Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 04/09/26 - Friday 4 September 2026, 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 04/09/26
Friday, 4th 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.

resumed. This is the sixth day of the inquiry. My name is Benjamin Webb. I've been appointed

by the Secretary of State to hold this inquiry into an appeal made by Victoria Wharf Limited,

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

of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to refuse planning permission for redevelopment

to provide business class EG3 use, the ground and part first floor residential

class C3 use, associated highway and landscaping works, Victoria Wharf, Stour Road,

Beechey Road, London E3 2NT. The usual reminders to switch devices to silent

and to exit through the door to my right in the event of a fire. Just before we

start and I just ask is there any progress on the things I reminded you of

yesterday

I'm not sure so who's who's the pencils live on the drafting and on the pontoon

point our view is that they would require planning permission so I don't

know if that I calls of the council's you but and yet we can I think once mr.

team has finished as evidence, we should be able to give you a note that sets out the

position of both parties.

I just cheque ahead of the session on the section 106. Is there any further drafting of that

that's going to be submitted.

It's on now. So as I understand the position is that there is a new agreed

schedule 12 to the 106 which has evolved significantly. So and I understand that

that draught is ready so hopefully that can be provided to you soon. There's going to

be an updated SIL compliance statement in the Council to deal with that point and any

other updates. I'm afraid I have to take instructions on whether there's any other updates to the

I would have thought that as the principal on schedule 12.

So the agreed wording of schedule 12 I think went to your case officer on Wednesday morning,

so hopefully that's on its way to you.

Yeah, I do have a document that says draught on it.

I'm just wondering whether a further finalised complete version of the section 106 was going to come my way.

I'll take instructions on that now sir and let you know.

You can let me know later, you don't need to let me know this minute.

But so we can just push on.

As I said yesterday, we can sit for a little bit longer, but I don't want this to finish

any later than half past two today.

So if we have a lunch break, it'll be a shorter one.

Just before we start with the cross -examination, it's just a point I want to just clarify.

towards the end of the evidence in chief yesterday you were taken to your

taken to the the first head ended statement of common ground in paragraph

nine and the answer the areas that haven't been surveyed I just want to

I've got a correct note of what you said. I think you said that I've got a note

saying you said one of the spaces was a recording studio but you've did did you

say you'd counted these all these spaces as workspace?

In paragraph 9, the area that is the third one down, so B4, D4, F0, 02, that 78 .6 square

metres has all been counted as workspace.

And then...

Sorry, is that the one you said was a recording studio?

Yes. Yeah.

And then the other area of within those areas that is

workspace is the 45 square metres of the ground floor of

the gatehouse that I've counted as workspace.

So, yeah, I can quickly do the maths if that's helpful to give

the amount that's left over as uncervained areas that we've counted as live spaces, if that would be helpful.

You counted the rest as live spaces? Yes. Did you say something about you had a video call?

Yeah, so the justification for defining them as live spaces, I spoke to the site manager on a

video call and he was going into some of these spaces and showing me that they were the bedrooms,

but it didn't feel like it was the type of evidence I could put into my proof of evidence

because it just wasn't easy to find a format to do that.

Oh, sorry, apologies to make a correction there as well.

There is another space that wasn't surveyed, but was counted as workspace.

So it's the second one from the bottom there, B4U2F001.

So that's another area that wasn't surveyed, but we know it to be a workspace.

and that's one of the kitchen areas if you recall from our site visit when we walked around the

corridor and there were a few kitchen areas that we poked our head into that was one of those spaces

but it wasn't surveyed.

okay then mr. Fannigan if you'd like to start you were a cross -examination and

if I could ask if you find a convenient point around 11 o 'clock ish for a break

Good morning, Mr. Chiena. Can you take up first, please, CD8 .2, the decision notice

for planning application 11 -01 -888? It's two documents within 8 .2. It's the decision notice.

Yes.

And if you go to the second page of it

full planning permission location 7 Roach Road

So this a planning permission which relates to style space. Yes

We see the proposal the description of the proposal

Instal new windows in the canal side of our warehouse building creation of a shopfront behind the existing roller shutter on the street side

corner of Roach Road, Beechey Road, change the use of the building to accommodate a

D1 art gallery and ancillary A3 cafe. In terms of the description of the

development it describes the A3 cafe as an ancillary A3 cafe. It describes the

art gallery as a D1 art gallery. It does not describe the D1 art gallery as ancillary

does it? No, that's correct. And then if you continue on to the page, the third page, and

there's what's on the third page, it's the headings on the previous page, but it's the

reasons for grant, and there's a number of them, and you draw attention to these, and I think in

or one of the addendum statements of common ground. The first reason, number one, says the

proposed creation of a cultural hub including a range of studio spaces B1, ancillary cafe A3,

and ancillary event space are appropriate in this instance. And I think you draw attention to the

fact that the D1 in that first sentence of the reason says ancillary event space, whereas in

description of development the proposal the answer word ancillary does not is

not used in respect to the D one yes yes that's correct indeed so we have that

wording the can we agree this that the description of the proposal that's the

operative part of the Planning Commission yeah I got it up not except

we might use the reasons to help construe the Planning Commission I'm not

I was going to say it's a relevant bit.

It's helpful to agree with, thank you.

And in terms of what was proposed,

if we're looking at the reason, obviously the reason

refers to a cultural hub there.

We can see in the first line.

Yes, that's correct.

And also, I think, probably relevant to look

at one of the conditions that's been referred to already,

I think it's the fourth page, condition number four.

The art gallery and ancillary cafe use here by permitted

shall not operate the hours of 8 AM to 11 PM Monday to Sunday.

And in terms of the wording there, art and cafe

use described as ancillary, art gallery not described

as ancillary.

Yes, that's correct.

And insofar as the condition is an operative part

of the Planning Commission, that's

consistent with the description of the proposal,

potentially some inconsistency with the reason,

I think, you pointed out.

Yes, that's correct.

Good.

Fair to say as a whole, then, looking

at that Planning Commission, the Planning Commission

grants permission for a D1 use, which is not an ancillary use,

but which is a primary use as part of the mixed use.

Yes, I would say so.

although obviously, yeah, not the same in the fact

that there's also that inconsistency

in the fact that it refers to answer as well.

Thank you.

And in terms of what other help we might get,

if you then please go to the delegated report,

which is the other document in CD8 .2.

Yes, on there.

And if you can see what it is from the first page, December 2011.

And there's a section on land use, which is at page 5 of the PDF.

Go to that, please.

Yeah, I'm at page 5.

Thank you.

And the first four paragraphs provide us with some evidence.

They explain, just reading them briefly, that the building currently in use is artist studio

has estimated the property has been in use this way for one or two years.

Applicants provided details of the previous use, stating it was vacant 2005 -2009, prior

to this, mechanics garage 2003 -2005, and from 1998 -2002, building in use is a storage for

Gandy food and wines, which cover the Victoria Wolf site.

Site within AS -SIL where B2 and B8 encouraged.

Artist studios fall within B1 use

and no change of use needed between B2 and B1.

It's considered that the studio uses

in keeping with the requirements of SIL.

And the art galleries to be used to exhibit works

by the artists who rent the studios

and other local artists.

A cafe is also proposed which supplements

the art gallery use.

Existing floor area 781 of B1 space

Proposal sees an addition 48 metres squared due to the side extensions

Splitting floor place according to the submitted drawings would be as follows

269 of b12 3 4 of a 3 1 1 0 d 1

Clear that the land use there has been treated consistently with the proposal for a cultural hub in broad terms

Yes, broadly speaking.

Thank you.

And in terms of whether things are ancillary uses or not,

there's reference to, I suppose, in the third paragraph,

the cafes proposed to supplement the art gallery use, yes?

Yes.

It might be said to be ancillary, I suppose.

In terms of the art gallery,

no suggestion that the art gallery is considered to be ancillary.

It's considered to be a primary use or part of a mixed use, isn't it?

Yeah, not in that sentence it's proposed to be ancillary.

Yeah, and not in those four paragraphs as a whole really. There's no suggestion that what's being proposed is workspace with some ancillary art gallery.

What is being proposed is a mixed use of B1 and D1 and potentially A3 or ancillary A3.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

Thank you.

Good.

So that's where we were in 2011 and what permission has been granted for.

In terms of what's happened since then, you can put that aside and I think take up Mr

Weir's proof, if you will.

Yes, I've got that.

Thank you.

and

Mr.. Weir provides evidence on this if you go to page

62 please

Page 62

Eight point one one nine paragraph eight point one one nine

Mr.. Weir sets out the the terms of the premises licence that's been referred to

See we can see the hours there granted in July 2011 the hours extending

To the to the late night 1 2 a .m. And later yeah, yes

Then continuing on paragraph 8 .1 to 1 bottom of the page

What Mr. Weir says, and just to briefly read it,

he says, I've appended 76 pages, over 1 ,200 events,

of Facebook listings dated from 29th of September 2011

to 24th of November 2020, outlining

an array of cultural events taking place within Stough

space.

Range events include the exhibitions, markets, talks,

meetings, festivals, parties, music events, food, socials,

yoga, art clubs, life drawing, films, body pages, screenings,

and various late night events.

I've appended seven pages, 138 events of art exhibitions

for Stour Space from Art Rabbit, from 4 March 2010 to 24th November 2020, and then 16 pages,

70 events of electronic music event listings for Stour Space from Residence and Pfizer,

from October 2010 to October 2019, and so forth. And he makes clear that those are from those

specific websites, and he makes the point that there may have been more, and this was obviously

looking in 2026 trying to get evidence back to 2010. As I understand Mr. Shima, you and

your proof or rebuttal have not contradicted any of that evidence, correct?

No, I'm not contradicting.

I'm not grateful. That level of activity and those types of uses is clearly consistent

with Stour Space as it was then being a cultural hub as intended and not being a

predominant workspace isn't it? Yeah I can see the point you're making there

and I suppose what I would say to that and I may be jumping ahead to a

different matter here is that if that is to be the case and I've mentioned this

point in my rebuttal that if the inspector is to consider that that space

is more than ancillary, then I think it's only right

that if we are to consider that ground floor

area that is considered to contribute towards the event

space, then I think that floor area

should be discounted from the employment floor space

situation.

So my view on it as a whole, and you

may have been getting to this anyways,

that if I were to agree with your suggestion

here that the event space is more than an ancillary use,

then it can't at the same time serve that workspace function

and be factored into the calculations against policy B1.

Okay, I'll come to that point. Understood. Before we get to that point,

can we agree now, having looked at the evidence,

it is more than ancillary. There is a primary, as part of a mixed use,

event space function as well. Yes? Potentially, although I suppose if

we're connecting this to the permission as

what I would also say is the floor area cited in the permission only cite 110 square metres of that space as the

event space in the d1 use the rest of it was given over to a cafe use which I think is something slightly different so

Yeah in that sense it it may be considered of more primary use of that space

But then I think you have to factor in the fact that the permission that this

links back to only a lot a lot of 110 square metres of that space to be in event space.

Yes, I take that point. So question of

is it going beyond the permission? Well,

the evidence here is dealing with evidence from 2010 to 2020,

ten years.

If it does go beyond the permission,

there's ten years evidence of it doing so. Aye, it's lawful.

Yeah, I accept that.

Thank you.

Good, and if you, we continue on then

the, I'm so sorry, could I just have a minute? I feel like I'm interrupting all of you.

So sorry, Mr. Fannigan, Mr. Chino, thank you.

So, Mr. Chibok, when I was going to go next, I was continuing.

If you go, so that takes us to that 10 -year period I'm talking about, up to 2020.

If you go over the page to page 64, paragraph 8 .125.

Yes, on there.

If you pick it up five lines in, end of the fifth line, it says the Stour Space Instagram

page, if you've got that. Thank you. Stour Space Instagram page had 1 ,500 and so posts

up until they were apparently displaced from the building in spring 2021. I've appended

an Instagram post dated 12th February 2021 which explains how Stour Space will be closing its doors

for the final time on March 31st. So that's March 31st 2021, that's what we said. Okay, just

chronology right. And then the next paragraph, see if we can agree this. Mr. Withers, I understand

that two more years took over the space from 7 Roach Road from summer 2021. Their Instagram page,

page, post 924 posts at the time of writing dating back to a post on 19th of July 2021,

where two more years was listed as bar restaurant studios. And then there's evidence of July

onwards, I think, what's happened now. So we can see that Stour Space closed its doors

for the final time March 31st. You don't dispute that by 19th, 20th of July, two more years

was actively advertising and having events.

No, I don't dispute that.

Thank you.

So that's a, just

lest anything said about a break

in use, we've got

about three months or so there.

You don't say that would be a sufficient use to break a ten year period, do you?

Sorry, just so I'm understanding the question correctly, you mean the period from when

space left in March, two more years moved in.

No, I wouldn't consider that enough of a break to,

like break up a 10 year period.

Yeah, that's a good question.

Seshan, thank you.

I don't think you said that in your proof necessarily,

but I just wanted to double cheque that.

And I think then we cannot probably agree with this as well.

We do actually have the lease for,

A -lease for two more years. We'll just briefly look at it. Five documents CD 5 .28.

Sorry, I'll just pull that up, but give me a second, it just wasn't on the list.

Yes, no, it's an edition. CD 528.

Yeah, I've got that now. Good, thank you. And if you go to page 54.

Yes, I'm there. There's a lease dated 1st of May 2021 lease

relating to Unit 22, Victoria Wharf, 10 style rows between Palm Lane Estates and Full Circle

bar group and if you go to page 57 in the definitions there's a contractual

term definition third of the way down term of 27 months beginning on date of

this lease permitted use on the same page bottom page 57 cafe bar restaurant

art gallery shops, photo photographers offices. And then top of the next page, page 58, property

land at building at unit 22 shown registered on the attached plan and the plan is at page

And that's that's two more years, yeah, okay, okay, so this is first of May so

The

chronology is

Stout space shuts its doors final time March 31st a month later first of May 2 million have a lease. Yeah

Good. Okay, so

and then

In terms of what, two more years, you've obviously seen the evidence.

Back to Mr. Weir's proof 8126 and following.

I think Mr. Weir suggests that there is more of a night time focus, or more regular, I think he puts it, late night music event under two more years is tenure.

But broadly, what Two More Years are doing is consistent with Stour Space. It's a cultural hub.

Yes, broadly, I would agree with that. Although I do believe that the gallery function of Stour Space,

there were some changes to the plans that Two More Years enacted when they took over.

So I think some of the partitions came down, so it functioned less of that original gallery use

and maybe more of a cafe slash event space.

Understood, thank you.

Mr. Weir's proof 8 .129.

He records the GLA's created enterprise -owned letter, 22nd of May, 2026, which we've got

in full elsewhere, but just looking at what he records here. He says, GLA CZ team letter

is relevant where it states that two more years has operated since 2021 as a combined

workspace and cultural venue, providing artist studios, co -working cafe bar space and music

and events programming. This continues a continuous history of cultural use dating back to 2011

when Stour Space operated from the site. The loss would therefore remove 15 years of sustained

cultural and creative activity.

Mr Chimo, where we are today, having seen the evidence, you've written your proof of

you've had further evidence since, you've reflected on it. You'd agree that with

what the GLA say there, that there has been 15 years of sustained cultural and

creative activity and dyad as part of a mixed use as a primary use?

Yeah I mean I don't dispute that again, probably jumping ahead, but I would go

back to my point that if we are in that situation then we need to reconsider how

we've assessed the workspace if we are to accept that the ground floor or that

part of the ground floor is this cultural event space. Yeah I certainly

will get to the point, I'm not going to ignore it, but I just want to understand what we're

losing first or what is there, what's lawful before we get to how

that loss might be outweighed.

Final point on the evidence then.

I assume you've read or at least had a pretty good look

at the hundreds of third party representations on the appeal

in the application.

Yeah, that's correct.

When the appeal objections came in, I then categorised them

by theme.

So yeah, I've read all of them for the appeal.

Good.

It's fair to say that looking at those hundreds of representations as a whole for members

of the public, and many of whom are in the local area, they do not as a whole regard

two more years as having a, as you put it, predominant workspace function.

Well, no, but then I suppose for the general public who are using two more years, they're

necessarily using the ground floor and they're not necessarily aware of the other areas in

the building that are more workspace uses.

But yeah, I accept the overall point that that was the thrust of the third party representations.

Okay, understood.

Okay, then let's go to your proof, please.

Paragraph 8 .1.

On page 58.

Yes, please.

So cultural offer, it's this section.

And there's a subheading two more years,

and then we've got Paris 8 .3 to 8 .8, sorry.

And then on the next page you move on to tutorial studio.

So just dealing with two more years, and this is your proof of evidence. We've looked at

the evidence, we've looked at the GLA, talking about 15 years of sustained cultural creative

activity, seen the third -party reps. Despite that evidence of 15 years of sustained cultural

and creative activity, it's these short eight paragraphs that you devote to the loss of

that use in your proof of evidence?

That's correct. But I'd also just like to clarify the

chronology here. So part of what I'm doing here is responding to

Mr. Weir's statement of case and the way that he characterised

it. Well, the LPA statement of case, the way it was

characterised, paragraph 6 .4 was he took the phrasing from, you

know, we went to that reasons for grant section of the

permission at Style Space and he defined it as ancillary, cafe

in ancillary event use.

So the reason that that section is relatively short

is because I dealt with it in the way that it was defined

by Mr. Weir with respect to that permission,

in that those events uses were ancillary.

And so I've not given it much more consideration

in this section because I was responding to the premise

that this is an ancillary use and that the primary use is

the workspace.

The statement of case made clear that there

was a clear objection to the loss of two more

years as a cultural use.

I accept that, but I was picking up on the point

that the statement of case made that the uses were ancillary.

So I appreciate that the overall case was that there is a loss,

but I was taking that piece of information

that was provided to me and responding to that.

That's OK.

I'll take that and move on from that then and then take you to your rebuttal.

So you go to your rebuttal page 10.

Yes, I'm there.

And then we've got page 10, we've got heading cultural offer.

