1222 .6 square metres NIA of

employment floor space on site and I've set out the proposed figures. The end result is

an increase of 60 square metres GIA or 50 square metres NIA. It follows that the position

as regards the gatehouse can't alter the analysis because only 45 square metres GIA is in dispute

as regards the gatehouse which is less than the 60 square metres GIA increase that would

result from the scheme. Nor is two more years material to the discussion of whether the

scheme would re -provide sufficient quantum of employment floor space since the parties

agree that the existing work floor space in two more years is 698 square metres GIA and

either 559 or 575 square metres NIA.

So whether the scheme would be provide the quantum

of employment floor space that's onsite at present,

therefore turns on whether the council's correct to argue

that the present live -work use of Hackney Cut

and what I've referred to as block four,

so that's Victoria Wharf Studios,

but excluding the cultural events floor space

and the self -contained light industrial floor space

is unlawful such that the live element

should instead be factored into calculations as employment floor space.

In the Appellant submission, the material that's referenced at paragraphs 10 to 17 of the Second

Addendum to the Statement of Common Ground plainly provides sufficient evidence to establish on the

balance of probabilities that the live -work use of Hackney Cut and Block 4 is now lawful.

The Appellant notes in particular that both of the Statutory Declarations were

was solemnly declared under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 and were administered

by a solicitor and that additional evidence is found in one of our LDC's own documents,

the Creative Factories document and also in the council's own statement of case. Mr Weir stated

in evidence in chief that he would have expected the appellant to obtain a certificate of lawfulness

confirming the same but he conceded in cross -examination that nothing in statute,

policy or guidance required the appellant to do so. The function of a certificate of lawfulness

is to enable the applicant for the certificate to avoid having to make an application for planning

permission. It's not a hoop that must be jumped through in order for planning permission to be

granted. Furthermore, Mr Weir's rigidity on this point was inconsistent with his approach to the

cultural events use in part of Vittoria Wharf Studios, which he accepts is lawful without

any certificate of lawfulness having ever been provided. In any event, even if the council is

correct to contend that the live -work use of both Hackney Cut and Block 4 remains unlawful,

it's difficult to see where that takes the council. Even if there were a conflict with

policy B15A which protects B2 -B8 class use, there would be no justification for giving more than

limited weight to that conflict against the scheme in the overall planning balance.

That's because it's common ground that neither Hackney -Kirk nor Block 4 is currently in B2 or B8 class use,

and nor is the council proactively enforcing against the allegedly unlawful live -work use with the aim of returning those units to B2 or B8 class use.

There's simply no justification for materially penalising the scheme for not re -providing B2, B8 class floor space,

when the council itself is making absolutely no effort in that regard and indeed Mrs. Pat's evidence

was that the allegedly unlawful live -work use was in fact important to the creative enterprise zone.

Nor if the lawful use of Hackney Cut and Block 4 is found to be B2B8 class as the council contends,

does it follow that the relocation strategy in the section 106 is then inadequate to satisfy policy B17C.

That policy requires relocation strategies to show how existing businesses can be suitably accommodated.

Even if B2B8 class use is the lawful use of Hackney Cut and Block 4,

it's not a use that's being undertaken by any existing businesses on site

and there is therefore no requirement for it to be suitably accommodated in the scheme.

Mr Weir contends that even if the live -work use of Hackney Cut and Block 4 is lawful,

then Mr. Cheema has been too generous in his identification of live floor space.

This is not accepted. Mr. Cheema has been conspicuously fair in his approach,

going as we saw so far as to count an area containing a sewing machine on a table as work floor space.

Mr. Weir referred in his evidence in chief to the presence of recording equipment in another unit,

but he conceded in cross -examination that by itself that was not sufficient to turn live floor space into work floor space.

The Council's next criticism is that the new employment floor space hasn't been designed so as to provide sufficiently flexible, light industrial creative floor space.

That criticism is unfounded and the apparent relies in particular on paragraphs 2302 to 2305 of Ms Young's rebuttal.

While several types of workspace are identified by Mr Weir at paragraphs 850 and 851 of his

proof, he acknowledged that the scheme is not required by policy to provide all of those

and nor is there any such requirement in the employment study.

Indeed the employment study that should say does not even require proposals to provide

both studio and small industrial floor space and it is common ground that the employment

study contemplates that both studio and small industrial floor space will be used as makerspace.

The scheme's ground floor units sit within the range of floor to ceiling heights that

the employment study recommends for studio floor space. It's also important to note

in its common ground that several of the site's current occupiers remain in situ, notwithstanding

that their floor to ceiling heights are limited to well beneath the heights identified in

employment study. Furthermore and as above there's obviously scant

justification for criticising the scheme for not meeting requirements that relate

to class b2 and b8 use given that the schemes not actively in any such use. As

to the council's point on direct loading access it's unclear why that's being

taken against the scheme given that Mr Weir conceded that he wasn't saying

that the scheme had to provide direct loading access in the courtyard. Any such

requirement would be inconsistent with the need to optimise the use of the site.

Ms Pack raised a concern over potential conflict between workshop

occupiers in the courtyard and residential occupiers, but that concern

is not supported by the findings of the employment study, which as Mrs Pack

conceded, identifies that employment floor space up to and including small

industrial can successfully be included in the same building as residential use.

As regards the loss of the existing live -work units, it's common ground that the live -work use is not explicitly protected by any extant Development Plan policy.

Consistently was the approach that the Council's planning officers, including Ms Chung, have been taking in determining recent applications for planning permission.

only limited weight should be afforded to draught policies EG1 and EG4 of the

council's emerging local plan for the reasons that Mr Chima sets out in his

rebuttal. In particular it should be noted that Mr Weir didn't dispute that

the three recent applications to which Mr Chima refers all involve the loss or

replacement of class E floor space to which both draught policies are

potentially relevant and yet limited or no weight was given to the draught

policies of the emerging local plan. It's not accepted that the position of policy

officers at the council is more useful in the present case. The more useful

position on the appellant's submission is that taken by the council's planning

officers in exercising their decision -making function which of

course is the function that falls to you sir here. As regards to the lag waiting

the appellant stands by the analysis given by Mr. Cheema. Mr. Cheema was

correct to identify that given the lack of an extant policy basis, only limited

weight could be ascribed to the loss of the existing live -work units in the

event that you so do conclude that notwithstanding the policy position they

should be factored into the overall planning balance as a material

consideration. Finally on main issue one there's nothing in the point that the

proposed relocation strategy doesn't cover the existing cultural and event

spaces on the site so the floor space in Vitoria Wharf studios and on the

Council's case part of the floor space in two more years. As Mr Weir accepted,

the requirement for a relocation strategy is found in policy B1 which

only applies to B -class uses and not to cultural and events use. I turn then to

main issue 2 which is effects on the existing cultural offer and that relates

to the loss of two more years and Vittoria Wharf Studios as cultural and

events floor space. The appellant accepts that the loss of the Vittoria Wharf

studios floor space results in a degree of conflict with London Plan Policy's

HC5 and HC6. But the existing Vittoria Wharf Studios provision amounts to 153

square metres of floor space which is less than 5 % of the total GIA of the

existing site and there hasn't been any serious challenge to Mr. Cheener's

evidence on the frequency of events which is that Vittoria Wharf Studios

typically hosts one event per day. Mrs. Pack's evidence was that Vittoria Wharf

Studios has existed informally as a music venue. As to Two More Years, whilst the council

belatedly began to contend in its statement of case that Two More Years is a multi -purpose

cultural venue, it's notable that that's not how the council's case officer referred to

Two More Years in the decision notice, instead referring to it simply as a nightclub. If

the council's case has now advanced and the present use of Two More Years is accepted,

and there will be a loss of an additional 338 .5 square metres of cultural or event space

and 52 .3 square metres of river terrace.

However, Mr Cheema is plainly correct to contend that in that scenario

the figure for existing employment floor space on site should be reduced accordingly.

It's not accepted that the 338 .5 square metres of floor space in question

can properly receive full policy protection from both LLDC policy B1 on B use classes

and London Plan policies HD5 and HD6 on cultural venues and so on simultaneously.

Perhaps most obviously, the council has not been able to explain why floor space that it says functions as cultural or event space

should receive the full force of protection from a policy that relates to B use classes,

that is from MLDC policy B1.

A degree of co -working occurs in most cafes.

It doesn't follow from the fact that some co -working use is being made

of part of the floor space in two more years,

that such use should be protected by Development Plan Policy

as though it were a class B1 or now a class EG1 of this use.