2 .41, you refer to Mr. Weir's evidence at 8114 to 8130. That's what the evidence we've

looked at, some of it. 2 .42, you say the remainder of this part of Mr. Weir's evidence provides

evidence that this ancillary use has been carried out at Stough space from the

years 2011 to 2021. Next paragraph you say 243 Mr. Weir's position appears to be

that this space is a sui generis use as an event space and workspace and

benefits from full protection under London Plan. So at this point you

certainly are aware that Mr. Weir is saying it's it's not ancillary it's a

mixed -use sui generis B1 D1 precisely how you characterise it.

That's not quite my understanding.

So I'm still basing this off the premise that Mr. Weir has set out in the statement

of the case that it's an ancillary use and he's just providing evidence to support

that that ancillary use has continued.

I don't think in Mr. Weir's proof of evidence he specifically dealt with the point of whether

it's more than ancillary, whether it's not ancillary, he's just reporting the use.

So I'm still relating back to the argument that I made in my proof that Mr. Weir has

based on it being an ancillary use in the statement of case

and that there's more evidence then being provided after that.

But you record that he says, you understand him, 243,

Mr. Wiart's position appears to be that this space is a sui

generous use as an events venue and workspace that

benefits from full protection under London Plan HD5 and HD6.

So you do understand him to be saying,

the events is not ancillary because it wouldn't

be sui generous.

It would be B1 with ancillary.

So, sui generis means something else is going on, two primary uses, more primary uses, however

you want to call it, characterise it.

So, you do understand that at least from 243 that he's saying there's at least two primary

uses here.

Yeah, that's correct.

I'm reporting his position.

And, I mean, Mr. Weir said in his proof, he considered it an important multi -purpose cultural

venue.

That is not describing workspace with an ancillary use, is it?

No, but that's my case.

Okay, so that's what you understand from Mr. Witt now.

Rebuttal stage 243.

Continuing on to what you say, a few more paragraphs.

You say, in my opinion, not possible the site can benefit from full protections as both events,

spending in workspace simultaneously. 245 is my opinion the primary use of

staff space and then two more years is as a workspace in the events that are

taking place in the building are ancillary to this primary use. As a

result it remains my opinion that two more years does not benefit from

protection of the policies H .E. 5 and H .E. 6. And then finally 247 you have your

paragraph at the point you've made I think already. If the inspector were to

disagree and find an awful use of tumour of yours is a primary as an events venue and

the workspace function is ancillary then I acknowledge there would be a loss of a cultural

venue that benefits from policy protection and you say it would be outweighed.

Okay so I want to deal with this point about what policy protects. So you say well it can't

protect two things I think, it's one or the other.

Yes, that's broadly my position.

So if you look at the

London plan,

please.

And if you go to

policy HC5,

which, I have it at 298,

Page 298.

Yes, on there.

Thank you.

H -E -5, supporting London's culture and creative industries.

A, the continued growth and evolution of London's diverse cultural

facilities and creative industries is supported.

Development plans and development proposals should one, protect existing cultural venues,

facilities and uses where appropriate and so forth. The London plan does not there or

anywhere else I can see, suggests that for a cultural venue to benefit from protection,

it needs to be the sole or primary use of the building.

No, it doesn't say that,

but equally doesn't sort of address a scenario

where that might occur.

So I think here we are in quite a unique situation

where you've got potentially two uses of the same space

and the protection that you would afford

to one of those uses,

the more protection you give to one,

the less you can give to the other

because you have to assess it's the same space.

It can't.

It's not two separate spaces.

So it's not the same as if you were

to have a separate space as a cultural venue

and a separate space as a employment space, each of which

might benefit from full protection.

But if it's the same space, then the protection

afforded to each of those spaces must be diluted.

Two points there to do with.

First point, just to cheque we agree,

policy does not specify that the cultural venue has to be the sole use to

benefit from protection. Agree? Yeah I agree. You talk about, you suggested just

now what we're dealing with here might be your words a unique position. There's

nothing... Maybe unique is a bit of an overstate, maybe rare is a better way of categorising it.

Okay, rare.

There is nothing rare about a cultural venue

operating alongside in the same space as another use

such as co -working spaces there.

I don't necessarily accept that.

Maybe I could downgrade that to unusual,

but I think there's, yeah, I wouldn't describe

what is there at the moment as a,

yeah, as a particularly common use, I would say.

Comes to that to that.

Continue on in the London plan, HC6, the next policy.

And in HC6, starts on 303, if you look at Part B, in development plans, town centre

strategies and planning decisions, boroughs should, and then sub -paragraph 6 near the bottom

of the page, protect and support evening and night time cultural venues such as pubs, nightclubs,

theatres, cinemas, music and other arts venues. So first point, can we agree that policy here

does not specify that the cultural venue has to be the sole use to benefit from policy protection?

Yeah, that's correct. Thank you

Policy is expressly dealing with here with evening and nighttime cultural venues

That in itself is premised on the fact that there might be something else going on in the day

In the same space

It doesn't specifically say that because I think a lot of those uses that

that wouldn't necessarily be another use in the day, so I don't think it specifically addresses the point in the way that you put it out to me.

Thank you.

Then put that to one side.

Can you take up CD 7 .26 which is the evening and nighttime entertainment SPD.

Yes, I have that.

Get that as well.

So this is the LLDC's Evening and Nighttime Economy, sorry, supplementary planning document,

July 2021, we'll see from the first page.

And if you go to page 14, please, yes, I'm there.

And in the second column on page 14, the first paragraph, across Hackney, Wick and Fish Island

are numerous examples of industrial units being repurposed for creative and cultural

uses which include nighttime activities, mixed garage, queen's yard, stow space, grey bar

and restaurant, vibes photography.

And the yard theatre are good examples of how small industrial spaces have been repurposed

to accommodate nighttime activities.

So obviously, specific recognition of Stour Space

just factually there.

Yeah?

Yes.

And...

The SPD here is picking out Stour Space's contribution

to the evening and nighttime economy.

It would be consistent with that if that contribution

got some policy protection into it. Yeah, and I think that's reflected in the policies.

You might be leading to this anyway, but I don't see anything in here in this text talking about

simultaneous uses. I mean, it talks about it being repurposed, so sort of moving away from what might

be an industrial use that might provide some employment value to a nighttime use. So I might

answering a slightly different question there to what you asked but I just wanted to point that out.

Yeah come to that. Then page 41 please.

Yes I'm there. Thank you so page 41 specifically dealing with Hackney Wick and Fish Island.

I just want to pick up some references.

So page 41, second paragraph states,

although the Hackney Wick neighbourhood centre

provides a concentration of nighttime economy uses

operating largely within food and drink uses,

nighttime economy uses are also dispersed

across the wider Hackney Wick and Fish Island area,

which as a whole is a home to one of the largest

concentrations of creative activity within London

and comprises a mix of historical industrial buildings

and new developments.

Currently, there is a unique cluster of cultural venues, including theatres and community projects,

nightclubs, music venues, late -night bars, art galleries, affordable workspaces, as well as

breweries. Many of these large former industrial spaces have been converted into smaller artist

workspaces and makerspace. It's fair to say, given what we looked at on page 14, that the SBD is

considering our site as part of that unique cluster of cultural venues?

Yes, I would say so.

And again, I might be jumping ahead here,

but I think the point that you may be coming on to

is about the fact that it refers to work space as well.

And I would say that the space is consistent with that description.

But insofar as the upper floors of the building are in work space use,

and if we are to say that the ground floor is in this cultural use,

it's not primarily serving as workspace in that scenario, the ground floor specifically.

Couple more references. Next column.

First paragraph says artist studios also contribute to the area's nighttime

economy within and outside of the designated centre, typically offering 24

access and spaces for small -scale nighttime arts and events programming, including open

studios, showcases, and performance. This shows the importance of leisure and employment

to nighttime economy uses within the area. That is contemplating dual use, artist studios

in a productive capacity in the daytime and then operating alongside events programming

the evening, isn't it?

I don't think it's necessarily saying that because if we return to the

the Stour Space or cast our minds back to the Stour Space Commission in 2011,

the use was sort of permitted as D1 and it had this

gallery characterization and that was the the event space. So I think you could

also categorise this as being part of that sort of D1 category that it's all one and

the same, that the artist studio is that cultural event space and there's not a distinct workspace

function.

Look at the box at the end of the first column. It is important to the identity of Hackney,

Wick and Fish Island that the current vibrancy of the area remains. This will

mean preserving existing nighttime economy uses alongside enhancing and

diversifying the offer of uses over 24 hours of the day. Mr. Cheeman, this is

expressly saying you get dual uses. You get things in the daytime, you get things

in the evening and together they lead to vibrancy and contribution, isn't it?

Yes, but then I think we should turn to what the use in the day is then if we're operating

under this scenario.

Because I think in that space that Mr. Weir's marked out, he's 335 square metres, the space

that's characterised as workspace there, to me, I don't think you can...

If it's being used as part of the cafe or bar function in the day of two more years,

I don't think you can categorise that as specifically workspace in the same way that,

I think Ms Sargent put it to Mr Weir yesterday, that going to a cafe or to a bar and setting up

with your laptop and doing work, that doesn't make the space a workspace. So if we are in this

scenario, we're accepting that in this ground floor area, it's more of a cultural use, it's

more of a bar use, then I think necessarily you have to accept that that is no longer,

it can no longer be considered workspace down there because in the same way, yeah,

as I've just mentioned with those examples, that it doesn't make it workspace just because you can go and sit in there and work.

It's flexible space, isn't it? Yeah?

Yeah, it's flexible, but I wouldn't describe it as being specifically workspace that benefits from the full protection of policy B1, for example.

The

The dual uses are obviously compatible aren't they? Workspace and events at Stour Space

and now two more years? Yeah I think that's evident from the fact that they coexist. I

mean on the upper floors what I'm categorising is workspace and the fact that on the ground

floor you could come in and do some work so yeah I don't think there's an inherent incompatibility.

Indeed and you don't dispute Mr Weir's broad characterisation of the events being more

dominant in the evening and weekends,

workspace is more dominant on the ground floor

in the weekdays, but with some potential for art galleries

not going to disturb the people working on their laptops.

So there is some compatible dual simultaneous use as well.

Yeah, potentially, but then again,

and I'm maybe going over old ground here,

that it's not specifically workspace

that benefits from protection,

even though that is the time of day

where you might go and do some work.

So, I mean, the broad categorization of you might do some work there in the daytime,

and then in the evenings and weekends, it might be more of an event space.

I don't dispute, but just specifically what benefits from policy protection,

I think there's a difference in opinion there.

Yeah, okay.

So come to now, policy protection then.

So you say it can't benefit from both simultaneously, yeah?

Not in the way that it's been categorised and not as a full policy protection.

I just want to consider that argument then. I think you expressly accept now

Victoria War Studios gets full policy protection under H .E .5 and H .E .6?

Yes, I accept that.

That's 153 square metres?

Yes, that's correct.

Two more years, the event space up to 338 square metres, as Mr. Weir says, over twice

the size of Victoria Wharf Studios.

And obviously, I'm just going to put it to you, a more prominent and iconic venue than

Victoria Wharf Studios.

But on your evidence, despite all that, double the size, more important, more iconic, it

can't get policy protection.

That's on the premise that that space

is primarily a workspace, so it's being afforded

policy protection as a workspace,

but if we're in the scenario that you're talking about

where it's a cultural venue, then yes,

I think I accepted it in my rebuttal,

but it would, we went to that paragraph earlier,

that it would have policy protection

if the inspector decides that it's more than an ancillary

use, but then alongside that, I think you can't

disentangle that from the fact that it wouldn't then benefit from protection under policy

B1 as Workplace.

So the effect is, despite the fact that it is two things are happening, it loses all

its policy protection under B1, in your case?

Yes, I would say so. And the other point, I just think it's probably worth raising now,

if we turn to the second addendum statement of Common Ground, I believe. Or it might be

Sorry, no, the second one, we need to set out our case for lawful use.

Oh, no, sorry, it's the first.

So, under Mr Weir's evidence, he's defined both the current and the lawful use as sugenerous.

So there's nothing in policy B1 that specifically protects

so generous uses, it's all in terms of B class uses.

So no, I wouldn't say it benefits from policy protection.

I mean, I've assessed it against B1 in any case,

but reading the policy to the letter, it's so generous use

and it doesn't have that protection.

Yeah, come to that point.

Just dealing with on your alternative scenario,

if I call it that, where you say, okay, well,

If the inspector accepts it's an events venue,

benefited from H2 -5 and H2 -6 protection,

the effect of that, as you put it in your proof,

is it then loses its policy protection under B1.

Despite the fact that it is, on your own evidence,

that there's coworking going on,

significant amount of coworking going on,

it is operating as workspace.

It can't be right, can it?

Well, I think we need to disentangle the spaces there,

I think when I wrote the rebuttal it was on the assumption that Mr. Weir's claim was that the entire building should be treated as

cultural space and that has moved on a little bit via this signed

first addendum statement of common ground where

he's categorised the upper floors in that use so they I accept would still have that policy protection

but now we're just talking about the ground floor here and

so yeah, I mean but on the same reasoning that I gave before if that then becomes this

and it's a generous community cultural space,

then it doesn't benefit from protection from B1.

Yes, so just dealing with ground floors,

it doesn't benefit from protection from B1,

despite the fact that there is coworking space

operating alongside the cultural events space.

Well, I wouldn't really categorise it in that way

because I don't categorise it as a coworking space

in the way that you might for a rework, for example,

where you go in and it's a defined office space.

I would categorise it more in a similar way to any cafe

or if you were to go into a pub or a bar

and sit down and do some work.

I don't think you can then define it as co -working space

that benefits from a planning protection.

No, but, hang on, Mr Cheamer.

Your primary case is that the ground floor does get protection.

Dealing with your 244 to 247, you say,

first position it gets protection the ground floor under B1, policy B .1?

Yes.

So dealing with on that premise, then the effect of recognising as a cultural events

venue is it loses that protection, that's your case, just instantaneously?

Yes, because in that scenario you're treating it as an ancillary use, you're treating it as

more of a cafe slash bar and that that space is the ancillary use where people may do work but

it's not in itself a workspace and again the point that overrides all of this which I've

touched on before is that it's a sugenerous use so I've treated it as a B1 use on my evidence because

it serves that function but it's a sugenerous use it doesn't benefit from protection so I

think it's important to keep that in mind as part of this discussion.

It's divorced from reality, isn't it, to say that as soon as you recognise it's an event space, it loses its protection under B1?

Or put it more simply, policy should relate to what is actually happening. Two things are happening, two things should get protection.

Well, I think that's quite a general point and I would point to a sort of counter -scenario in that this is a sort of separate point that I'm sure we'll come on to,

that Mr. Weir's case in relation to the other buildings are that we should

afford policy protection based on the lawful use that as far as I'm concerned

hasn't occurred on site since 2009. So policy doesn't always protect what's

actually happening at that precise moment it's based on what the lawful use

is considered. So the fact that I can go in and do some work doesn't mean that it

gets protection as a workspace.

It's not always the case that just because something

is happening on a site, then it automatically

benefits from policy protection.

OK.

Move on to the next point.

Looked at your proof.

Looked at your rebuttal on the cultural offer section.

And we see that that ends at paragraph 2 .47.

and then you go on to significant additional public benefit.

Back in your proof, sorry, page 10.

Back in your rebuttal, sorry, page 10.

Yeah, on there.

It's right, isn't it, that there is no detailed assessment

in your proof or rebuttal of the community

and cultural role of two more years,

the type of events, the frequency, the duration, the function, attendance is there?

No because yeah like I said before I assessed it previously on the on the

basis of being fully employment space. Nonetheless we've got your 2 .47. You say

if the inspector were to agree and find the lawful use of two more years is

primarily as an events venue and that the workspace function is ancillary, then I acknowledge

there would be a loss of cultural venue, a cultural venue that benefits from policy protection.

Nevertheless, my position is that this loss would be outweighed by the 560 square metres

increase in the net employment floor space in this scenario. That is, that assertion

that the loss would be outweighed by the increase in employment law space is a

bare assertion unsupported by any detailed assessment in your proof of two

more years community and cultural role isn't it? Yeah well I would say the way

I've come to that conclusion is that in the development plan each use has

protection and I think there's a broadly similar weight that you should afford to those uses.

So if you lose a certain amount of floor space of one and gain a certain amount of floor space of the

other, then I think broadly speaking that is a net neutral and perhaps my phrasing here is maybe I

should have said neutralised rather than outweighed because I'm not asserting here that the employment

floor space is a greater value than the cultural floor space. I'm just saying that it's neutral,

that if you lose one thing in the development plan that benefits from policy protection,

but gain more of something else that benefits from policy protection,

then it's a broadly neutral situation.

You can't make a judgement on whether the loss of something is outweighing without evaluating

the contribution that that existing user is making, can you? Properly evaluating it.

I think you can make some judgement but I acknowledge that yeah I could have gone into more detail

on that point that I was yeah I was kind of making a broader point.

Okay thank you. Then if you go please to the addendum the first addendum statement of common

ground please.

Yes, on there.

And within that, if you go to, please, page 13.

And on page 13 of the addendum, statement of common ground, I think what has been done

is on the left -hand side we have policies from the previous MPPF and on the right -hand

policies from you, MPPF, and they've been put next

to each other so we can see the evolution or change

or lack of it or whatever.

Page 13, subheading cultural community facilities.

And on the left -hand side we can see previously

we had paragraph 98 of the old MPPF that's been set out.

Yes, hopefully here.

And paragraph 98 said, don't read it all,

but said to provide the social recreation

and cultural facilities and services the community needs,

planning policies and decisions should.

And then we've got A, about planning positively,

B, about taking into account,

C, I just wanted to touch on.

C says, guard against the unnecessary loss

of valued facilities and services,

particularly where this would reduce

the community's ability to meet its day -to -day needs.

Yes, that's it, that's previous policy.

and I'm going to suggest that what that has been replaced with is HC6 on the

right -hand side, usefully set out, retention of key community facilities and

public service infrastructure. Yeah, I agree with that. That's helpful, thank you.

And just, we've got it here if you want to use the other MPPF obviously, but I'm

I'm just going to use the version here for convenience.