If the Council stands on this point where correct,

every Starbucks would be fully protected by LLDC policy B1.

That is simply not a credible interpretation or application of the policy.

The suggestion that Mr Chemer had concluded

that the loss of any cultural or event space within two more years would be

outweighed by the corresponding increase in existing employment floor space on the site

without evaluating the contribution made by the cultural and events use within two

more years was unfounded.

He confirmed that he'd reviewed Mr Weir's proof in detail prior to producing his rebuttal

and so had been aware of the contribution made by two more years based on the analysis provided by Mr Weir.

The council's criticism of Mr Cheamer in its closing submissions is obviously hypocritical

because Mr Weir entirely failed to recognise the logic of Mr Cheamer's point

that is the need to reduce the figure for existing employment floor space on site in his own evidence

and he didn't turn his mind at all to the implications of the point for the overall planning balance.

Next, there is no conflict with the NPPF policy HC61, because HC61C is satisfied.

The loss of two more years and Vittoria Wharf Studios won't diminish access to key community facilities

and public service infrastructure since there's sufficient alternative provision in the local area.

There is no justification for confining the concept of the local area for this purpose

to Fish Island alone, as the Council does in its closing submissions. That approach

to the application of the policy is plainly too narrow.

Nor can Mr Cheema fairly be criticised for not having provided more detailed analysis

on this point, given that the new MPPF was only published the week before the inquiry

opened. And paragraph 16 of the Council's closing submissions is misconceived. The appellant

has no record of either Mrs Pack or Mr Weir suggesting that there was any conflict with

NPPF policy HC 6 -1. So there's no reason why the scheme's compliance with any NPPF policy

HC 1 -C needed to be raised with them. In cross -examination of Mr Cheam and Mr Flanagan

appear to suggest that if the scheme were found to conflict with HC 6 -1 that alone would

justify a conclusion under policy S42 that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially

outweighed by its adverse effects, that is by the conflict with policy HC 6 -1 and it's since been

made clear in the council's closing submissions that this is indeed the council's case. But the

suggestion is a thoroughly bad one. First it is entirely unsupported by the council's own evidence

and indeed it runs flatly contrary to the evidence of the council's witness Mr Weir,

who fairly accepted that the loss of Vittoria Wharf Studios alone wouldn't justify refusing

applying permission for the scheme. Mr. Weir didn't suggest that the position

would be any different if two more years were also found to be partly in primary

use as a cultural or event space. Nor did he at any point contend that the

consequences of conflict with policy HC 6 -1 would be as the council is now

apparently suggesting and I ask you to note sir that because this point was

raised for the first time in cross -examination of Mr. Cheena the

appellant didn't have any opportunity to explore it with Mr. Weir. Secondly as Mr.

Chemer noted and as is common ground, Policy HC 6 -1 is not one of the national

decision -making policies which state that development proposals should be

refused in specific circumstances. In other words it's not a policy

S42C policy. The approach for which the council now contends would

though in effect elevate policy HC 6 -1 to that status. There's no justification for doing so.

Had the government wanted to record that status to policy HC 6 -1 it would have done so. Turning to

Mrs Pack's evidence on the creative enterprise zone, Mrs Pack describes herself as an advocate

for creative cultural organisations and spaces and her evidence considers matters through the narrow

lens of potential effects on the CEZ without regard to other considerations

such as whether any such effects would be outweighed in the overall planning

balance. The same observation can be made as regards the GLA's CEZ office which

understandably approaches matters from the perspective of wanting to support

the CEZ and which performs a different function to the GLA's planning team with

the latter considering matters more holistically. Secondly Mrs. Pack's

concerns weren't shared by the council coast case officer who determined the

application. She was well aware of the CEZ designation as is evidenced in the

officer's report. The GLA had also written in as regards the CEZ in April

2025 but nevertheless no mention of the CEZ or of London Plan Policy HC5 was

made in the decision notice. The case officer's stance is though unsurprising

because the scheme doesn't actually conflict with any development plan

policy in respect of the CEZ as Mrs. Pack eventually accepted. She refers to

London Plan Policy HC5B and C in her proof but neither of them governs decision -making.