What it tells us is that development proposals should

not result in the loss of key community

facilities and public service infrastructure unless.

And then there's some sub -paragraphs.

Yeah, and I think it's important here to discuss

what those sub -paragraphs say.

So you might have been coming onto that anyway.

But the first one relates to marketing, which.

Don't judge.

I will come onto them.

I promise.

Can we just look at, I think it's probably helpful to see the definition of key community

facilities before we look at the sub -paragraphs, which as you say we ought to do.

So that's at the end of the second part of the policy, paragraph two.

This is on page 14 of the addendum statement from Graham.

The paragraph two of HC6 says, for the purpose of this policy, key community facilities and

public service infrastructure means established services that are used or

which have been used on a frequent basis in a local area such as local shops,

public houses, places of worship, local health facilities, community halls and

cultural venues. Now, Mr. Timmer, we can agree that Stour Space as it was two

more years as it now is, is an established service that is or has been

used on a frequent basis in a local area and it's not an exhaustive list but it is

a cultural venue. Yeah I accept that Victoria War Studio and two more years in

the scenario that we're calling it an event space would fall under this

definition. That's helpful thank you. Good and then back to the policy tells us to

do or not do. The sub -paragraph, the sub -paragraph A, the proposal should not result in the loss

of key community facilities unless A, it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable

prospect of the use being retained, either due to insufficient community support for the service

it provides or because it's no longer viable or feasible to operate. And then it's reference to

viability, marketing, et cetera.

It's not been advanced that that sub -paragraph applies

by the appellant, has it?

No, sub -paragraph A doesn't apply.

Sub -paragraph B,

the loss resulting from the proposed development

would be replaced by equivalent or better provision

in a location which offers comparable

or improved accessibility to the community it serves.

It's not been advanced that that sub -paragraph applies

to the development, has it?

No, although can I just briefly touch on a point in Mr. Weir's proof if we can on this

point.

I mean the answer to your question is no, we're not advancing that position.

But can I just take you to page paragraph 8 .205 I believe.

Oh no, sorry 8 .152.

I think this is relevant to the point as a whole.

Sorry, what is that? 8.

8 .152, I believe. Sorry, that's just me from memory.

Just loading from my side.

Sorry, what document is that in?

Mr. Witter's proof.

I probably would use my Adobe, it's just crashed.

I think I've got too many tabs open.

Just give me a moment.

So yeah, I've got that now if everyone else has.

8 .15 to Mr. Weisbruch.

And so here, Mr. Witt does consider the theoretical

reprovision of a community space, which

is relevant to the paragraph we're talking about.

But then the way he's categorised

it is that any reprovision of a community space

would have a knock -on effect on the employment space.

And therefore, in the proposed scenario,

we're being asked to assert that we can't double -count

these spaces, and that if you're providing a community space,

you're therefore not providing an employment space.

So I think this is relevant to the point I raised earlier

in the fact that we're being asked to double count

the existing floor space, but we're not

afforded that same opportunity for the proposed floor space.

Not that we are proposing a community floor space,

but it's just interesting.

I think there's a contradiction there.

But in answer to your question, there's no repurposition.

Thank you.

That's all.

Good. Then C is the decision, sorry, back in H .E .6,

the decision maker is satisfied that there is sufficient alternative provision

of the type of use concerned in the local area,

such that its loss would not diminish access to key community facilities

and public service infrastructure.

That criterion has not been advanced by the appellant either, has it?

Not to this date, because the MPPF was published after I wrote both my proof

my rebuttal but I do think it's relevant here because I think we've heard from Mrs Park and

from Mr Weir about the prevalence of other cultural venues in the area and that Hackney Wick is a bit

of a cluster and Fish Island the same so whilst I accept that there would be a loss I do feel like

this paragraph is engaged because I do think there is suitable alternative provision for this type of

use. I mean just next door there's Levels which is a similar type of evening night time venue and I

I mean, we've heard at length about all the other similar venues in the area,

so I do think that this sub -paragraph is engaged.

Okay, so you are now saying, for the first time, it is engaged, I understand.

Is that your evidence?

Yes, but I mean, I didn't have the opportunity to say it before

because it's post -dated by written evidence.

Okay, you didn't say it in chief, but just to be clear, you are now saying it.

Yes.

Clear what your evidence is.

Yeah.

Levels is not a cultural hub like Timor -Yrzez, is it?

It's an evening venue. I haven't assessed it specifically, but I know that it offers

a similar use in that it's a night time venue. Levels is not a cultural hub like Two More

Years, is it? I can't make that assessment without having known more about levels. It

was just an example I gave off the top of my head that it's a similar -ish type of venue,

but I haven't made that assessment. Sorry, you've just told me that you were saying C

is engaged that requires an assessment of sufficient alternative provision.

Now Toby you haven't made that assessment are you saying C is engaged or not Mr.

Chemer? I haven't conducted that assessment but I do think it's relevant

for the inspector to be aware that he may be able to satisfy himself that there is

sufficient alternative provision. I want to know what your position is not what

the inspector may or may not be able to do. There will be one more opportunity. Are you

saying you've made an assessment which enables you to conclude there is

sufficient alternative provision of the type of use concerned in the local area?

I haven't made a detailed assessment but what I would say is that from the

evidence I've heard from Mr. Weir and Mrs. Pack is that there is alternative

provision and I believe it would be sufficient.

I believe it would be sufficient.

So levels, that's one, which you say you haven't conducted detailed assessment of.

Yeah, and the general character of the area that these venues that were cited in Mrs Paks's proof are alternative provision for this type of use.

So which ones do you rely on other than levels?

Let me find this is packed proof.

So there's a list of venues that Mrs. Pack provides at paragraph 5 .13 of her proof.

So as I understand it, these are similar cultural venues that Mrs. Pack has identified in the

local area.

So yeah, you're right to say that I haven't done a full assessment against part C of this

NCDF policy, but this is something that I would consider relevant.

So those are the ones, okay. So the Yard Theatre, Colour Factory, Crepe Brewery, Grow Hackney,

Number 90, all my friends in the bathhouse. So what do you ask the inspector to do? To

haven't done the detailed assessment. How should we approach this Mr. Chuma?

Yeah I mean I accept that he may not have the evidence in front of him to

conduct that assessment but yeah. For instance, colour faction in Crete

brewery, do you know where they are? I believe they're in Hackney Wick or Fish

Island but I don't know specifically. You don't know? But from Mrs. Pack's evidence it seems to be

indicating that they're in the local area. Right, but you don't know where

specifically they are? No. So you'll be unaware that they lie to the north of

the Hartford Union Canal and not on Fish Island? No, but I mean from, they're still

in Hackney Wick presumably. The question was about Fish Island, they're not on Fish

Island are they? No. Well I'm not aware, but if that's what you're telling me then yes.

Levels is on Fish Island, that's not one of the ones she lists is it?

No, and it was just an example I gave off the top of my head to be quite honest, but

it's something that I anecdotally considered to be a similar venue.

If cultural venues are to be lost on the basis that there is sufficient alternative provision,

it is important that there is a rigorous and detailed assessment of that sufficient alternative

provision, isn't it Mr Schuyler?

Yes, unfortunately I didn't have the benefit of the time to conduct such an assessment

because the MPPF that includes this requirement, which I don't believe there is an equivalent

requirement in the old MPPF. So it wasn't possible for me to conduct such an assessment.

I wanted to bring it to the Inspector's attention, but if he feels that he doesn't have enough

evidence to conduct that assessment, then that's where we are with it. But maybe the

timing is the issue here.

Good, thank you.

You didn't feel it appropriate to do an assessment based on the draught MPPF, which has been around

since early this year?

No, because I mean, I didn't have the certainty that this policy would carry over and that

it would be adopted or the timeframe for when it would be adopted, it could have happened

after the inquiry had closed and yeah I mean also at the time well up until the

proof I hadn't considered that there were community facilities on site but

yeah for those reasons no I didn't. And the outcome of that is we just don't have an

assessment? No we don't have an assessment but I wanted to bring it to the effective

attention. Thank you. You say that there was no certainly direct equivalent of

HC6 in the previous MPPF.

I think that's right.

Specifically paragraph C. It's a paragraph C,

not the policy as a whole.

Yeah, OK.

Now, there was no direct equivalent of HC6,

the paragraph as a whole in the previous MPPF,

I'm going to suggest to you.

Because, well, we've looked at paragraph 98.

See what that says.

Yeah, sorry.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

So were we not saying earlier that paragraph 8 is broadly

equivalent to?

but HC6, and it's, well, not broadly equivalent,

but it is the relevant previous policy.

It is certainly the relevant previous policy.

Can you put it a different way, then?

HC6 is plainly a strengthening of policy on cultural venues,

isn't it, compared to paragraph 98?

Yeah, I would accept that.

It seems to provide more explicit protection

Thank you.

Okay, and then just dealing with, as we are now, beside the old policy,

HE6 says development proposals should not result in the loss of key community facilities unless.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you this, that I'm going to suggest that policy can provide different levels of protection.

You could say something like, which we've seen already in the inquiry, give consideration

to retention.

It can use, my second example is previous paragraph 98C, guard against the unnecessary

loss of valued facilities and services, so more qualified language.

Or it can do something like HD6 paragraph 1 is doing, development proposal should not

result in the loss unless.

What we have now is, your words, more explicit, stronger,

and starker protection.

I didn't use those words specifically, but I said, yeah.

And you may be coming onto this, but I would also

like to flag here that the MPPF is quite explicit

in certain policies where it says planning permission should

be refused if and there's a few policies where that comes up.

So if we're talking about the hierarchy of how strong

a policy protection is, it's short of that, clearly.

OK, so yeah, that I'm coming out of that.

So if we go to S4 in the NPPA.

Yeah, I'm there.

and S4, paragraph 2, which says, in applying policy S4,

the circumstances in which the benefits of approving

development are likely to be substantially outweighed

by adverse effects include, but are not

restricted to, situations where the development proposal would.

And then we've got A, B, and C. And C,

it's relevant to the point you just made,

failed to comply with one of the national decision -making

policies which state that development proposals should be

refused in specific circumstances.

And as you say, that specific language of refused

does appear in certain policies.

BP3 is one we looked at in the inquiry, and there are other ones.

Firstly, we can obviously agree that S4 paragraph 2 A to C is a non -exhaustive list because

it tells us that.

Yeah, I agree.

And therefore, it provides us with three cases where it's likely there may be others.

What we have in HC6, in your words, more explicit policy protection.

I'm going to suggest a strong level of protection.

It does not say refused, but given

the strength of that language, how explicit it is, as you say,

clearly capable of coming within S4 paragraph 2 breach of HC6.

On its own, I don't believe so, because I

think the policy is quite explicit in cross -referring

to other policies in the framework where development should be refused under certain circumstances.

So if national government in writing the MPPF had wanted to include HC6 as one of these

policies that would outweigh the tilted balance, then they could quite easily put the language

in to say development that results in the loss of key community facilities should be

refused. That was entirely within their gift.

Plainly possible, Mr Cheema, that breach of HC6 could result in the benefits being substantially

outweighed by the adverse effects?

I don't agree with that on its own. You might potentially make an argument if there were

other factors causing substantial harm, but not on its own, on my reading of this.

No, leave aside the examples in S42 paragraph A,

just as a matter of principle, Mr. Chemer,

it is plainly possible as a matter of principle

that breach of policy HC6 and the loss resulting

that causes that breach is capable in principle

of meaning that the benefits are substantially

outweighed by adverse effects.

There may be some circumstances where it's capable.

But again, I just in this case and given the language of part C and the language of policy H C 6

I I don't think that's engaged in this case

Thank you

And given that we know s4 paragraph 2 that the list is non exhaustive

In considering which other circumstances might in in principle get us within

can get us over that tilted balance.

Policy which is in strong word shutters should not result

is capable of being the sort of policy that might get us

over that threshold.

Potentially, yeah.

And it's a matter of judgement.

But I think it's, as I said before,

it's far less clear cut than if they'd said it should be

refused.

Thank you.

Leave it there.

Vittoria Wharf studio then turning to that, do this one more briefly given what we've covered already

What's agreed?

So no dispute Vittoria Wharf studios

Is a multifunctional event space it's lawful and benefits from

Hc5 and Hc6 policy protection

In terms of

what goes on

You've given a list of uses no dispute. It's being used on a daily basis

No, I mean that list I got from mr. Fletcher who we um read his start deck the other day. Um, and yeah, it was

Roughly one event per day in one of those per day

You note in your

evidence that

the square foot square meterage one five three you say it

About or just under 5 % of the whole site

You just a cheque you don't miss the way given evidence about the capacity been being up to 200 people roughly don't dispute that I

Have no reason to dispute that it's not something I've looked into

Bringing us up to date on it

There were loss of it is also conflict with

NPPF policy HC6, isn't it?

Yes.

You don't say that any of the three exception categories, A, B or C,

are satisfied for Victoria Wolf Studio?

No, but with the caveat that the same caveat I provided for two more years

that I can conduct an assessment against C, but it's, yeah,

one to bear in mind, but no.

Where you end up on this is that you attribute minor harm to the loss of Vittoria Wolf Studio.

Yes, that's correct.

Mr Cheema, attributing minor harm to the loss of 153 square metres of event space is not

consistent with the strength of policy protection that HC6 gives to such cultural venues, is

it?

I didn't conduct my assessment with the benefit of the MPPF because obviously that came after.

Do it now then.

If you haven't done it yet, I think it's important that it's done.

I'll give you the opportunity to do so.

The point is that HE6 applies a strong level of protection I'm going to say to such venues.

This is 153 square metres, 5%, 200 people or so.

Giving that minor harm, weighting that as minor harm, is not consistent with the strength

of protection that the MPPF gives to such cultural venues as it needs a greater weighting.

I would potentially accept that there's maybe a moderate level of harm in light of the new

MPPF.

I mean again the mitigating factors that I cited in my proof are still relevant and I

think here it might be important to turn to the way Mr Weir has dealt with benefits and

well weighing the harm in the, let me just scroll down to it, I think it's par of 8 .200

200 roughly is where he deals with it in his proof.

Sorry again my adobe has crashed I'm just going to need a second to get it back up.

Sorry, yeah I found it, so it's paragraph 8 .212 on page 95 of Mr. Way's proof.

So yeah, I mean here he's assigned harm to the loss of two more years and to the loss

to Vittoria Wharf studio, he's assigned a lesser degree of harm to Vittoria Wharf studio.

So I think in the hierarchy that we're kind of all using here, we're saying substantial,

significant below that, moderate below that and minor below that.

So here, I mean, I don't accept that it's significant weight, but we can see that Mr.

Weir has clearly assigned a lesser degree of harm to Vittoria Wharf studio, presumably because of,

Well, I don't know his reasoning for that, but my presumption was that it was on the

basis that the floor space is smaller, so that's my mitigating reason.

Yeah, understood.

So that's a convenient moment for a break, if convenient to you.

That's a convenient moment for a break, if that's also convenient to you.

Okay then, we'll take a, we'll try and take a 10 minute break if possible, come back at

10 plus 11, until then the inquiry is adjourned.

Mr Cheema, moving on to employment now, can you take up the second addendum statement

of common ground, please?

Yes, I'll have that.

Paragraph 23 on page 7.

Yes, I've got that.

23 states,

the appellant's position is that the mezzanines in Hackney, Cutland, Block 4 do not require,

sorry, do not constitute development as defined by Section 55, 1990 Act,

and would therefore not require planning commission to be removed.

So is this right? You don't dispute the lawfulness of the mezzanines but you make a separate point that they could be removed without planning commission?

Yeah, that's correct. But it's sort of a separate point to the lawfulness one.

Thank you. So dealing with your point, if you take up the local plan policy B .1 please.

Yes, I've got B1.

Thank you.

Paragraph 5 of B .1 talks about, in its opening words, maintaining or re -providing existing

employment capacity goes into A and B yeah? Yes that's correct. B .1 or the local plan

generally does not say that Metzine should be excluded from any calculation of employment

floor space does it? No and I've not excluded them. The reason I added in that line is it

was a request from the inspector that they wanted our position on it. But our position

doesn't rely on the mezzanines being unlawful and having to be discounted from the floor space

figures in any way. All of my figures include the mezzanines anyway. Okay that's helpful.

You responded to the Inspector's question. I mean as a matter of generalality,

mezzanines are providing floor space. Local plan doesn't say they should be excluded. They should

Right, then turning to live -work.

Just understand the context for your evidence on this.

You take up first the CD3 .6, the LLDC handover note.

Please.

Yes, I've got the handover note.

And on page four, the section Affordable Housing By Ability, the first bullet point, says the

current offer is three LAR units which represent 4 % development and would comprise a total

of 78 units.

The applicant considers that the units should be valued as live work, however we have challenged

this as we understand the site to be B2B8 for the purposes of assessing the benchmark

land value.

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 should be challenged further. So that was the LLDC's position at the end of 2024,

and they handed over. Then if we go back to the second addendum statement of ground, please.

And in the second addendum statement of common ground, you go to paragraph 10 on page 4,

please.

Yes, that's good.

I'm there, sorry.

Thank you.

And there's a heading Hackney Cut Block 2,

Timberyard Gatehouse Block 3, Vittorial Studios Block 4,

Appellant Position.

Paragraph 10, the Appellant Position,

the Lawful Use of Hackney Cut Live Work.

And you continue.

And then Paragraph 10 to 17, Deal With This Issue.

As a matter of fact, that rationale for why live work

is lawful, in your view, you've now set out in the second

Edemann statement of Common Ground,

is not set out in the statement of case in the appellant, in your proof, in your rebuttal.

It appeared for the first time on the 2nd of September.

Yes, that's correct.

Despite the LLDC flagging it at the end of 2024, clearly.

Yeah, although on that point that handover note wasn't available to us.

The LLDC understood that you were gathering evidence?

That was before my time on the project.

To give full clarity, I took over in summer of 2024 from a former colleague, but at that

point because we knew that it was being passed over to Tower Hamlets, we took a pause.

I don't know as much about the LLDC days.

Understood.

Okay, well that's the background.