Mrs Pack in cross -examination initially contended twice that she had also identified conflict with

London Plan Policy HC5A in her proof before eventually conceding that she had not. In any

event it's B and C and not A that explicitly relates to KESs. Turning to the MLDC local plan,

that states that the CEZ is not a planning initiative.

It's common ground that whilst there are references to the CEZ

in the supporting text within the LLDC plan,

there's no actual policy wording that addresses the CEZ.

Given that the Council's not actually arguing that the scheme

conflicts with any development plan policy in respect to the CEZ,

its criticisms of Mr Cheema for not having addressed the CEZ

in more detail in his written evidence are unjustified.

Mrs Pack's evidence also overlaps significantly with that

provided by Mr. Weir as Mr. Cheeman noted in his rebuttal. Finally Mrs.

Pack's analysis of the loss of two more years and Vittoria Wharf studios wasn't

based on the latest floor space figures because she hadn't read the first

addendum to the statement of Common Ground. Turning then to main issue 4, it's

now Common Ground that the scheme would provide sufficient child's play space

subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. The council now

complaints instead of allegedly inadequate provision of communal amenity space, although

Mr Weir confirmed in cross -examination that he wasn't contending that this aspect of the

Council's case alone, if accepted, would justify refusing planning permission for the scheme.

The scheme's provision of communal amenity space is anyway not inadequate. It's common

ground that extant Development Plan policies don't require any particular quantum of communal

amenity space to be provided. The scheme would provide 112 square metres of communal amenity

space in the courtyard and that satisfies the quantum that's required by draught policy HF9 of

the emerging local plan. An additional 97 square metres would be available via the proposed floating

pontoons. The appellant has no idea why the council's still arguing that the figure in the council's

adopted local plan applies. It doesn't. The extant development plan for the site comprises the London

plan and the LLDC local plan. For the reasons set out by Mr Chimo in his

rebuttal, the council is wrong to reduce the quantum of communal amenity space

proposed down to 75 square metres. The internal courtyard isn't precluded from

serving as effective communal amenity space simply because it also provides

pedestrian access and infrequently functions as a temporary refuse holding

area. Similarly, the pontoons would be easily accessible to residents close to

residential entrances to all three blocks and would offer a high quality and unique

communal amenity space. Finally on Main Issue 4, aspects of the Council's

criticisms are rather unfair. It was put to Ms Young that no analysis of how many people

would use the community amenity space had been undertaken at design stage. But the Council's

emerging local plan, which is where we now find the requirement for a particular quantum

of communal amenity space, was not in existence at that stage, at which point in time the

was in any event under the aegis of LLDC, not that of the council. Mr Weir made reference

to Tower Hamlets documents, but he emphasised that he was not saying that the appellant's

team had to look or should have looked at those. Mr Weir also raised an alleged lack

of information on communal amenity space prior to this July, but the council's criticism

of communal amenity space provision has only arisen as the appellant has sought successfully

to address its previous criticism of the scheme's child play space provision. Mr Weir's suggestion

that the communal amenity space was not originally designed as such is also inaccurate because the

courtyard hasn't been redesigned. I turn then to the benefits of the scheme. It's common ground

that the site's present condition fails to optimise the opportunities presented by its

location in an area of change within the Olympic Legacy Opportunity Area, which is a location that

scores 5a, the second highest possible score on the GLA's SAM. Mr Weir recognised the

potential opportunity for intensification of the site. The scheme would optimise the

site in line with the objectives of policy GG2 of the London Plan and of London Plan

Policy SD1 on opportunity areas. Delivery of the scheme would also reflect the transformation

that's ongoing across the wider Fish Island and Hackney Wick. It's common ground that

The optimisation of a sustainably located brownfield site is a benefit that accords

with numerous development plan policies and I've set them out there so I shan't read them.

It is also common ground that the optimisation of the site is a benefit of the scheme that

should be given substantial weight in the overall planning balance in accordance with

policy L21b of the new MPPF which requires substantial weight to be given to making better

use of underutilised land.

Substantial weight should also be given to the scheme's housing provision.

It's common ground that in light of the council's recent 47 % HDT result, there is now an evidenced unmet need for housing in the council's area.

It's unclear why the council's housing land supply as opposed to delivery position was raised with Mr Chimo in cross -examination,

and again I add in the council's closing submissions, because Mr Weir hadn't referred to it,

and he did not rely upon it to suggest that less than substantial weight should be given

to the scheme's housing provision.