Dealing with your position now is set out there.

I think it's agreed, which is agreed.

There are at least 53 bedrooms on site.

Yeah, roughly, yeah, from my calculation.

Yeah, around 53.

Thank you.

And just for the reference, the reference is paragraph 11 of the first addendum statement of the common ground.

But thank you for that.

It's agreed.

So 53 bedrooms on site.

Paragraph 10 of the second addendum statement common ground, you rely on the statutory declaration

associated with units 20 and 21.

Yes.

So this is the Hackney Cut statutory declaration, if I call it that.

And if we have that at CD 5 .40, can you take that up again please?

CD5 .40.

Sorry, I'm back.

I just need a second to pull that up.

Yeah, tell me when you got it.

Thanks.

Okay, yeah, I've got that.

And page 47.

Yeah, I've got page 47.

And we looked at this, you recall.

So this is the Statuary Declaration.

And it states, I've lived and worked at Units 20 and 21, Vittoria Wharf.

And you explain, so you understand that's the entirety of Hackney Cut.

Yes, that's correct.

And Hackney Cut, in terms of square meterage,

it's agreed in the statements of common ground

as 565 square metres, or about?

I'll take your word for it without having pulled it up,

but yeah, that sounds about right.

Sounds about right.

Yeah, the reference, it's directly taken

from the first statement of Common Ground page 20 it's that table we've looked at

lots of times there's an extra 15 .2 square metres of work which I think is a

sort of shed attached to it I think you say yeah it's accessed via the unit

itself so I've included it as part of that unit although I do acknowledge that it can also be accessed from the ad.

I don't know, I don't know why that is.

So 565 or thereabouts square metres.

So obviously, matter of fact, about 6 ,000 square feet.

But there is one person given this statutory declaration.

So despite the scale of Hackney -Cutt,

550 square metres or so, you say it's

sufficient to have one person saying they live there

to establish lawful live -work for the entirety of it?

Yes, I think that's sufficient.

The way these units work as well is that you'll typically have one leaseholder,

a commercial leaseholder, in this case Mr Vignoli,

who will then take on the commercial lease.

I think you can see from the description of it and from the amount that it's relating to the entire unit,

and then from there they will sublet it to other tenants.

But I believe this is sufficient.

He doesn't explain where he's living within the property, does he?

He says, I've lived, I've occupied the property.

Yeah, no, he doesn't explain that.

And we now today know that there's 53 units on the site as a whole, 53 bedrooms, sorry, on the site as a whole.

Yes.

Many of those will be in Hackney Cut.

Yeah, I believe there's around 10 in Hackney Cut.

And he doesn't discuss any of those, anyone else, if they indeed existed when he was giving

his statutory declaration?

No, he doesn't get into that detail.

He doesn't get into that detail.

What do you say?

Has it been in one planning unit since 2009?

Hack your cut or multiple?

As far as I'm aware, it's been in one planning unit.

If it was subdivided and occupied by different people,

would it be one planning unit or more?

Well, the way that the unit works,

and I might be misunderstanding the question,

is that there's sort of two units side by side, 20 and 21,

but they're connected via the living space.

So if you're in the front door, you're in the whole unit.

And then there's multiple subdivided rooms

on top of that as well, around the mezzanines, for instance,

isn't there?

Yeah, well, I mean, yeah, there's bedrooms,

but they're all part of the same unit.

Good.

So that's one part of it.

So it doesn't have a, obviously, this saturation

doesn't have a plan attached, does it?

No. If it helps the inspector, the photos are helpful and they show clearly that it

relates to the dwellings that I've labelled as B2, D1 and D2 on the plans. I think this

is one of the units that we went into with the inspector. If the question that you're

to is about whether we can be sure that this relates to the Hackney -Kirk building. I think

the photos do that job but I acknowledge that there's no plan.

There's no plan which might, there's no obviously because we haven't got a plan which delineates

what areas are being used for live, what areas being used for work for instance?

No and that's why I've conducted that assessment via my proof.

Okay, so we've got the statutory declaration, we'll look to that at some length.

Then back to the Second Amendment statement of common ground.

Sorry, let me just find the reference.

So yeah, it's paragraph 22.

Yes, on that.

Paragraph 22 states, the LPA consider, this is for Mr. Weir, the LPA consider that the

mezzanine floor space within Hackney Cut is lawful as it was installed prior to the 7th

of August 2012 planning permission.

Reference PA12 -012 -012 -019.

for temporary change of use from B1, B2 to A3 for duration of the Olympic and Paralympic games.

Associated building works include new door beachy road, two new bifold doors, new canal side timber

terrace and temporary signage, duration two months, 20th July 2012, 20th September 2012.

This planning application was referenced in 3 .3 of the LPA statement of case. An existing floor

plan is provided in this application, Appendix 1 showing office workshop uses.

And that Mr. Weir has appended at Appendix 1, that plan.

I don't know if you have that to hand as well.

I don't have it to hand.

Do you mind just a second just to pull that up?

Yeah, thank you.

Sorry, this might take a while.

take me a second, I just need to take it from the online core documents.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah, I have that.

Greatful.

And we can see what it shows.

The title, bottom right, I'm calling it Existing First Floor Plan.

In above that, there's a plot data.

If you zoom in a bit of 10th of November 2010.

And the plan shows us the delineated areas and a number of what are called office slash

workshops.

Obviously no reference, no labelling in that plan which is indicative of live work is there?

No but I think here it's relevant to consider the context in which this plan would have

been produced.

So obviously Mr Vignoli's evidence explains, well his statutory declaration explains that there was

lived use on the site and you've really been aware that from Mr Weir's, well the statement of case,

the LPA's statement of case, that there was enforcement interest on the site. So I don't

know if this is, what is shown on this plan is necessarily indicative of what is on site because,

and this is pure speculation on my part,

that it may have been that there were live spaces in here,

but given that they were unlawful,

it was specified on this planner's office and workshop.

So at the time, they didn't have planning permission

for that live use, but the 10 -year period

has accrued since then.

In terms of what contemporaneous evidence we have,

Here we've got a planning permission from date right 2012, August 2012, the temporary

change of use from B1, B2 to A3.

No reference there to live work.

No, I accept that.

2012.

and we've got the plan which goes with that, 2010 and what that shows.

We've mentioned that.

Sorry, I'm going to put the question here.

I'll give you a chance in a moment.

And the third and final point of this is that we've got the author of that statutory declaration

saying he's lived and worked units 20 and 21 since 1st of October 2009.

So there is a conflict or inconsistency between a 2012 planning commission, which is from

B1 and B2 to A3. No mention of live -work and a plan which doesn't indicate live -work.

And there's that deck saying I've lived or worked there since 2009.

Yeah I acknowledge that but we also don't have the ground floor plan here so it could

well have been that Mr Vignoli was living at the ground floor. That's an alternative

scenario, in which case, although the planning permission defines it as B1, B2, he may have

been living on the ground floor and it was therefore a combined live -work use notwithstanding

these, yeah, given that it says office and workshop that could have been connected with

a live -work use, but I don't have the ground floor planned so I can't comment any further.

And the other statutory declaration if it come to that then it's it's back in CD 5 .40

And it's we've looked at it again, it's it's page 8 of CD 5 .40

Yes, I'm there and

It states I've lived and worked at unit 1a

K, the Tory war since first November 2011. And then there are some pictures provided.

And again, there's there's no plan delineating an area attached to this statue of declaration

as a matter of fact.

No, and if now's a good moment, I recall when we looked at this staff deck with Mr. Ware,

he couldn't be certain that it could match up to B4, D4. So if now's a good opportunity,

I can explain my reasoning for why I believe that is the same unit.

I'm going to ask you a question and it will be about this so you might,

if you stick to the questions and if you want to say something else then do so.

It would be perhaps right for the question first.

So you say B4D4.

Yes that's correct.

Some of the photos do seem to relate to other units but

the unit that I understand to be in the live -work use is B4D4.

Yeah okay so sticking with your point there,

if you take up your proof please and go to page 78 which is the which of the

B4D4, just in terms of the way you've done it, has more than one component part, but

digging with them all, B4D4 we can see obviously where it is in Vittoria Wharf, and it's sort

of centrally located in its, it's in a, that's the irregular shape comprising I think two

component parts at ground floor, B4D4.

Yeah, so that's the part in purple is the recording studio that we haven't been able to access.

But yeah, that is accessed via that unit.

And then if you look at the first floor plan, a couple of pages on.

Yes, I've got that.

We've got more B4D4 annotations and it's broken down into more component parts now, B4D4 I think.

And also it's right isn't it that B4D4 at first floor extends, has a different footprint and

in some places a larger footprint than d4 d4 d4 at ground floor. So could you point me to where

that is because I think it stretches across to where d4 d3 sort of cuts off. So look at first floor

B4, D4, F1, 0, 9, next to the stairs?

Oh yeah, that's correct. That's a...

Oh, yeah, I see what you mean.

That extends above, you know, ground floor B4, U3, so it's a different footprint to the ground floor.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

The short point, Mr. Cheema, is that how on earth are we supposed to correlate the boundaries

of Unit 1A as referred to in this statutory declaration with what you've called in its

different component parts and different component parts and multiple flaws, V4, D4 in your existing

plans just isn't the evidence to do it is there? Well I can match up the the

photos if that would be helpful now because there's some photos in the

stat deck that do correlate with the photos that I've got in my proof. So you say

it's the photos you can do it by the photos? Yeah yeah and I can show you the

photos now. I'm happy for you to invite the inspector to do that that's your

Okay, yeah, we'll show the photos that I would invite the inspector to compare.

So I've made a note of this during Mr. Weare's proof.

So, I mean, this is one example, but page 23 of Core Doctrine 5 .40.

So part of the stat deck.

Yeah.

So you can see that's a living area.

All right, just hang on.

Yeah, first.

What was the number? So call document 540 page 23.

And if you recall this was one of the units that we went into and I mean the sign on the

and then a corresponding photo can be found at page 393 of my proof of evidence.

So that's the same space you can tell from the decorations on the wall.

Okay.

Understood.

Okay, back to the second addendum statement

of common ground then.

So that was where we got to

paragraph,

look to paragraph 11, B4, D4.

then paragraph 12, second addendum, you're looking at B4D2.

Yes.

And you refer there to the Creative Wick, sorry, Creative Factories document.

And...

And we went to that document yesterday.

That is a snapshot from 2013, obviously, isn't it?

It is a snapshot but I think the way that the document explains it, it seems to show

that it's an established use for some time because I think when they, the document makes

reference to changes over time and the fact that the residents, I think I referred to

this in the second addendum to the Common Ground a bit further down in paragraph 14,

that there's been a progression of the space and that people have been living there and

settling in and decided that they want to limit the space for car parking to encourage

the use for varying use of range of activity.

So I think it's a little bit more than a snapshot.

It's a report of how the space has

been used in the preceding years to then.

And as we understand it, it's been used in the same way

since.

And to the extent that it's dealing with the period

up until then, that data that I talked about is 2013.

B4D2 and then you in fairness you last line of paragraph 12 you say

incidentally the document also says an image of B4D4. So that's B4D2

what you say here the evidence that you provide in paragraph 12 on it and then

paragraph 13 you accept the appellant does not have documentary evidence

relating to live -work in the remaining spaces in Victoria Wharf or the gatehouse, but understands

from anecdotal evidence that these spaces were in live -work use, including the Victoria

Wharf studio and the standalone Class EG3 spaces in Block 4, the Addendum Statement

of Common Ground. So, understood. That's for the—and obviously I've heard what you said

in chief in your video call, Mr Fletcher.

We want to deal with a reference to enforcement records,

I think, in your evidence.

I want to deal with that point if I can.

This is found in Mr Weir's appendices, or one place.

So Mr Weir's appendices, appendix 18,

which starts at page 112.

So yeah, just on this end, I can see that there is a title page for an appendix, but the version

I have doesn't include anything, it just skips straight on to appendix 19.

Yeah, no, it appears that to be the case. In fact, it says appendix 19 that I'm referring to,

which is starting with the building control record.

Sorry, yeah, building control.

So that's page 113.

And what follows from 113,

some documents of some vintage,

and the first one, so we're on page 114 now.

See what's recorded here.

We can see the location at the top of the page,

Vittoria works, Stour Road, then it says in manuscript units 1 to 14 only.

Yes, that's it. In terms of the date there's a top right corner 14th of October 2010

and there's some more details on there.

The description at the top of the page says commercial space converted into light industrial

units. Yes. It appears to be the nature of what's been considered and relevant I think

you or someone else points it out bottom right hand corner still on on page 1 1

so it's 1 1 5 internal pagination 1 1 4 PDF. Yeah. It says manuscript N B units

may be live slash work. 2010 and that comment made. If you then go over the page we get

a certificate. This is PDF page 115 certificate of regularisation, commercial space conversion

into light industrial units and then cause quite a lot of detail obviously

but if you go to internal page 118 so is this the page that starts with plot

number one and correct yeah and there should be a the page top of the page

should start plasterboard and insulate ceiling and then there's a paragraph

which reads agreed that the owners are to put a management plan into action to

ensure that the units are used for light industrial purposes only and that no

residential usage happens happened again

I'll put it to you, Mr Cheema, that the evidence cuts both ways.

There's clearly evidence of some live -work.

I'm not going to dispute that for a moment.

This evidence records that there may be some live -work,

but also records the council taking set steps to stop it.

Yeah, it does.

And I think that was, I acknowledge

that in the second statement, addendum common ground,

that there was enforcement activity, which

itself is evidence that it occurred.

because if it wasn't occurring then they wouldn't have been enforcing against it.

But yeah, I mean this reference in particular, I don't see the weight that I can place on it.

I see that the council wanted the delivery work used to stop, but I just don't think that did

occur and that's evident from the Creative Factories document.

Okay, I don't think there's much to be going for me. I'm disagreeing with you on it,

so we'll have to leave that to the inspector, but noted.

Good.

The next to the,

questions now are on the premise that the live -work,

as your case, is that it's lawful, as I understand.

So leave aside the dispute as to lawfulness for the moment,

your case now.

Dealing with the quantum and the split,

can you take up mr. wears rebuttal appendices

Yes, I'm there.

And page 12, which should be appendix 1A, you've got that.

And that's Mr. Whizz labelled Appellant 2nd of July 2026 Resurvey.

And just, I want to pick, what figure I want to pick out is three lines up from the bottom,

total commercial that row yes the GIA square metre age is 2149 yes and then

you've got the residential figure and then you go over to 2149 next page

appendix 1b palates 21st of July 20 26 recalculations yeah and then

Corresponding entry, total commercial, GIA, 1476 square metres.

Yeah, and I acknowledge the difference there, the detail associated with that is included in my rebuttal,

because the first figure that you took us to there, 2nd July, we essentially just took a blanket approach and said

all of the ground floor we're considering to be in work use

and all of the other floors, we're considering them to be in live use.

So it was by definition just a crude separation of the two.

And then the later survey is the basis for that is me going through each of the photos individually

and assigning a live or a work function.

Yes. I mean, just in terms of when this is happening,

the extent to which we can scrutinise it.

2nd July 2149, three weeks later 21st July, one week before proofs, it dropped by a third

from 2149 to 1476 factually that's what happened.

That's correct but the context for which that first set of figures was provided was that

we're just treating, it was without prejudice, we're just treating the ground floor as this

for the purpose of moving forward but then yeah again this is detailed in my rebuttal

But I had a call with Mr. Weir, and I

could tell that he was sceptical.

And I wanted to try and save inquiry time

by trying to move forward.

Appreciate it would have been better

if it had been done earlier.

But in that situation, I just tried

to get us closer to a resolution as quickly as possible.

You said, explain, there is no detailed explanation

of how, in terms of areas, which ones,

you go from 2149 to 1476 in your written evidence.

Don't say, I've taken this one out, taken this one out,

taken this one out, do you?

No, well, I mean, I...

The email that provided that original figure

was on the basis that the whole ground floor

of all the buildings are in that GIA.

And then the second set of figures,

which I then supported in my proof,

was this is an assessment based on all of the spaces individually.

So I think it's implicit that all of the spaces on the ground floor that are no longer designated

as work and when I looked at the photos and I considered them to be more lived spaces,

those are the spaces that have caused that figure to change.

You say it would be good if it happened early.

I mean, you don't dispute that this was, for instance, raised in the delegated report from

the LPA in December last year.

Would you be able to take me to the specific reference?

because I know at that point obviously there was a, the dispute was more on lawfulness, but you'll have to jog my memory.

CD 3 .2, paragraph 7 .18.

7 .18 to 7 .22, just cast your eyes over that.

Sorry, apologies, I went to 7 .80.

Page 16, 7 .18 to 7 .22, just cast your eyes over that.

Yeah, I've got that.

Clearly being put in issue, the accuracy and reliability

of the floor space calculations at that stage.

Yeah, I know.

Then take two examples.

So the first one, the photos are in your proof.

To ask you about firstly,

it's at page 245 of your proof. Yeah, thank you. And I think we have looked at this already,

just I've got a question. So this is B4D2, one of those, and we see the space on the

photo on page two, four, five.

Obviously a reasonably substantial area.

To Chima, I'm gonna suggest that,

I mean, I think in chief, you compared it

to an earlier photo of what appeared to be the same space

where there was active production happening.

And I think you can fairly say

there is nothing actively happening in this space.

Yeah.

So the absence of activity in this space

doesn't allow you to characterise it as live

rather than work, does it?

Not on that basis alone.

But I mean, those are the reasons

that I came to that conclusion on my assessment.

For example, there's a freezer.

There's a washing machine.

There's a sofa.

It's the items in the space as much

as the point about activity.

Yes, and we can see the scale of the space

that they occupy those white goods or whatever they are.

Good.

Page 191.

So you recall we looked at this space.

191 relates to, it's a B4D1 space.

Yeah, on there.

And 191, it's a kind of panoramic style image,

which we get quite a bit of this.

I think, and obviously you made some points

about this yesterday, the point I put to you,

having regard to the nature of the typology,

the live -work typology, the fact that it is a mix,

the fact that it's organic as some people call it,

the work and the live happens together seamlessly.

This space is equally useful for both those purposes.

You can't just attribute it to Liv, can you?

I haven't, well actually the space with the sewing machine is actually a different room,

but I felt that it is more, it is better categorised as a Liv space,

but the thing I just want to draw attention to is taking a step back is what the policy requirement is for me doing this assessment.

And so I understand what you're talking about, about the typology and that it is flexible,

but the policy requirement is for me to assess against assuming that there's a B -class use.

And I think it's not a requirement to assess a live -work unit for the proportion of work

and with respect to that typology, the requirement in policy is for B -class uses.

So in conducting this assessment, I'm looking at spaces that would be akin to B -class uses.

And to me, in this space, I see a living room and a dining room as well.

and in the room that isn't technically within this room because we separated out,

where there's a sewing machine, I've included that as a workspace.

But I think my assessment doesn't need to have regard to the specific typology.

The assessment is based on B -class uses, which there aren't any in my opinion,

because it's a generous use. And I'm assessing what I think is most akin to a B -class use.

Thank you.

OK, well, that hopefully moves me on to my next topic.

So this is a few questions about this, that suggestion that your assessment doesn't need

to have regard to the specific typology.

So these questions are still on the premise that your case is accepted, that live -work

is your fault.

So dealing with live -work, its value or otherwise.

can you take up firstly CD 7 .31 please?

It's the Live -Works Study.

Sorry, I can get that adjusted.

I don't have it loaded so I might need a moment.

Yeah, take your time.

Sorry, my Wi -Fi is a little bit slow in here, but it's just downloading.

If it's going to take time, while you're downloading, I can go to a different document in the meantime.

Thank you.

So CD 7 .31, just in terms of what this is from the first page, it's LLDC's work, live,

study.

And within that 2014 document, can you go to page 34, please?

Yes, is this the page entitled Case Studies Introduction?

Or am I on the wrong page?

No, sorry.

Oh, sorry.

internal page 34 headed learning from informal provision. Yeah and in terms of

what the study says, put a few points to you, first paragraph tells us warehouse

units in Hackney, Wiccan, Fish Island providing a formal work -live typology for a wide

range of practitioners in the LDC area. Former industrial buildings provide

generous space and relatively low rents. This has led to great demand for the

especially from artists and creative practitioners.

You skip a paragraph for efficiency,

then the next paragraph, but one reads,

the warehouse work -live model illustrates

the types of demand that exist

for a dual -use provision in the area.

There are a series of positive aspects

of unauthorised warehouse living

which occupants have come to depend on for their practises.

And then the indented paragraphs,

support for freelance culture,

collective creativity and support,

Flexible and immersive contact with work,

locally distinctive economies,

and finally, top of the next page,

flexible access to light industrial space.

Yeah, I accept what you're saying.

Clearly this study is suggesting that work -live

or live -work is a valuable typology

in terms of contribution to greater economy.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you. Just one more document on the same theme.

CD 7 .37, the made in Hackney Wick, Fish Island document.

I'm so sorry, Mr. Flanagan, could I just have the core document reference again?

CD 7 .37. Thank you.

I've got the document.

Great.

And within CD7 37, if you go to page 41, which is case study,

Victoria Wharf and it's obviously a discussion about it.

Talks about plots of canalside wharfs

have previously been home to a mixture of logging companies

of vulcanised rubble works.

Today it hosts scores of artists, studios, live -work units

in new independent cafes and galleries,

lively mix of cafe culture, open studios so forth.

And then on the next page provides some, as it says,

case study and they're dealing now with value or contribution. It tells us sort

of people who are living and working here. It just gives us an approximate

pounds per square foot rental figure 15 top of the page and then it talks in the

text there on page 42 about how it works.

This live -work unit range much like a sandwich, private living quarters on the middle floor,

dirty workshop spaces on the ground floor level with a divided communal and kitchen space and the

more digital work space on the top level and so forth. And I mean in short it's explaining that

it works in a collaborative way in that obviously the LIV supports the worker

and vice versa. Yeah, I accept that. The GLA, you'll need to put that document away, take up this

packs appendices, please

Where I find the GLA's

Response most usefully appendix

for

Appendix 14 tennis packs appendices, which is right almost at the back of her document. I've got a

PDF number I'm afraid but it's alright on that good and

The GLA have provided two submissions.

I'm looking at the one dated 22nd of May, 2026,

so the appeal one as opposed to the application one.

Yeah, I've got that.

Thank you.

And I hope so.

I must expect to have regard to all of this.

But just the fourth paragraph, unnumbered on the first page.

Sorry, what page are we on?

It's about five pages from the end I'll just provide it. I've got it in hard copy, haven't I?

107 on the PDF.

That's helpful. Thank you.

Yes, 107. And in the fourth paragraph on that page, 107, last three or four lines says,

since at least 2009, it, that being Dottoria Wharf, has provided a mix of affordable studios,

live -work spaces, and cultural venues that reflect exactly the kind of ecosystem the

Creative Enterprise Zone programme exists to support.

So the view of the senior programme manager

in the Creative Enterprise Zone's Department of the GLA

takes the view that the live -work is contributing positively

to the Creative Enterprise Zone in short.

Yeah, I accept that.

And here it's worth a side note just to flag to the inspector.

Obviously, again, there's another reference here

to the live -work space as being in situ on site

since at least 2009.

But to answer your question, yes.

Indeed, there is an answer to that statement.

The appeal scheme re -provides no live -work.

No, it doesn't.

The loss of this evidently valuable typology,

which you said your assessment doesn't have regard to,

is plainly relevant to a planning balance assessment

when we're losing it, isn't it?

There's a couple of disparate points there.

So when I said the typology isn't relevant,

I was referring to the fact that I'm

making an assessment against B1, and B1 isn't a live -work policy.

I'm trying to extract from that which

are the spaces that are the work spaces

and transpose one policy that is dealing with strictly

B -class uses onto a subgenerous live -work use class.

So it's a slightly different point.

But I mean, I appreciate that the GLA has assessed that there's some value to the live -work

use, but my question would be what is the policy basis for protecting the live -work

use as a draught policy?

And yeah, we may get onto the weight to be assigned to the draught local plan, but there

isn't an adopted policy that specifically protects the live -work use.

to come to policy in a moment.

Just dealing with it as another material consideration

in the planning balance.

Given the value that I suggested it should attract,

it needs, regardless of whether it's specifically

protected in policy, it needs to feature in the planning balance,

doesn't it, the loss of it?

I don't agree with that, because I just think

it has to be tied to a policy.

there's things that you may lose from a site,

but if there's no policy protection,

then I can't take that into account in a planning balance.

Your evidence is that you cannot and the inspector cannot take

into account, as a relevant material consideration

in the planning balance, the loss of this valuable typology

in the planning balance?

Not if there's no policy basis for it, because again,

I think I've made this point.

It's a very overarching point that decisions

need to be made in accordance with the development plan and relevant material considerations,

but I think that consideration is secondary to what the development plan says, which is

that there is no policy protection for it.

I can make submissions on that.

Let's come to then policy.

London Plan first please hc5 yes on hc5

Policy HE5 is, from its heading, concerned with supporting London's culture and creative

industries.

Yes.

And paragraph A tells us that continued growth and evolution of London's diverse cultural

facilities and creative industries is supported.

Development plans and development proposals should protect existing cultural venues, facilities,

and uses where appropriate.

It continues.

There's no specific policy protection, specific policy protection for live -work, in this I accept.

But given the contribution of live -work to London's culture and creative industries, plainly,

there is some high -level support for maintaining that contribution and not losing it.

I accept that, but what I would say to that is that the proposal we provide for space

that the workspace element that is intended to serve a similar function.

So yes, I accept that cultural facilities are important

and that type of creative workspace is supported that exists on site.

But my position is that we're re -providing something similar.

So that, yeah, I don't see a policy conflict there.

OK, and then.

That's the London plan, the emerging local plan.

This is so CD 6 .3.

Yeah.

And the relevant

part is page 241, I think.

Page 241 you'll find Policy No.

the EG4. Yeah, I'm there.

Sorry, I don't know why I said EG1 was... Sorry, yeah, can we start? We'll start with

Yes, page 219, EG1.

And then if you go within EG1, continues over to page 224.

Yes, I have that.

And on page 224, there's the left -hand column,

the designation, the CZ, middle column, role and function,

and the second paragraph of role and function there says,

the CEZ also includes a significant warehouse

living community that relies on informal spaces

to both live and carry out creative production work.

This space will be protected as both housing

and employment space on the basis it meets needs

for both types of uses, both types of use.

So the emerging local plan,

please appreciate there's a point about weight,

but the emerging local plan clearly does provide

some protection for this typology.

Yeah, I accept that.

Good, okay.

And the EG4 reference, perhaps just for completeness,

I wanted to go to 241.

EG4, paragraph one on page 241.

The last sentence of paragraph one of EG4 says,

development proposals resulting in a net loss of warehouse living through

generous floor space within the Creative Enterprise Zone will not be supported so

express policy. Yeah I accept that and yeah I think it's also worth flagging

here that this policy is drafted in a more explicit way in that it protects

for generous uses as part of industrial floor space which B1 doesn't so yeah I

accept your overall point but I just wanted to contrast that with the adopted

b1 policy which is broadly equivalent understood and then on on weights then

sometimes if the council's position if you go please to mr. where's appendices

And within that, it's in appendix 20, but if you go to, please, page 143.

Thanks, I'm there.

And at the bottom of 143, there's an email from Charlotte Norris, 30th of January, 2025.

Yeah, I can see that.

and just continues over the page.

We just need this for context.

It says, hi, while following the Reg 19 consultation

of the draught local plan, analysis of representations

received, we can now apply greater weight

to some of the policies within the draught local plan.

As a guide, we prepared a rack table

to indicate what weight to apply to each policy.

That's just context for then the discussion which follows.

You then go, please,

Up the chain, page 142.

Mr. Weir, email halfway down the page to Ms. Norris, 7th of April this year, 26.

And if you look on the top of page 143, first paragraph, not in italics, says, in your spreadsheet

for new policy weighting, EG1 and EG4

are listed as medium weight, and EG2 as highest weight.

Okay, so he's, yeah, I see that.

Thank you.

Recording what's in the table then, and

then where we end up,

page 140,

140, email from Tim Fearn.

8th of April.

Yeah, I've got that.

And in response to Mr. Weir, Mr. Fern

says, Charlotte's posted on your email

from the Victoria Warford Kill, and I've

looked back over the REPs received at Reg 18, Reg 19,

and Reg 19, 25.

And I've compiled the attached list of relevant REPs

from each stage.

Then he discusses the REPs on EG1, EG2, and EG4.

He says, the Reg 19 REPs are generally

supportive of the principle of protecting warehouse living,

but with recommendations for changes to strengthening of the policy.

The Tory Wharf Palm Lane estate didn't submit any reps to any of the three consultations.

So Mr. Fearn specifically looked there, and his view, Reg19 reps generally supportive.

That's what it says?

Yeah, that's what it says.

And then Mr. Fern gives a further view on page 138, finally, 21st of April.

Second paragraph, in terms of the weight given to policies in the draught plan, then the legal

advice provided to the development management team on 12th of March still applies.

And there's in italics essentially what national policy and how to give weight to emerging

plans.

And then the paragraph says, we haven't made any updates to the suggested weighting for

individual policies which are included in the RAG sheet.

We can't realistically separate out individual elements criteria within each policy and apportion

different weight to them.

So the warehouse living elements of EG1, EG2, and EG4 would have the same suggested weighting

as the rest of those policies.

So, where we get to, the specific commentary from the council policy offices on the weight

to these specific policies and the warehouse living aspects is medium or moderate.

Yes?

They've not said that explicitly.

They said that in the text in the italics at this stage, limited weight is given to

the proposed policies.

Sorry?

So the text in the italics says that limited weight is given to the proposed policies.

They haven't specifically said medium weight unless I've missed that?

You have missed it.

So because on 143, Mr. Weir is recording the rag sheet, EG1 and EG4 are listed as medium

weight.

EG2, not highest weight, but leave that aside.

Top of 143.

Presumably that's a relative measure and the RAG system is to sort of provide a hierarchy

of which policies have more importance overall.

It doesn't seem to indicate that it, they alone should have medium weight.

And to that point specifically, I would take you to my rebuttal.

I'm going to come to your rebuttal.

Sorry, I don't want to cut you off on that because I know you give a contrary view by

reference to those reports.

Understood.

I just want to understand what you're saying about these emails.

Because on 143, Mr. Weir does record that the spreadsheet, e .g. 1 and e .4, listed as

quote, medium weight.

Yeah, I acknowledge that that's medium weight.

But my interpretation of, I acknowledge that's what it says, but my interpretation of it

is it's a ranking of policies relative to one another.

And the overarching feedback from the legal team at Tower Hamlets is the plan has limited

weight, but then within that, some policies

are more important than others.

And I accept that it says medium weight to those policies.

I'm going to suggest that is quite a complicated hierarchy.

Limited weight, and then there's subcategories within limited

as low, medium, highest weight, but still within limited.

It's a fairly convoluted proposition,

isn't it, Mr. Chemer?

I accept that it is convoluted, but then that

is the way that it appears to have been applied.

And we're going to come on to my rebuttal.

but those examples that I gave would appear to have relevance

to EG1 and EG4.

And the text in those, as I'm sure we'll come on to,

says that limited weight should be applied.

So to me, the advice there is, yeah, the overall weight

that it should be given is limited,

but there's a hierarchy within that.

And that seems to be the way that officers

have applied it in those committee reports

that I've cited in my rebuttal.

OK.

The inspector can make submissions.

The inspector can read the emails for himself.

So then you've looked at some reports, your rebuttal,

and you say?

Sorry, to kick you off, do you mind

if I just elaborate a little bit more

on that final answer, the previous answer?

So the other thing I'd say, just to support my reading of that,

is that ED2, which I appreciate we're not talking about here,

is given highest weight.

So if what you're suggesting is that those RAG policies are,

the hierarchy that's given is highest,

then surely the highest possible weight a policy could get is full weight.

And they're not suggesting that EG2 has the full weight of an adopted policy.

So that's just to give some more context on my reading of the way that WAG system is set out.

It's highest within the overarching framework of it being limited overall.

But sorry, I just wanted to elaborate.

It's a slightly pointless exercise to start distinguishing between levels of limited weight, isn't it?

That's the only way I can read it based on the way it's been applied in those committee reports

Then the committee reports the committee reports say what they say and you've identified that and you you say well

They're giving limited weight to the plan

We're dealing with warehouse living here

with a specific part of a specific policy a

Specific part of eg1 and specific part of eg4 mr. Ferdin says infernus says look at eg1 e4 as a whole

In understanding the council's position, it's obviously preferable to look at the specific advice

expressly regarding EG1 and EG4, not a committee report which relates to the potentially the whole

draught local plan, isn't it? Yes, but my point on the committee reports is, and now is probably a

good time to take you to them, so let me find probably the best example. Sorry, I'm just filling

So yeah, if we go to page 26 of my rebuttal, for brevity I just included the title page

of the committee report and then where the weight is assigned.

So the proposition you put to me is that, oh sorry do you need a minute to find it?

Page 26, yeah.

Yeah, sorry. So the proposition you put to me is that I shouldn't take what the committee report says because that's talking about the plan in general.

But here this description of development on page 26 comprises the demolition of the existing office building.

And so I can't remember which of those policies, the EG1 or potentially both of them,

that policy has relevance to this particular development.

So if the council were to assign greater weight to that policy,

it's a similar situation where that policy might be relevant in the same way that it

might be relevant here but they've still concluded that it has limited weight and they've not

assessed the proposal against it.

Okay, I don't understand the point. Nowhere in this report does it say in terms that EG1

or EG4 should get limited weight, does it, in terms?

No, it doesn't say that specifically but this is the reference to the draught Local Plan and

and it's not mentioned again.

But yeah, I accept it.

Didn't say it explicitly.

OK.

I'm going to suggest we can also cut through this in one way,

because regardless of what the council has or hasn't said,

it's obviously a matter for the inspector

to apply his judgments to what weight

to give to emerging policy.

And the new MPPF provides policy on weight to emerging plans,

DM4.

which is, I think, fairly similar to the old policy.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

So I'm sure we're all very familiar with it.

This plan that we're talking about,

it's obviously passed Reg 19 and Reg 9

because it's been submitted for examination.

This policy that we're talking about

on the evidence of the Council,

or such representations as there has been

are generally supportive.

In light of that, the stage to which it's advanced,

and according to the council, the absence of objection,

plainly giving EG1 and EG4 limited weight's not right,

isn't it?

It's not in accord with that policy, does it?

No, I think that is the correct reading of it.

And I primarily rely on the stage of preparation point,

because to me, public examination

is the big milestone in a draught local plan moving

from draught to adoption.

And that's where the policy will be properly scrutinised.

But yeah, it appears that Talhamlet's officers

agree with me in the way that they've assessed their recent

committee reports.

The policy talks about the stage of preparation of the emerging plan.

The more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given.

Stages include pre -reg 18, reg 18, reg 19, submission, examination report, adoption.

Yeah, you're correct that those are the stages.

But what I would say is that it isn't a linear progression of weight that gets added at each

of those stages.

I think there's a big jump when you go past the examination

stage because that's a stage at which it's properly

scrutinised by an inspector.

So I accept the stages you set out to me,

but the point is that I don't think

there's a linear rate that gets added at each stage.

Paragraph B, which we're also national policy tells

us to have regard to, the extent to which there

are unresolved objections to relevant policies,

they obviously get examined.

That's why the examination stage is important.

You have not pointed to any unresolved objections to the relevant policies?

Okay.

CEZ, very briefly,

your proof, paragraph 740, can you just go to that?

740 on page 56 you say this is dealing with affordable workspace. You say H25 refers to

using creative enterprise zones to help deliver spaces that are suitable, attractive and affordable

for creative industries but does not include a specific requirement for affordable workspace

development proposals. Mr. Timur, that as far as I can see is the only reference to

the only engagement with creative enterprise zones in your proof or your

at all. So I'll just do a quick word search to verify that I'm wrong.