To the contrary, Mr Weir accepted that policy H*** of the MPPF applied and explained that

he would have given substantial weight to the scheme's housing provision as a benefit,

but he'd reduced the waiting exercise, sorry the waiting because he was not satisfied with

the proposed housing mix.

There is however no justification for reducing the weight to be given on that basis.

Mr. Weir conceded that the council's criticisms of the scheme's housing mix were not sufficiently

serious to have resulted in a reason for refusal, and he also confirmed that he wasn't suggesting

that the scheme should have been redesigned.

Policy H1 requires proposals to contain a mix of one, two and three bedroom units, with

units of two bedrooms and more constituting more than half the total.

The scheme meets that policy requirement.

Whilst paragraph 511 of the supporting text states that proposals should also show how

the provision of family housing has been maximised, that is not in itself a policy requirement

and you'll see that I've referred in the footnote there so to the Cherkley campaign

and Mole Valley case. In any event, the provision of family housing has been maximised as Mr

Cheamer explains. Mr Weir's exclusion of two bedroom four person units from his calculation

of family housing is inconsistent with the approach previously taken by the LLDC. Mr

Cheamer fairly takes a middle line between the LLDC's position, which is that both two -bedroom

three -person and two -bedroom four -person units should be included as family housing,

and that of Mr Weir, who includes no two -bedroom units as family housing.

Mr Cheamer's position aligns with common sense and it should be preferred.

Moreover, paragraph 511 of the supporting text states that viability will be taken into account,

Mr Cheamer's unchallenged evidence was that including a greater proportion of

larger units in the scheme would almost certainly reduce the total number of

units proposed which would compromise the financial

viability of the scheme and likely reduce the provision of affordable

housing. Finally the point on the mix of the low -cost rent units is immaterial

and nobody has suggested otherwise. The council's opening submissions

emphasise that only 4 % of the scheme's residential units are proposed as

affordable housing but that emphasis is misplaced. It's common ground that the

three units of affordable housing proposed are what can viably be

delivered and are thus policy compliant. It's also common ground that the

scheme's housing provision accords again with numerous policies of the

development plan which I've set out in sub paragraph 73 .4. Next in accordance

with LLDC policies SP1 and B1 and with London Plan policies GG5, D3, E1, E2, E8 and HC5,

this scheme would provide workspace aimed at creative industries, that is, light industrial

floor space that can be used flexibly as workshops, studios, exhibition space, showrooms and so on.

This new provision would improve the functionality and employment density of the site and it should

be given substantial weight. Next Mr Weir agreed that substantial weight should be

given to the provision of floor space as affordable workspace. It's common ground

that at present there's no affordable workspace on site as devised by both the

London Plan and the LLDC Plan. The existing workspace on site is at best

low -cost business space, see the glossary to the LLDC Plan. It's common ground that

there's no policy requirement to re -provide either affordable

workspace or low -cost workspace in the MPPF nor in the London Plan.

Then it's common ground that policy B4 of the LLDC plan does require low -cost

workspace to be re -provided, but there's no policy requirement that low -cost

workspace be upgraded, so be replaced as affordable workspace which would

deliver benefit over and above an equivalent amount of low -cost workspace.

Mr Flanagan's oral addition to his written closing submissions failed to recognise that

and so too does his paragraph 1453.

The section 106 wouldn't be maintaining the status quo, it would be substantially improving

it.

The reprovision of the existing low -cost works based on site as affordable workspace satisfies

policies B4 and indeed that reprovision goes beyond the requirements of the policy because

as I've said, nothing in the policy requires low cost

workspace to be upgraded and be provided as affordable

workspace. The provision of over 1500 square metres of

affordable workspace from a current provision of zero

square metres of affordable workspace would also plainly

exceed the requirements of London Plan Policy E3B3 to

which Mr. Weir referred. That policy simply requires

consideration to be given to the need for affordable

workspace in certain circumstances, it doesn't actually require any affordable

workspace to be provided and that point too is common ground. Next the scheme

would deliver substantial public ground landscaping improvements on the site,

improving public access between the site and the canal and delivering a 57 %

biodiversity net gain and again that's a benefit that accords with numerous

policies in both the LLDC and the London Plan and it merits substantial weight.

The exceptional design quality of the scheme would enhance the local townscape, including by aiding with wayfinding and legibility.

The scheme represents a significant improvement from the low quality buildings that largely, so with the exception of the Gate House, occupy the site at present.

The scheme's design accords again with numerous LLDC and London Plan policies,

and that development plan compliance now attracts substantial weight applying Policy DP33 of the MPPF.

The scheme also accords with the other relevant elements of that policy.

There would also be heritage benefits to both the conservation area and the gatehouse, as Dr Mealy explained.

It is common ground that with reference to policy HE61 of the new MPPF, substantial weight

should be given to the benefits of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset.

Applying policies HE62 and HE71 of the new MPPF, the scheme should also be supported

because it would have a positive effect on both a designated heritage asset, the conservation

area, and a non -designated heritage asset, the gatehouse.

It is also common ground that substantial weight should now be given to the scheme's

carbon credentials having regard to Policy CC22 of the new NPPF. Mr Weir conceded in

cross -examination that he had omitted properly to weigh this consideration as a separate

benefit in the overall planning balance. Moderate weight should be given to the excellent standard

of residential accommodation and to the inclusive and secure design that the scheme would secure

in accordance with the numerous development plan policies that I've set out at paragraph 82.

Finally, moderate weight should be given to the job creation and local spend that would result from the scheme.

Turning then to the overall planning balance, it can be seen that the scheme complies with the development plan overall.

In particular, the introduction by the council and its statement of case and evidence of a raft of additional alleged policy conflicts,

nowhere mentioned in the officer report nor in the decision notice is unconvincing.

The case officer determining the application would have been well aware of article 35 of the DMPO

which required the decision notice to state clearly and precisely the full reasons for

the refusal and to specify all policies and proposals in the development plan which are

relevant to the decision. So had the case officer considered that there was any conflict with the

policies on which the council is subsequently sought to rely, those

policies would have been included in the decision notice. Paragraph 27 of the

council's closing submissions is no answer to this point. It is highly

unusual for the local planning authority to shift its case repeatedly in the

manner that the council has done here. Next the policy, sorry, the scheme

complies with policy D9 of the London Plan. Mr Weir confirmed that if the

Council's case on design, townscape and heritage matters was not made out, which

it's not, there would be no conflict with London Plan Policy D9. As to Policy BN5

and the requirement to demonstrate that the scheme would achieve significant

additional public benefit, that requirement is plainly satisfied. It's

common ground that the quantum of public benefit required depends on the extent

to which the proposal exceeds the 20 metre height threshold, so in other words

a 30 -storey proposal will need to demonstrate more public benefit than a 15 -storey proposal.

Although Mr Weir referred in his evidence, both written and oral, to the public benefit

analysis in relation to other schemes, such as the piano factory, Iceland, I should say

Wharf, not Ward, and ALGA works, he conceded that the exercise is not a comparative one

and that you, sir, are not in a position to reach a proper judgement on the public benefit

question in respect of the other schemes and paragraph 146 of the council's closing submissions

is at odds with this aspect of Mr Weir's evidence. Ms Chung confirmed that in analysing briefly

the public benefits of other schemes from the perspective of policy BN5, she'd considered

the entirety of the relevant schemes' public benefits. In other words, she had not confined

her analysis to public benefits generated by the additional height of the relevant scheme.

and that's also the approach taken to the scheme by Mr Weir in his proof.

When the entirety of the scheme's public benefits are taken into account,

it's plain that the scheme meets the requirement in BN5,

having regard to the numerous and weighty benefits that have been summarised,

many of which are common ground, both as to their existence

and as to the weight that should be given to them.

It's unclear whether Mr Weir contends that significant additional public benefit

means benefit exceeding policy requirements. There appeared to be

some such suggestion in his oral evidence yet his proof states only that

significant additional public benefits should at least meet policy

targets. If it is the council's position that a proposal must exceed policy

requirements in order to provide significant additional public benefit

then that's not accepted. It amounts to an impermissible gloss on the wording of

If the policy intended to require policy plus provision of public benefit, it would straightforwardly

have said so.

But in any event, the scheme's public benefits do obviously exceed policy requirements.

First, the provision of more than 1 ,500 square metres of affordable workspace from a current

provision of zero square metres of affordable workspace on site exceeds policy requirements,

as I've explained, and it's common ground that this is a public benefit of substantial weight.