Yeah that's the only reference to it. That's the only one. As a matter of fact you, in your written

evidence you have not analysed, engaged with the aims or objectives of the CEZ.

We've left it out of account, essentially.

Yes, although what I would say is that the aims of the CEZ are fed through policy, so

that policy reference that you just took me to, HC5, that is a policy reference that flows

from the importance of the CEZ.

So I accept that I've not specifically looked at the CEZ and analysed that, but I've looked

at the policies that are relevant and the CEZ feeds into those.

HZ5 talks about encouraging identification of CEZs.

It talks about taking into account the requirements of businesses within CEZs, but it's plainly

relevant and it just cuts the chase.

It is a deficiency in your proof that you do not engage with the specific aims of this

in which this site is located.

Yes, I can acknowledge that I could have provided more detail on that, but I don't think it diminishes the overall arguments

I've made but

Turn to policy B point one now

Yes, I'm there.

Thank you.

And

taking it from the

top, obviously B .1, conservative location and maintenance

of employment uses.

The second sentence says the employment function for each cluster and employment land outside

the cluster shall be protected and developed through. So there's an

overarching aim to protect and develop the employment function and then through

the criteria that follow. Yes, I accept that. In terms of the uses, the first sentence

refer to B use classes, that's the employment land

that they're referring to.

So are we at paragraph five here?

No, we're still at the top, right at the top of B .1.

I mean, it's obviously a matter of law.

A mixed use technically does not fall within a use class.

Yeah, I accept that.

And so you could have a mixed use of employment uses,

for instance, B2, B8, and what was previously B1 now EG.

And that mixed use would not technically fall within a B use

class, but would comprise component parts

of employment land uses.

Yeah, yeah.

Overall B is a generous use, but yeah.

Yeah, OK.

The fact that a mixed use in that respect does not technically fall within a use class and does not technically fall within a B use class,

policy would still aim to protect the employment land covered by that mixed use.

That appears to be the intention here, but I mean, we did briefly look at, well, we looked at EG1 and I flagged that,

I feel the drafting on EG1 or EG4, whichever one it was, was better drafted in that it accounted for the fact that

some employment generating uses would fall under a sugenerous use.

And that's why I have conducted the assessment nonetheless,

but I'm just inviting the inspector to consider to the letter of the policy,

is this sugenerous use protected?

I mean, I've conducted my assessment regardless,

but that's my point on that.

Okay, I don't want to take unnecessary time on this.

You think, Ferdi just said that it appears to be the intention.

Take your caveat and I've heard what you said and I'm not ignoring it.

You've done your assessment, I think, on the basis,

I assume that that appears to be intentional,

though you've got doubts about the precise wording.

I think I'm tempted to agree on the, proceed on the basis

that it appears to be the intention to cover mixed uses

which have employment land within them.

That's the questions we'll follow.

And then when we go to B1, part five.

When B1 part 5, the opening words talk about maintaining or re -providing existing employment

capacity, the intention of the policy would be that that would be to include maintaining

or re -providing existing employment capacity, even if that employment capacity falls within

a mixed use as opposed to being a sole primary use.

Again, I think that is probably what they meant to do, but then the following sentence

or the remainder of that sentence

is by applying the following and proposals involving

a change from P2.

So yeah, I appreciate that's the same point I've made before.

But that's probably what they intended to do.

But the policy isn't explicit enough.

And it's probably just a case of poor drafting.

And the Tau Hamlet's alternative is probably a better example

of better drafting.

Reading it fairly, I'll just give you a matter of law,

so I'll just ask you once.

reading it fairly, not recognising that the drafting perhaps could have been tighter,

we should apply it as if it is protecting employment uses within a mixed use, shouldn't

we?

Yes, and I have applied it, it's just I'm inviting the inspector to make that consideration

for himself in case he feels that he wants to be a bit stricter in relation to how it's

specifically worded.

That's fine, thank you. So in terms of then applying it, we've got B, paragraph 5A,

which is when we're having a change from B2 and B8, and your case is that

doesn't apply because there is no B2, B8? Yes, that's correct. So you look at

paragraph B, don't you, I think? Yes. Proposals involving a change from B on

use classes shall intensify capacity

through increased job density.

And how you do that, if you take your proof up,

paragraph 7 .18.

Yeah, I have that.

And 7 .18, it's on page 53, you state, it's my opinion therefore there will be a 50 square

metre increase in the amount of floor space that contributes to employment capacity on

the site. That's going from 1 .476 to 1 .530 or thereabouts.

Sorry, just to correct you on that, there is coincidentally the NIA difference and the

GIA difference happen to be 50 square metres, so all my assessment is based on an NIA difference,

it's just they happen to have the same difference.

It's the same effect, okay, understood. And then 7 .19, you say, in any case, the relevant

consideration for policy B1 is whether the proposed employment floor space would intensify

capacity through increased job density. So then you look at density. And then your argument,

720, 721, proposed employment floor space

would offer purpose -built spaces for creative industries,

which in my opinion would offer a functional improvement

over the existing provision.

Since the proposal specifically intends to deliver

employment floor space aimed at creative industries,

the job density derived from it would be similar

to the existing density.

Since there will be a 50 square metre increase

in employment floor space, the number of jobs

delivered on the site would necessarily increase.

So you say, well, it ticks the increased

job density requirement.

Because the floor space is going up, the use is similar, therefore the job density goes up.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's broadly the point.

Thank you.

Obviously it's not your case if Mr. Weir is right and the floor space capacity is going down,

the job density on that logic is not going to go up, is it?

No, although I didn't set out an alternative case in my proof of evidence,

but I think it'd be helpful to set that out orally now.

So for example, if we can we turn to one of those photos that we looked at earlier?

I think it was 145, one of the rooms.

Which page?

Sorry, 145 of my proof.

So this is one of the rooms that Mr. Weir has said is a workspace rather than live space.

But I think if you were to take this sort of space into account, you would have to acknowledge

that it is if you were to accept or if the inspector were to accept Mr. Weir's position

that this is all workspace and should be counted as search, then you'd have to look at what

job density could be derived from a space like this, because there's obviously still

features of live in this space.

There's a pool table and sofas.

And the table there is presumably

also used as a kitchen table.

So if these sorts of spaces, which I've excluded,

because I've only included the ones that I do feel

would contribute a similar level of job density,

then this would have a lower job density

than what is being provided, which

is a functional workspace that is specifically

designed for work and has no other live function.

And it might also be a good time to turn to the job density

able to kind of elaborate on that a little bit more if possible which I can't remember

the core document number but I'll find it now.

So yeah, it's call document 7 .43.

So if everyone's there, I didn't make reference to this,

because obviously my case, as you put it back to me there,

is that the space being put back is broadly similar,

and there's an increase in the floor space.

Therefore, there's an increase in the job density.

But I didn't present an alternative case,

because I didn't want to make my case overly convoluted.

But I think if we look at the densities

that Mr. Weir has provided, so the best place

to probably look at that as the second addendum to the common ground and compare it with this

table, as in the density table.

Which page are you on in 743?

Sorry, it's page 31 on that.

Yeah.

So, yeah, if everyone's there, the way that Mr Weir has assessed the existing space is

this light industrial categorization.

But I would observe that there's also categorization a bit

further down for maker spaces, and that

has a range from 15 to 40.

So in my opinion, I've kind of just put forward

a more simple argument, the one that you've just

put back to me.

But I feel that if the functionality

of the proposed floor space would be closer

to the lower end of this, whereas that space I've just

showed you in the photo, if that were considered

to be all in workspace, I would suggest

that that has a density on the lower end of that 15 to 20

range.

That's it.

That's it, is it?

That's your alternative analysis,

which you were advancing for the first time in oral evidence.

Yeah, well, I think my main position is straightforward.

But I'm just putting that forward

for something for the inspector to consider.

So to be clear, you have not provided an alternative analysis which shows that on Mr. Weir's figures,

on Mr. Weir's figures, there would be an increase in job density capacity.

No, I haven't provided that analysis.

And that failure to provide an increase in job density or indeed the same job density

would be on Mr. Weir's figures would lead to a breach of B .1, B .1, Part 5, Part B?

Yes, but notwithstanding the point that we made at the start about whether it does or

doesn't apply. Thank you. There was a further point on B .1 .5 raised in cross -examination

Mr. Weir, I just want to ask you about it. You look at part 5b, talks about proposals

involving a change from B1 use class floor space. Yeah? Yeah, yeah. And the point was

put to Mr. Weir that there is no change in the present case because what is being

reprovide it is eg3 equivalent to b1 yeah yes it's not an argument you raise

in your proof are you raising that argument or not and your evidence no I'm

not again I think it's probably an example of like the poor drafting of

this policy I would say that it's ambiguous on that point but again it's

one for the inspector to consider but I'm not advancing that point thank you

Sorry just so I can take a note of what was the point. Sorry yes and the point

was put the wording of 5b talks about proposals involving a change from B1

use class floor space. It was asked to Mr. Weirwell the present proposal

certainly on the appellants floor space because doesn't involve a change

because it re -provides B1 use floor space.

Just to explore that a bit further,

James Chemo, on Mr. Weir's figures,

which will seem different to yours,

but Mr. Weir's figures,

he says there's, whether it's B2, B8,

or whether it's a greater proportion of work

within the live -work.

He says there is more than 1 ,500 square metres of work

at the moment, B1.

Yes, yeah, he does.

And 1 ,500 GIA is being reprovided.

On those figures, there is a change from B1,

because there was more previously.

Some of that that's being lost is being changed

to a different use.

By different use, do you mean from the work element

of the live -work to the, yeah.

And just a couple further points.

The supporting text, I think,

we did briefly look at it yesterday,

but it probably repays attention.

If you, it's page 37, paragraph 4 .17.

Yes, on there.

It says bullet point 5B will apply for proposals relating to current B1 use class employment.

As B1 use classes are generally compatible with mixed -use development, any redevelopment

proposals of B1 use class floor space should maintain equivalent B use class employment

clause base or significantly increase jobs density within the B use classes.

Now as we know supporting tax is not policy, it can only be an A to interpretation of policy.

And so far as that is an A to interpretation, 4 .17 in terms is suggesting that what policy

is trying to do is maintain equivalent use class, B use class employment full space or

significantly increase job density.

Yeah, I accept that that's the intention of this point.

It's certainly not contemplating net loss, is it?

No.

and the final assistance we get on this if you go to page 187 policy 1 .1 yes and

This is a specific sub -area one Hackney Wick fish island policy.

Paragraph one, maintain the overall amount of existing employment floor space B use class,

including that used by creative and cultural industries and operating as low cost and managed

work space in accordance with the provisions outlined in the policies B1 and B .4.

Policy B1, 1 .1, sorry.

Policy 1 .1.

this is policy, this is not supporting text. Policy 1 .1 also plainly

contemplates that B .1 is to be understood and operated in a way that

maintains the overall amount of existing floor space capacity and does not result in a net loss.

Yeah, although I guess this is more of an overall policy so it's less

specific to individual proposals because you could still satisfy this policy

overall if there were some proposals that exceeded the amount of existing

floor space and some that had a loss that yeah I appreciate that the overall

aim is to maintain the existing.

Good, thank you.

We'll come on to related topic now, cultural workspace.

see 1 .1 touches on that and affordability so I think it's clear

that's on make sure I quite ask question the white basis the council's redraft

and you want to call it a schedule 12 the relocation strategy as I understand

is now agreed. Yes that's correct. Thank you and that provides for it has

affordability provisions in terms of the re -provided floor space the 1 ,500 square

metres as we've heard and it also has provisions about securing it for

creative and cultural occupiers? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. So that's all

understood. The questions I'm going to ask now, just a few of them, relate to any

existing space beyond that 1 ,500 metres. So see that schedule 12 provides

protection for the re -provided space. In Mr. Will's case there is more space we

should be considering.

In terms of what's, in terms of the affordability

of the existing space and its contribution,

can you sort of agree, take up Miss Young's proof

who provides a summary of it.

So Miss Young's proof of evidence.

We've got that.

yes I have that. Thank you and within that you go on page 7 internal page 7

paragraph 1 .03 .01. Yes I'm there. And how it's characterised here it says under the heading

appellant, Vittoria Wharf. Vittoria Wharf has evolved over the past two decades into

one of two defining creative employment clusters within Fish Island. Since acquiring the site

between 2006 and 2008, Vittoria Wharf Limited has progressively repurposed the former industrial

buildings into affordable studios, workshops and flexible workspace for artists, makers,

designers and a diverse range of creative businesses. Through careful management and

relatively low -cost accommodation, the estate has played an important role in fostering

in the area's creative economy and supporting the emergence

of fish island in Hackney Whig as one of London's

most significant creative communities.

The question, it's obviously been,

questions have been asked and I think agreed,

that what is there at the moment does not fall

within the technical definition of affordable workspace

in the London plan because it is not maintained

below market rate.

Yeah, that's my position.

Understood.

Rather it's low cost because it's low spec and that's the market rate for that sort of accommodation in this area.

Yeah, that's agreed.

As Miss Young fairly says, in a non -technical sense it's affordable because it's affordable to the sorts of occupiers who want to be the artists and creative workers essentially.

Yeah, that's my understanding too.

That's helpful, you agree.

And it obviously, we're not disputing that it contributes to the creative economy in

the area, as Ms. Pack has explained.

No, no, and that's why we want to re -provide something similar.

Policy 1 .1 in the local plan, which we looked at, has a...

Can you go back to it?

Sorry, I'm just trying to find the local plan again.

Page 187 of the local, 186 of the local plan internal plan.

Yeah, now I've got it now, thanks.

Proposals for development within Sub -Area 1

will be considered perceptible.

Test of acceptability where they,

one, maintain the overall amount of existing floor space,

be used fast, including that used by creative

and cultural industries, and operating as low cost

and managed workspace.

So that is an, I'm sorry, I should read the rest of it

in accordance with the provisions

outlined on the policies B1 and B4.

That is an express policy requirement

to maintain low -cost floor space,

not just affordable workspace in a technical sense,

but to maintain low -cost floor workspace, yeah?

Yeah, I accept that, but then I think it's worth

considering the hypothetical of how that might be proposed

in a scheme like this.

So we've agreed that the definition of low cost

is this sort of space that is of a lower spec,

so it naturally has a lower market rate.

So given that the council has agreed

that the demolition of the existing buildings is acceptable,

is night of that a new build proposal that then puts back

some employment floor space and some residential use?

I struggle to see how a situation would ever

arise where you would put back something that is deliberately

of a lower spec to fall within this low -cost workspace?

Because if you're building something new for the first time,

why would you build in a sort of lower specification

or lower functionality from the outset?

So I appreciate that that's what it says,

but I'm just struggling with the scenario

of where you'd get from a situation

where you demolish low -cost workspace

and then put it back under that definition.

Yes, but you did...

You'd achieve that objective by what you're doing for the 1 ,500

metres, which is 1 ,500 metres more, on our case, more.

But on your case, there's 1 ,500 metres of low -cost workspace

there at the moment.

You achieve the policy aim of maintaining it and not

having a net loss by re -providing 1 ,500 metres

of affordable workspace.

And take me out.

I'll get to the question now.

But you could also do that for, on Mr. Weir's figures,

the rest of the loss.

Because on Mr. Weir's figures, that's not the extent of the loss.

And you could achieve that policy objective by saying,

well, there's 1 ,900 square metres of affordable, of low -cost workspace.

There's more, I think you can use this B2B8 approach.

So you can achieve the policy objective, can't you?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do you mind putting it to me again and maybe re -praising it to Adam?

So you said you weren't clear how you would achieve what policy was

requiring to maintain the overall amount,

including that operating as low cost, I think?

Yes.

OK.

Well, the question is that you are

doing that by what you're proposing in schedule 12

at 1 ,500 metres.

Well, that's a slightly different point,

because what we're re -providing is affordable workspace.

So i .e., workspace that is deliberately

suppressing the rate relative to the market,

Whereas low -cost workspace doesn't have any mechanism to do that.

It's just it happens to be lower cost because it's lower spec.

So it's a slightly different thing that we're re -providing.

And in my opinion, that's an enhancement because it secures it.

And it's not just subject to the market rate.

But it means you tick that box for the 1500 metres,

the paragraph one requirement, doesn't it?

That's why it's acceptable.

Well, this is where it's a slightly different requirement

because we're not putting back low -cost floor space.

We're putting back affordable workspace, which

is an improvement over that.

So yes, in the sense it is achieving that aim,

but it's not directly doing what the policy is

suggesting you might.

And as I've set out, that would be a strange circumstance

where you put back new build, low -cost floor space.

So it's not a like for like, you're saying?

Not in the sense that it's this low -cost definition,

but in terms of the actual use and the type of occupiers

we want to attract, yes, we do feel it's a like for like.

But in terms of functionality, no, it's

an improvement on functionality.

To the extent that there is more low cost

in your space beyond the 1 ,500 or so metres you identify,

you are not complying with that policy test of acceptability,

because you're losing it.

We're talking about the, in Mr. Weir's case,

the amount that he is saying is greater than that.

Yeah.

Well, I would say in that scenario, yes, there is a reduction in the, if we take Mr. Weir's

figures, that there's that reduction of, so we're going from essentially 1900 square metres

or thereabouts of low -cost floor space to 1500 metres of affordable workspace. To me,

I think the affordable workspace should have higher value than the low -cost workspace in

terms of planning value I mean not monetary value because it's securing it

in perpetuity via an agreement where it's the low -cost scenario there is no

mechanism to secure that it just happens to be that way. And then the other point

on one point one is where to pick up is

so we I'm focusing on the words here including that used by creative and

cultural industries and operating as low -cost and managed workspace.

Obviously, the words in brackets were, I think, highlighted to Mr. Weir

in accordance with the provisions outlined in policies B .1 and B .4,

so it refers back there to B .1 and B .4.

B .1 and B .4 doesn't refer to

creative and cultural industries

and low -cost workspace.

Let me just double cheque because I'm, sorry I'm going to pull up those policies.

So the question you put to me is that B1 and B4 don't refer to localities.

Sorry, B .1 doesn't refer to localities.

B1.

Yeah, that's my understanding.

The reference is in B4.

And then the reference in B4 tells us

what to do about reprovision of low cost.

Yeah?

I'm just bringing it up, but I assume the answer's

going to be yes.

But let me just double cheque.

Yes, yeah, that governs low cost and affordable work space.

And then 1 .1 is a specific policy

for Hackney Wick and Fish Island.

Yes.

And really, as to what you said, the policy is not drafted in vain.

1 .1 must be intending to add something or emphasise something.

Yes.

Yeah.

I mean, it's a cross -reference to another policy.

So yeah, I mean, let me just bring up 1 .1 because I'm going to try and see specifically

what it does add.

I mean, I think it's just reinforcing the goals of B1 and B4.

But I mean, if you can take me to a reference of where you think it is adding something

distinct, then I'm happy to consider that.

it's emphasising the importance in Hackney Wick and Fish Island of doing that.

That's what it's adding, isn't it?

Yeah, I take that point.

Absolutely.

Communal amenity space now.

Firstly, so change of topic, coming up into space, can you go to your proof paragraph

of 9 .14?

So if you have the page number, that might be easier for you to find.

Yeah, so if I had 62.

Yeah, I have that.

And paragraph 9 .14, you say the LLDC's local plan contains no requirement for communal

amenity space.

Yeah, and I can see what you might be coming on to here. What is probably the better drafting

is contains no requirement for a specific quantity of community space. So yeah, apologies

that wasn't clear in there but I hope it is from the rest of the drafting now.

Okay so we can we can agree now we can let's look at it. It's Bn .4,

Policy B, N .4, the local plan, headed designing development.

And if you pick up Policy B, N .4 at the top of page 99

internally, it starts with the words, in meeting the above,

Right at the top of page 99. Yes, now I've got that. Thank you. In meeting above all mixed use and residential development should, and then paragraph 11 within BM point 4 says incorporate sufficient, well -designed and appropriately located communal and private immunity space. So I think you just agree it does require community immunity space. I think your point you make is about quantum.

Yeah, exactly. It's more of a qualitative assessment you have to make under BM4.

So in terms of the policy requirements, the word incorporates sufficient,

well -designed and appropriately located. I've dealt at some length with well -designed and

appropriately located with Ms. Young. So I'm not going to go over those with you, but

sufficient, and this goes to quantum I suppose, your point. I just want to ask

you some questions about that.

Obviously, sufficient plainly involves a judgement

by the decision maker.

Just looking at what might help us with that judgement.

London Plan Policy D6, please, which is on page 125.

Yeah, I'm there.

Thank you.

And in policy D6, paragraph B talks about qualitative aspects of development and then

refers to table 3 .2.

Can you see that?

Yeah, I'm at 3 .2 now.

And if we go to table 3 .2, just a few pages on, it starts at page 130

and goes over the page to 131 at the top.

Yeah, I'm at 131.

Thank you. And talks about outside space and says communal outside amenity spaces should,

first bullet point, provides sufficient,

this is where I'm going to hear the word

sufficient appearing again,

sufficient space to meet the requirements

of the number of residents.

Yeah, I was just going to agree.

Yeah, and so the London Plan is defining

or treating sufficiency in terms of

looking at the number of residents, yeah?

Yes.

That's helpful, good.

Okay, then the, in terms of what else might help us here,

the high density SPD, CD 7 .36.

Yes, I have that. Thank you. It's the Tower Hamlets SPD from December 2020. It's one of

the documents that Mr. Weir suggested we might get some assistance from, accepting

it doesn't strictly apply, and I think you make that point as well. In terms of whether

it does help us if we go to its internal page 12 which is PDF page 7

yes and there's a subheading on internal page 12 where the guidelines apply and

you draw attention to this I think you say the gardens will be applied when it

says the guns will be applied to see through residential and mixed -use

of elements across our hamlets that

is considered high density to find the schemes that

exceed 1 ,100 habitable rooms per hectare

or includes an element taller than 30 metres.

And so that's the height threshold.

We've got the habitable rooms threshold as well.

And you make the point that the scheme's at 28 .6 metres

and therefore below that threshold.

Yes.

And subject, I mean, I raised with Miss Yaya,

I don't think anyone's come back on it,

About the reference to 30 .5. I assume given I haven't come back in that is incorrect is it?

Yeah, that must be correct that the height that I've always had is

28 .6

So obviously we're within 1 .4 metres of the 30 metre threshold at 28 .6 natural fat

Yeah, yeah

below it.

And so we can take a view on whether, although the

threshold doesn't, the guidance doesn't strictly

apply for the reason we, this was Tower Hamlets, not

LLDC, and it doesn't hit the height threshold,

it's still relatively close to that height threshold.

Yes, but I mean, the threshold's there for a reason.

So if we're below it, then it doesn't apply.

So I don't really see the relevance of this document.

And then if you also take the habitable room,

the density measure with 688 habitable rooms

and this document applies to 1 ,100.

So if you're saying to me that because we're close

to the height threshold, it might have some relevance,

but I would deeply say we're very far away from,

well, far away from the habitable room threshold.

So I mean, it just doesn't apply to me.

And then go to internal page 63.

Sorry, do you have the PDF?

Yeah, PDF page 32.

Thanks, Yana.

And we see it, the quantitative guidance that you refer to, Mr. Weir refers to, is set out here.

It's on the right -hand side of the page under those three circles.

communal amenity equals 50 square metres for first 10 units and in addition one square metre for each following unit. Yeah

Yeah, although the reference I take is from the draught local plan, but it is the same

That anticipates my point then so we see the figure here in the SPD. It's in the draught local plan

But it works differently, but the quantum requires gets you to the same number

Yeah

Yeah, so it gets to 112 here, 50 for the first 10 units and one.

And it's also for completeness, as Mr. Weir says, it's in the adopted Tower Hamlet's local

plan as well.

This figure is in this methodology.

Yeah, yeah, I accept that.

So we've got it in the SPD, which looked at, you agreed in the emerging local plan, it's

also in the adopted Tower Hamlets local plan.

So Chima, what do you say?

In exercising this, as you say, it is a planning judgement.

In exercising this planning judgement on sufficiency,

it's plainly relevant, given we're only 1 .4 metres away

from the threshold, to have regard

to these quantitative figures in the SPD, Tower Hamlets

plan, the emerging local plan?

Yeah, I mean, you can have some small regard to them and that's sort of why, because I

think it's important to map out the chronology here because obviously when the scheme was

in pre -app, that's 2021, the scheme was submitted in 2023, it wasn't being designed to any Tower

Hamlet standard, it was designed to a more broader sense of sufficiency.

So if the suggestion is that in designing the scheme BGY should have had some regard to the development plan in Tower Hamlets, that doesn't seem relevant.

I mean, we've looked at it now sort of afterwards, but it obviously wasn't relevant at the time.

So I don't think criticism can be levelled against the scheme for not having regard to this document in 2021 when the design was being developed.

So I'm conscious of the time.

I'm in good progress.

And I think I've got no more than half an hour

and potentially less to go.

I mean, in your hands, in the witness's hands.

I propose, unless someone says otherwise,

that I continue and finish.

I appreciate that you may have questions and the sergeant may

have questions.

So that's my proposal, but obviously if you take a different view, sir, I'm happy to.

So could I just cheque? I am a bit concerned that if we just keep going, Mr Cheema may

want a break. So it sounds as though we won't, we can accommodate a short lunch and we'll

still be finished by half past two, I think. So I just don't want Mr Cheema to be sitting

there thinking that, you know, he'd like a comfort break or something. Thank you.

My preference would be to, if we're going to have a lunch break, to have it now.

Is half an hour enough?

Okay, we'll say then inquiry is adjourned until 25 to 2.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Cheema, on housing, you obviously correctly note the housing delivery test not passed

now?

Yes, that's correct.

In the new MPPF, five -year housing land supply remains national policy?

Yes, that's correct.

No dispute that Tower Hamlets does have a five -year housing land supply?

No dispute on that. I believe it's in one of the appendices to Mr. Waits proof and yeah I have no reason to doubt those figures.

Yeah the figure given is 9 .6 I think in one of those appendices.

Yeah that's the figure I recall as well.

Tower Hamlets compliance with national policy on 5 year land supply is not something you mention anywhere in your proof or rebuttal?

No I didn't mention that.

If we're going to have regard to national policy on housing

supply and delivery, we obviously

have regard to policy on delivery.

To be balanced, it's also relevant to have

regard to national policy on supply, isn't it?

Yeah, potentially.

But I would say that the text in the MPPF and the way

that the policies that I took you through in Evidence

in Chief show that even if supply is doing better

than delivery at the moment in town hamlets,

then I think it shouldn't diminish the fact

that we should attribute the highest possible weight

to housing in the planning relevance.

Why do you not refer to it anywhere

in your proof of rebuttal?

Well, I mean, I didn't refer to either delivery or supply

and in the documents because I was just,

the way that the MPPF was previously drafted,

those references were particularly relevant

when you're talking about whether to engage

the tilted balance or not,

and I didn't think it was particularly relevant

given that the figures were sufficient

to not engage the tilted balance at the time.

But if you're going to tell me now

that the failure to comply with the housing delivery test

is relevant, then the fact that

when you wrote your proof and your rebuttal,

there was compliance with the Housing for the Retest,

no longer.

And also, compliance with Five -Year Housing Land Supply

similarly would have been relevant.

Yeah, it has some relevance, but not to the extent

that it would diminish both of those policies that

are cited in evidence achieved.

Thank you.

On mix.

In terms of the figures, I've taken the USM

Mr. Weah's proof page 94.

Yes, on that.

And the table that set out, we can see the mix proposed.

And just on the three beds, obviously we've got

the figures there 5 -3 bed which I'm so that's out of the 72 proposed 7 .3 % that's

at the 69 but it's close whether you use the affordable figure or the market

figure and obviously no three beds affordable proposed yeah yeah no there's

two two beds in there yeah and then in response to mr. where's evidence on on

this on that mix point, you just take up your rebuttal where you deal with it.

Paragraph, so your rebuttal paragraph 2 .70, which is on page 13 of your rebuttal.

Thanks, I'm there.

And at paragraph 2 .70 at the bottom of page 13, you set out 5 .11 of the local plan.

Yeah, I do.

And so what that, you quoted it there, all proposals should reflect these identified

identified size, form and tenure requirements, providing an appropriate

balanced mix of one, two and three bedroom units. Mr Chima, providing five

three bed out of 72 units is not an appropriate balanced mix is it? Of one,

two and three bed units.

I don't know if I'd accept that necessarily because the policy goes on to set out a specific

quantitative test for how a balanced mix could be achieved or should be achieved in this

case. And it doesn't direct us to a particular proportion of three bedroom units and I don't

I believe it's something that the LLDC raised in their handover note if I recall correctly,

but that's just off the top of my head.

But I do think it's appropriately balanced.

Is that even?

Because the appropriate balance mix is to be a balance mix of one, two and three bed units.

So we get that guidance at least.

And just to be clear, so your evidence is having only five three bed out of 72

is an appropriate balanced mix of one, two and three bed, is that right?

Yes, I mean there's no definition of what is considered appropriate balance here

except for the fact that there's a requirement for two beds to be more than

one bed units and yeah again I can pull up the handover note but I don't think

this was an issue raised by the LLDC and yeah I don't know they saw a conflict

with that policy. The next sentence, provision of low -cost rented units

should provide an equal mix of one, two and three bed properties.

So, even more specific there, an equal mix, and there's no three bed provided at all affordable.

Yeah, I accept that that part of the paragraph hasn't been met, but I don't feel there's a significant harm that arises from the fact that there's two two bed, four units.

provided as affordable and not a through bed.

But yeah, I accept that it doesn't provide an equal mix.

So you agree that one isn't complied with that sentence.

And the next sentence, which you've

emboldened and underlined, all proposals

should contain more two -bedroom plus units

than one -bedroom units.

And then after that, at some length,

you analyse why you say that's the case.

Mr. Cheema, in addition to having regard to that sentence, which you have involved and

underlined, it's obviously relevant to have regard to whether there's compliance with

the previous two sentences, isn't it?

Yeah, I accept that, but you have to understand the context in which I wrote this, is that

there was a specific point that Mr. Weir made that I was seeking to rebut her, and so that

was the relevant part of the policy that then was the relevant context for the analysis

that followed. Good. So then go back to your main proof please. And on page 69, dealing

with some other benefits now. 11 .17 on page 69 is the provision of workspace aimed at

creative industries. And you say the typology of this workspace is light industrial space

which can be flexibly used as workshops, studios, exhibitions, space and showrooms. Workspace

includes a spill out space into the courtyard. There's an opportunity for other ancillary

functions such as CAFE, this provision would improve the functionality and

employment density of the existing site. So to be clear there that your weighting

is at least in part dependent on your assessment that what is proposed does

improve the functionality of the existing employment floor space and

if the inspector takes a different view, according to the council's approach, that it

doesn't improve the functionality,

then that would be relevant to have regard to in the waiting,

wouldn't it?

Yeah, I mean, if the inspector disagreed with my position

and agreed with the council's position,

then this waiting would be altered.

Next one, 11 .18, public realm.

Same point.

Perhaps we can get easy to agree there.

Your assessment and waiting of public realm is, I think,

as you clearly say, premised on your acceptance of Ms Young's and Dr Mealy's position and

probably your assessment as well, the council take a different view, agreed with Chung and

Mr Weir, that would again affect the weighting to the public realm benefit?

Yeah, it would do and obviously the extent to which it would affect the weighting depends

on the extent to which the inspector takes on the points that each party has made.

Yeah, understood. And the next point as well, 11 .19 high quality design as well, of course.

Yeah, same principle applies.

Loss of employment, I do have a more specific question on this.

So on loss of employment and how we deal with that in the planning balance,

Yes.

You take up the NPPF, please, and go to Policy H*** paragraph, page 35.

Yes, under.

H07, meeting the need for homes.

In applying the policy in this framework, substantial weight should be given to the

benefits of providing homes, which will contribute towards meeting evidence to accommodation,

means of the community, et cetera.

So, clear direction on waiting there.

The MPPF does not say, does it, that you give substantial weight to the loss of homes, but

it would obviously follow from that policy that loss of homes is something the MPPF would

see as an adverse effect, which is substantially negative as it's been waiting.

Yeah, although I suppose it would depend on the extent of the loss that, yeah, I think

it would follow.

Yeah, logically follow. It's clearly an important, very important matter that the MPPF is placing

weight on. Therefore, if you provide homes, substantial weight in favour. If, hypothetically

at the moment, you lose homes, substantial weight against, dependent on the extent of

the loss, as you say.

Yeah. Thank you. Go then to page 41, which is policy E2. Got that? Yeah, sorry. So we're in

economic policies now, policy E2, Para 1,

to support business growth, substantial weight

should be given to A, the economic benefits

of proposals for commercial development

which allow businesses to invest, expand,

or adapt, and so forth.

So again, substantial weight to economic benefits

of proposals for commercial development.

MPPF does not say, just as with housing,

substantial weight should be given to the loss as an adverse weighting the

loss of employment land does it no it doesn't but as with housing it logically

follows that because it gets substantial positive weight if you provide it if

you're going to lose a significant employment land that would get

substantial adverse weighting wouldn't it see on that point I think it's it's

slightly different and I think it would depend on the the amount of floor space

because I don't think it's credible.

Because we may very well end up in a scenario

where the inspector looks at our figures

and decides that he takes some of what Mr. Weir said,

some of what I say, and ends up at, let's say,

a 20 square metre loss of employment floor space,

assuming the live -work is lawful.

This is all premised on.

I don't think in that scenario, just because there is a loss,

substantial weight should be assigned to it.

How can that be right?

If policy is telling us that if you provide economic benefits

of proposals for commercial development,

which allow business to invest, expand, or adapt,

it's not putting a quantum on it.

Just like with housing, it doesn't put a quantum in it.

That gets substantial weight.

If you lose that, just as if you lose housing,

to count the houses you lose, substantial adverse weight

follows as night follows day, doesn't it?

I don't think you can make that cross comparison with housing

and economic force face because I think if you're talking about a home being lost, to

me that might attract substantial weight but here if it's just there's a slightly smaller

area in which an employment function can carry out, I don't think that should have substantial

negative weight.

Well, if you maintain density, I'd certainly accept that.

But if you're losing capacity, whether it's

by floor space or by density, just in the same way

that if you might lose a single house, again a single house,

principle applies that this is an important matter,

and therefore it cuts both ways.

I just have to reiterate what I've said before.

I think, yeah, I just disagree with that.

Okay, well, this formulation.

Losing employment floor space capacity

runs contrary to the policy objective in E2, doesn't it?

The policy objective of E2 is sort of a positive framing of where it's seeking to support new

proposals for new economic growth. So it's not discussing a scenario where there might

be a small reduction in floor space as part of a wider scheme.

There's a balance to be struck as part of a wider scheme, but just...

The policy objective is to enable, allow, give support to commercial development which allows businesses to invest.

Losing employment capacity runs contrary to that policy objective, doesn't it?

It does, but there's a proportionality element to it.

Okay, I accept the proportionality. Thank you.

Good.

A question about DP9 of the London Plan and BN5.

Sorry, do you mean D9?

Sorry, yes, you're right. D9, yeah.

Yeah, I've got D9.

So, policy D9,

tall buildings, and we looked at part B,

this is on page 138 of the money plan,

and the observation I think that was made was that,

made it that policy d9 does not have a significant additional public benefit

criterion in it no it doesn't okay in terms of what beat d9 does say so d9

part B sub part 3 says tall buildings should only be developed in locations

that are identified as suitable in development plans.

Yes, you said sir?

BN5, which we've obviously looked at quite a bit,

that's the policy in the local plan

which has the significant additional public benefit criterion.