Next, the scheme would deliver substantial public realm improvements, again in excess of what's

required by policy, and that can be appreciated by the fact that the adjacent carpenters wharf

development wasn't required to provide any public access to the canal. Then the scheme's 57 % BMG

exceeds policy requirements and the application preceded the now statutorily mandated 10 %

minimum, which is in any event exceeded several times over by the scheme's BNG. And then it's

common ground that the scheme's heritage benefits should be given substantial weight, and again,

those are benefits that are not required by policy.

At paragraph 134 of his rebuttal, Mr Weir appears to suggest that the entirety of the

scheme's public benefits should not actually be taken into account in applying the additionality

requirement in BN5. That suggestion is at odds with the approach that he takes in his

proof and also with the approach of both his colleague Ms Chung and Mr Cheema. No explanations

provided for the apparent change in position which isn't accepted. As Mr Cheema explained,

the scheme's height ensures its viability and deliverability and thus does facilitate

the entire suite of public benefits that the scheme would provide. I note that it's not

accepted that no alternative viability analysis has been presented, this point

wasn't put to any of the appellant's witnesses and it shouldn't therefore

have been raised in the council's closing submissions. In any event it's

entirely obvious and is a matter of common sense that a scheme of lesser

quantum would be even less viable. The approach taken by Mr Cheam and Ms Chung

and in his proof Mr Weir is therefore the correct one, the entirety of the

scheme's public benefits should be taken into account. That said, even if one were

artificially to seek to isolate the public benefit that results from the

scheme's additional height, that benefit is still plainly significant and I refer

you sir to the detailed analysis provided by Ms Young in her booth of

evidence. Mr Cheema also explained how any reduction in the total number of

units proposed would likely reduce the provision of affordable housing and the

same logic applies to the affordable workspace. In any event even if you sir

were to conclude the scheme doesn't satisfy the requirement to achieve

significant additional public benefit, the weight to be given to that very

partial conflict with BN5 would need to reflect several things. First, the fact

that the LLDC plan predates the London Plan, so BN5 predates London Plan D9.

Secondly, that the additionality requirement in BN5 is not found in

policy D9 and in this regard BN5 is obviously more demanding than policy D9

and that is amply demonstrated by the fact that the council concedes that

there's no conflict with policy D9 if its case on design, townscape and

heritage is made out. There is therefore a conflict between BN5 and D9 which

would need to be resolved in favour of the latter, applying section 38 .5 of the

2004 Act which I have set out in a footnote. Mr Weir had not been aware of that requirement

in producing and giving his evidence on policy BN5.

Turning from the development plan to the MPPF, the weightings that should be given to the

scheme's benefits, including by reference to the new MPPF, have been set out. As regards

any adverse effects or planning harm that would result from the scheme, it's important

to note in its common ground that whilst the new MPPF explicitly identifies the weight

that should be given to several of the scheme's benefits, it doesn't do so in relation to any

planning harm that's relevant to the scheme. In particular, whilst the MPPF requires substantial

weight to be given to the scheme's housing provision, it's common ground is that it does

not even require the retention of existing employment floor space. Still less therefore,

as Mr Weir accepted, does it say that the loss of existing employment floor space is to be given

substantial weight on the negative side of the planning balance.

Whilst Mr Weir demurred on this point, it's obvious that in its most and very recent expression

of national planning policy, the government has made a deliberate decision to direct more

weight to be given to the provision of housing than to the loss of employment floor space.

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no conflict with policy E21A of the MPPF. That policy

simply provides support in the form of substantial positive weight to

commercial development that would allow businesses to invest expand and or adapt.

It does not provide whether explicitly or impliedly that substantial negative

weight should be given against a proposal that would adversely affect the

ability of businesses to invest expand and or adapt. To put the point another

way either the policy is engaged because the proposal in question would allow

businesses to invest, expand and or adapt or the policy is simply not engaged and

then it's neutral in the overall planning balance. In any event the policy

would not adversely affect the ability of businesses to invest, expand and or

adapt. Next the assessment of the schemes alleged planning harms that's provided

by Mr Weir in his proof is vitiated by significant double counting as Mr Cheema

identifies in his rebuttal. Mr Weir conceded that there was overlap between

loss of creative, cultural, affordable employment space and inadequate

re -provision of employment space, he also conceded that the scheme wouldn't result

in both the loss of live -work units and a loss of employment space. He confirmed

that it would be one or the other. Finally, Mr. Weir conceded that the

scheme's alleged failure to provide significant additional public benefit, if

found to be made out, would not actually be an adverse effect or planning harm

but rather a failure to meet a particular policy threshold.

Drawing all of the above strands together, the position is as follows.

On the Appellants case, the only planning harm that would result from the scheme is the loss of Vittoria Wharf Studios as a cultural and events space.

That harm attracts at most moderate weight in the overall planning balance if there is found to be conflict with NPPF Policy HC 61 and minor weight if there is no such conflict.

It's common ground that the loss of the Victoria Wharf studios alone does not suffice

to justify refusing planning permission for the scheme.

In the appellant's submission, the conclusion is obviously the same, even if 338 .5 square

metres of the floor space within two more years is also found to be cultural or event

space as the council contends.

In other words, even if both Victoria Wharf studios and 338 .5 square metres of two more

years is found to be cultural or event space, the loss of that space alone does

not outweigh the scheme's benefits. If the council's case on design, townscape

and heritage matters is not upheld, then the appeal should also be allowed. If the

appellant's case on design, townscape and heritage is accepted in accordance with

the views of the QRP, then even accepting the council's case on all other points,

The overall planning balance is that for benefits there's substantial weight to optimization,

significant weight to housing provision,

substantial weight to affordable workspace provision, substantial weight to schemes design,

substantial weight to the schemes heritage benefits, substantial weight to the schemes carbon credentials and moderate weight to job creation and local spend.

And so I make clear that that paragraph is referring to the weightings that Mr. Weir and I agreed in his course examination.

Then turning to harms and again this is on the council's figures and analysis. There

would be the loss of 1786 .2 square metres of employment floor space and 491 .2 square

metres of cultural and events floor space plus 83 .3 square metres of river terraces

and there would be inadequate provision of communal amenity space. Even if substantial

weight were to be given to each of the harms that I've just identified, those harms would

come nowhere close to outweighing the scheme's benefits and as I've said that is on the council's

own weighting of the benefits. Still less would the harms substantially outweigh the

scheme's benefits.

Moreover, if the Appellant's case on design, townscape and heritage is accepted, and the

dominantly live work as the appellant contends, the council accepts that the loss of employment

floor space reduces, on its case, to 428 .3 square metres. In that scenario, any suggestion

that the scheme's harms substantially outweigh its benefits on the council's own case becomes

even less realistic. And I note that by Rev. 92, that the benefits section of the council's

closing submissions doesn't fully reflect Mr. Weir's oral evidence on the range of benefits

that would result from the scheme and the weight to be given to each of those in the

overall planning balance. Finally, the scheme doesn't fail to comply with one of the national

decision -making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in

specific circumstances. The only such policy identified by the Council was DP33 of the

MPPF with which the scheme complies, as I've explained.

Overall, therefore, at the end of this inquiry, the position remains as at the start. The

The scheme complies with the development plan overall, and even if the contrary conclusion were to be reached,

planning permission would still fall to be granted under section 38 .6 of the 2004 Act,

because material considerations indicate otherwise.

The new MPPF is now a material consideration of critical importance, and under it,

the scheme benefits from a powerful presumption in favour of sustainable developments,

which requires planning permission to be granted unless adverse effects

substantially outweigh the benefits. The scheme's adverse effects don't outweigh

its benefits, in fact to the contrary the scheme's benefits substantially outweigh

its limited adverse effects. So we respectfully request that you allow this

appeal and that you grant planning permission for the scheme.

Okay, thank you.

So just a few reminders before we finish.

And so five o 'clock on the 15th was the conditions list.

And any supporting documents.

and 5 o 'clock on the 22nd was the section 106.

Together with the additional sporting information and inquiry documents list.

Just ensure that all inquiry documents that haven't been sent, if there are any, are sent to the case officer.

Any other points anyone wants to raise before we finish?

Okay then, thank you for your contributions over the last three weeks.

Webcast Finished - 5:49:39

The inquiry's adjourned.

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 - 08/09/26Tuesday, 8th September 2026 at 10:00am

Webcast Finished - 5:49:39

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 08/09/26
Tuesday, 8th September 2026 at 10:00am