The approach there in BN5 is to say,

here are some locations for tall buildings,

the centre and let's just take it up just make sure being accurate so BN 5

the local plan page 102 yeah BN 5 says tall building should be located within

the centre boundaries outlined on this within this local plan yes and then says

talks about a scenario when you go outside those centre boundaries and in

that scenario if you're above the threshold you then have to attack tick

this extra box of significant additional benefit yeah in terms of consistency

between d9 and bn5 the point put to is the weir d9 is actually stricter than

bn5 because bn5 says these are the locations for tall buildings you go

outside you have to tick the significant addition public benefit box amongst others. D9 says

in terms these are where tourdings should be and you shouldn't be outside them.

Yeah although I believe the Mastad -Bruher case sort of overtakes that somewhat because

it establishes that even where you're outside of those locations you still assess against

the criteria so I think that is the proper reading of it that you would still it doesn't

completely prohibit tall buildings in London anywhere outside of those areas.

Yeah, you referred to that in your proof.

That's the reading that's been given to it.

Just back to this consistency point and the point about, well, if there's

inconsistent policies, you resolve the conflict in favour of the last adopted,

the most recent policy, yeah? Yes.

D9, slightly more recent, I think, than local plan.

if we are going to say they're inconsistent and resolve that conflict in favour of D9,

if there is a conflict, that would be reading it more strictly and not having this additional

ability to go outside the locations. It would remove this exception, which is a permissive

exception on one reading from DN5, wouldn't it?

Yeah, it would remove the exception, but if you were to just assess this against policy

D9 then master brewer becomes relevant because then you it doesn't completely on the basis

of that case it doesn't completely restrict all buildings outside that area so although

the wording of the policy appears to be stricter the way that you would assess it in the round

would be more permissive because you wouldn't have the significant additional public benefit.

Okay, that's good.

We can make some missions on that.

That's D9.

Sustainable access measure, SAM, just briefly on that.

Yes.

Which promised me in your evidence since that came out.

That's not currently adopted policy, not supported by currently adopted policy, is it?

No it isn't but I think that type of measure is a quantitative measure. When the London

plan will be under examination it won't be the policy that informs, it won't be the specific

methodology of the SAM that will be examined, it will be the policy. So I still think it

is important because it's TFL's latest position on what they think the accessibility of all

sites in London is.

Yes, I don't say it's irrelevant by any means.

But I think you've said your position on the draught London

plan is limited or very limited weight.

Yeah, no, I accept that.

But the point that the SAM is a measure of public transport

accessibility can sit outside the weighting

that you give to the London plan because it is just

a measure of public transport accessibility.

It's not a policy in itself.

But it's a supporting bit of work for the emerging London plan, isn't it?

It is, but it can also be viewed in its own right as a methodology, so I think we can

take that into account separately.

I mean, to the extent that it affects the optimisation framework, I accept, yes, it

has limited weight in that regard, but as just a measure in its own right, I think we

can take that as the latest position on the accessibility of the site.

It's up for examination, scrutiny in the London plan, like other bits of methodology supporting

the emerging lambda plan?

Yes, but I don't see that the, yeah, well I wouldn't see that the examination process

would specifically try and unpick a methodology by the TFL that produced that. I feel like

the focus of the examination is likely to be more related on the policy implications.

Thank you. Finally then on significant additional public benefit, a couple of final questions

on that. So if you've got BN5 still open from the local plan, and where this appears, it's

in the last two lines of the second paragraph of BN5,

In addition to meeting the criterion in this policy, and policies BN1 and BN4,

the proposal would achieve significant additional public benefit.

So there's arguably two bits of additionality there.

In addition to meeting the criteria in the policy,

you then have to achieve significant additional public benefit.

Yeah, I accept that.

From the next paragraph, subject to the above, proposals for tall buildings will be considered

acceptable where they exhibit exceptionally good design, demonstrating this through independent

design review and so forth.

Sticking with what significant additional public benefit is, significant additional

public benefit is going beyond exceptionally good design, because that's compliance with

the policy.

Yeah, I accept that, although that's quite strict drafting, I would say, that if everything

has to be beyond exceptionally good design, then that is a...

Yeah, sorry, not quite the point I'm making.

The point is that exceptionally good design is a part of the policy.

You've got to achieve compliance with the policy and then you've got to achieve significant

additional public benefit. So that I'm not suggesting you achieve a level of design that's

beyond exceptionally good. I think that would be that would be onerous. But it the policy

therefore is clearly making clear that significant significant additional public benefit will be

something additional to providing exceptionally good design.

Yeah, I see. In terms of significant additional public benefit, it's a, again,

involves planning judgement, it's not specifically defined. In terms of

what help we do get, what inferences we can draw.

Significant additional public benefit can't just mean extra floor space, can it?

Because height will always provide the opportunity for extra floor space.

So extra floor space relative to what do you mean?

Not exceeding that.

So is your interpretation or the interpretation you're putting to me that significant additional

public benefit is only the amount of development that exceeds the 20 metres?

That's a separate point. In terms of what, considering what might get over the threshold

of being a significant additional public benefit, the fact that you provide extra floor space

by going higher, that can't be enough in itself because you will always get extra floor space

by going higher.

The floor space in itself, no, but it depends on what the floor space is used for and what

specific benefit that is delivering.

Good, understood.

In terms of what the LLDC thought, see if we get any assistance from their approach.

If you look at the CD3 .9 pre -application response.

Yes, I have that.

So the views expressed here, this is the 7th of July 2021 pre -application response.

And on page two of that, under form, scale and massing, don't ask you about design,

obviously, but just to put it in context, they say the prevailing height for sub -area

one of which this site is past is 20 metres above existing ground level set out in the

plan proposal is exceeding these heights policy bn5 is triggered which requires

the proposal both to be justified from an urban design perspective and have

clear public benefit this could include consideration of and then they gave

three things affordable housing offer affordable workspace offer and public

realm benefits so ll DC I'm going to suggest you not saints exhausted but

They're putting forward three,

arguably obvious things which might get you over

that significant additional public benefit threshold.

I'll ask about two of them.

Public realm dealt with the design witnesses.

It's obviously a disagreement on quality.

Dealing with the other two,

affordable housing.

Obviously the scheme provides 4 % affordable housing,

three units out of 72, policy targets 35%.

And as we've seen, there's no three bedroom

affordable houses.

So question to you Mr. Chima, in that context,

taking that kind of those factors,

and keeping things in perspective.

three affordable houses in a 70 -unit scheme is not a significant additional public benefit,

is it?

No, I think that specific part of the public benefits package, I mean, it's policy compliant,

but yeah, I would accept that that alone is not a significant additional public benefit.

Okay, that's helpful, thank you.

So then that takes me to the other one I want to ask you about, which is affordable workspace

offer. Obviously on your case, your figures, in terms of quantum of employment

floor space you're broadly matching what's there at the moment 1500 or so. In

creative and cultural occupiers can afford. Okay then in terms of any

additionality, drawing on the policy wording of significant additional public

benefit, so in terms of any additionality obviously I accept that you will secure

the floor space to be affordable workspace in the technical sense and

and that should enable cultural and creative occupiers to continue to occupy it, to afford it.

But that is simply maintaining the status quo in terms of their occupation by those occupiers, isn't it?

No, because I think there's an increase in functionality that goes alongside it,

so in terms of the value for money that those operators would be getting, it would be improved.

and yeah I think I set out this a bit earlier today that the point that you've raised about

it now being secured I think that is a public benefit and that together with the fact that

the functionality is improved then yeah I think that contributes to a significant additional

public benefit. Leave aside functionalities, I've dealt with that with I take your evidence

I hear what you say.

In terms of occupation by creative and affordable,

sorry, creative and cultural occupiers,

what you will secure and what you're proposing

is to maintain the occupation of 1 ,500 square metres

by cultural and creative occupiers,

rather than bringing a net addition

of creative and cultural occupiers to the area, isn't it?

Yeah, in terms of quantity alone,

But again, I'm just repeating the point before the proportionate increase in functionality

Whilst the affordability remains the same that should be taken into account and that is the additionality

understood

And sorry before we move on. I know you didn't specifically ask about this, but the public realm benefits

Just to reiterate. I think that is a very that's part of the additional public benefit

significant additional public benefit package, so

So yeah, I think the site represents a unique opportunity to achieve that by connecting

to the canal.

But obviously that was covered in design.

Understood.

Thank you, Mr. Cheema.

Thank you, sir.

Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Just one point I'd like to clarify.

In terms of policy B1 and the exercise you've gone through of extracting workspace from

live work, can I just be clear that exercise you, is it the opponent's position that that's

the correct exercise to go through in relation to B1 or have you done that for some other

reason? Well the reading of B1 as we discussed earlier is a little ambiguous in that it appears

to be seeking to protect these types of uses but it doesn't specify a sugenerous use so

as a sort of without prejudice to that position I still conducted the assessment because I thought

that would be helpful. But yeah, I don't think there's a strict policy requirement. But yeah,

as I mentioned it when it was put to me, I assessed what I thought would be most akin to

those B -class uses. So I tried to align it as much as I could with the policy, but noting the fact

that the policy itself doesn't require so generous uses to be protected explicitly.

But just to be clear, I know you, I think you said you invited me to think about it,

but do you think it's the correct approach?

I think if you read the policy to the letter, then the correct approach is no,

you don't need to take into account the workspace.

The reason I did is because I felt it would be helpful,

but no, my position on that is that you're not required to.

Okay.

The sergeant do you have any questions?

Thank you, sir, not very many and

Yeah, mr. Tuma could um, I might do the reverse order could you pick up the new MPPF again, please

Can we go back to internal page 41 policy E2?

The question was put to you that in broad terms losing employment capacity is contrary to the policy objective

and you said it does but there is a proportionality element to it which Mr Flanagan accepted.

I mean ultimately I'm going to make submissions on what this policy means because it's a matter

of law. But the policy says we can see E21A substantial weight is to be given to the economic

benefits of proposals for commercial development which allow businesses to invest expand and

or adapt. So that's the positive context. If we're in a world where we should be applying

this to loss of commercial space. What's your view on whether there would be a conflict

if there was a loss of employment floor space but it had no impact on the ability of businesses

to invest, expand and or adapt?

Yeah, well if the loss didn't run contrary, or if it didn't cause an effect that would

run, which would not allow businesses to invest, expand or adapt, then there would be no weight

assigned to that if the loss didn't cause a negative effect on that point A.

Thank you, let me just see where we need to go next.

Yes. So this is all from before lunch now, Mr Chima, but you were discussing the loss

of live work with Mr Flanagan and the fact that the scheme isn't re -providing any and then it was

put to you that although there isn't extant policy protection for the live work, nevertheless the

losses are material consideration and it should go into the overall planning balance and you

explain that you didn't agree with that because if there isn't a policy basis then you wouldn't

it into the planning balance. If the inspector were to take a different view, so if he takes

Mr Flanagan's position and says it is a material consideration, so I am going to weigh it into

the planning balance, what's your view on the weight that the inspector should give it please?

I think it could only really be given limited weight because there's no policy

basis for protecting it and it's more of a general sense of that something's

being lost but there's no policy basis for it so I don't think you could

describe anything higher than limited weight.

Thank you.

And then on the new MPPF again, can we go back to HC6 please?

Yeah, so on this was on Victoria Wharf studios and the point was put well, you've given it

minor harm but now there's a stronger level of protection in HC6 and so we should up the

weight and you said you'd accept moderate in the light of the new MPPF. But if the inspector

concludes that there's no conflict with HC6 because you recall the discussion

you had with Mr Flanagan about sufficient alternative provision and

the things that are already in the neighbourhood. So if the inspector takes

the view that there isn't a conflict of HC6 because of 1C and available

alternative provision, in that scenario of no conflict what's your view on

the weight that needs to be given to the loss of Victoria War Studio, please?

So in that scenario, it would revert to the minor weight that I ascribed to it before the MPPF was

published. So my answer where you might upgrade that to moderate weight was on the basis that

there is a conflict with this new policy that has emerged after I wrote the proof.

And then it was put to you towards the start of the cross -examination. You were discussing

two more years and let me just so that you can orient yourself. We were looking at paragraph

247 I think in your advice oh yes yes so it was the point about you having said

that you think the loss of two more years if it's an events when you

primarily would be outweighed by the increase in the floor space and then it

was said well you can't make a judgement without evaluating the contribution that

the two more years use is making and you acknowledge that you could have gone

into more detail on that point.

Yeah, I mean, if we turn up Mr. Weir's proof, please.

I've got that. Do you have the paper?

And within that, we go to page 34.

Oh no, sorry, that's not a workspace.

Yes.

So sorry, page 61.

Okay, I'm at page 61.

Yeah, so we've got here the coursework, the coursework, the coursework, the coursework,

venues issue which is reason for refusal to, site analysis and then Mr. Weir treats

two more years at 61, 62, 63, 64 and then to the top of page 65.

Yeah. I mean to what extent had you had regard to his evidence in his proof

before you reached your conclusion in your rebuttal that we just looked at?

Yeah I reviewed Mr. Weir's proof in detail so yeah I was aware of the

the contribution based on the details that Mr. Ware provided.

And finally

Well, two final points actually. This was a point on the significant additional public

benefits test and the fact that only on the council's view only three of the 72

units are affordable housing. What's your view as to the likely position in

relation to affordable housing if you know the scheme were lower? Yeah if the scheme

were lower then that would affect the viability of the scheme because yeah

that there wouldn't be as many units provided.

And by virtue of that,

it's less likely that affordable housing

would be able to be provided

and therefore that public benefit wouldn't be delivered.

So yeah, in relation to that,

the height specifically allows you

to deliver the affordable housing.

So there's a public benefit there

and that feeds into the significant

additional public benefits package.

And could you just turn up core document 540 please, which is the response to BNP Paribas?

Yes, I have that.

And go to page 2.

Yeah, I'm on page 2.

And the second to last paragraph there says, further to your discussions with the applicant's

We've also examined the viability of the scheme

with a single -storey reduction to Block 1,

i .e. eight units removed.

We advised that in this scenario,

the viability would worsen and this change

would represent a challenge to the overall deliverability

of the scheme, which we consider is borderline.

Now, I mean, I think the viability position

may have moved on since then,

and it's not a matter that's in dispute,

but to what extent does what is said there,

you know, what's your view on how that sits

with the point you just made?

Well yeah, I mean that corroborates the point I just made and yeah, the viability experts

clearly conducted that assessment and came to the same conclusion that I just outlined

there.

Thank you. And then final point was just, you'll remember there was this issue around

how can we correlate the unit 1A from the stat deck with the B4D4 that you've identified in your material?

And we matched up, I think it was page 23 of the document we were just in, the BNP Parabas response,

and you took us to one corresponding photo at page 393 of your proof.

It may be that that was the only photo you wanted to take us to,

but are there any more that you want to explain

to the inspectors before we leave your evidence?

Yeah, I can take a quick look now, if that's all right.

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to find the relevant photos.

So there's a similar photo at page 26 that shows that living area that correlates to

page 393 of my proof. So it's a similar photo to the one before.

Sorry, what document are we looking at?

My proof of evidence page 393 again, but the response to BMPs, so it's called document

540, page 26, it shows a similar image.

Is this the one we looked at before?

it's a slight variation on it, the one I showed you before was page 23 of that same document.

But some of these photos are more historic, they're more historic photos of this unit,

so I'm just trying to match up where it's most clear that it's the same unit because

because mezzanines have been put in after.

So if I can also take you to page 22 in that same BMP response, so 540, and it's an older

image but I believe that correlates with page 377 of my proof of evidence. It's a bit harder

to see in that angle. And the space has been rearranged slightly but I think that's looking

at that staircase. What was the page number? So page 22 of the 540 and then page 377 of

my proof.

And then one final one to show you is page 16 of that doctrine 540.

So that's sort of showing the corridor between the two living areas on the mezzanine, which

you may recall we visited that unit on site and sort of walked from one end to the other

of that upper floor.

And so the best place to find a comparative image, or roughly comparative image, is page

398 of my proof.

I believe it shows it from the other end, but it's that narrow corridor that runs along the top of that unit.

I suppose the other point to remind you of, so, is that if you recall when we went into

that unit, the label on the door was Unit 1A. If you recall that, that's the one that

we went to. But as far as the photo comparisons go, I think that's all that I have to say

on that.

Thank you, Mr Cheamer. Sir, with congratulations to Mr Flanagan for his impeccable timing,

that concludes Mr Cheamer's cross -examination and evidence. Thank you.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

So just before we finish, we need to talk about next week.

There are those things still outstanding that need to be provided.

Do you want to remind you what they are or have you?

Probably best I think so, yes.

I think the points where I asked the question last week about what land was in the, whether

any of the site was in the conservation area, was the question about a planning regime for

the mezzanines.

I've lost my note of what the questions were.

So I think it was whether the foot of the bridge was in the conservation area or not.

And the pontoons was the other point?

So the questions I'd asked last week were, is any of the site in the conservation area?

Is the bridge in the conservation area?

What's the planning regime for the pontoons?

If you could provide me some feedback on that.

There was also going to be an updated draught section 106 to the cap.

That should have reached you, I think.

The council solicitor helpfully provided a composite, clean, updated version which, from

My understanding has been sent into pins.

Yep, that's just come through, so that's fine.

Now you'll be giving your

closings, which is to remind you if you could provide those in writing.

and again send them in to the case officer. Is there any indication at this point as to

whether we'll be dealing with costs? Not from us, thank you.

Anything else to raise before we finish?

I think really just to cheque what time we're starting on Tuesday and I think presumably

you're dealing with section 106 and conditions first and then closing.

I don't think there's anything else outstanding.

That's right.

It was I had 930 down for Tuesday

The only thing I had

raises a possibility was a

Second site visit it does anyone think that might be useful

No strong view sir

No, I think similar to surface anything you feel having now heard all of the evidence

you'd like to go and have another look at, we obviously have, we support that, but really

we're in your hands as to whether you think you've seen enough on the points that you

think are relevant.

I think about it over the weekend, but I don't think that if I go back it needs to be a visit

of the type that we did the first time.

Though not a visit that needs access to all areas.

Okay then, until 9 .30 next Tuesday, the inquiry is 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 - 04/09/26Friday, 4th September 2026 at 10:00am

Public Inquiry - Vittoria Wharf, Stour Road/Beachy Road, London E3 2NT - 04/09/26
Friday, 4th September 2026 at 10:00am