SAVE BRICK LANE

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Postcode]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]

[Date]

[Name of MP] MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Request to Reject the Truman Brewery Planning Application (Brick Lane)

Dear [Name of MP],

I am writing to you as one of your constituents to express my profound concern regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Old Truman Brewery site on Brick Lane. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, has 'called in' this application for his own determination, I urge you to represent the interests of our communities by formally requesting that he reject these proposals.

Brick Lane is not merely a local landmark; it is a site of immense national significance, embodying centuries of architectural heritage and a vibrant, living history of migration in the United Kingdom. From the Huguenots and Jewish communities to its current status as the heart of the British Bangladeshi community, Brick Lane stands as a powerful counter-example of successful community cohesion and cultural richness. At a time when far-right politics are unfortunately on the rise both in the UK and globally, protecting such a vital symbol of diversity and integration is more crucial than ever. 

The decision on the Truman Brewery site is not merely a technical planning matter; it is a defining test of this Government’s commitment to tackling structural inequality and the housing crisis. Based on the evidence presented at the recent Planning Inquiry, there are compelling planning and legal grounds for refusal:

1. Failure to deliver much-needed housing and optimise the site
Tower Hamlets is facing a severe housing crisis, with high levels of overcrowding and long waiting lists for social housing. The Tower Hamlets Local Plan (Site Allocation 1.7 – Brick Lane and Pedley Street) identifies this site as suitable for residential-led development, with the potential to deliver over 300 homes.

However, the current proposal includes only 44 homes, only six of which will be for social rent, representing a very small proportion of the overall development. This is a significant underuse of a highly accessible brownfield site and conflicts with both the Local Plan and London Plan Policy D3, which requires development to optimise site capacity, particularly for housing. In the context of the Council’s Housing Delivery Test failure, this under-delivery should weigh heavily against the scheme.

2. Conflict with the development plan
Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case, the proposals are not residential-led and do not align with the site allocation strategy for this location. This clear conflict with the development plan should be given substantial weight in decision-making.

3. Harm to heritage and local character
The site lies within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area and affects the setting of important listed buildings. The scale and design of the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the area, including important views and local landmarks.

Under sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, decision-makers must give special regard to preserving listed buildings and their setting, and special attention to preserving or enhancing conservation areas. National policy makes clear that even less than substantial harm must be given considerable importance and weight.

4. Lack of meaningful community engagement and barriers to participation
There is strong evidence that many local residents, particularly from the Bangladeshi community, were not effectively able to participate in the consultation process. Concerns have been raised that translated materials were inaccurate or difficult to understand, and that language support at consultation events was inadequate.

As a result, many residents felt excluded from meaningful engagement at an early stage, when key design decisions were being made. This is contrary to national planning policy, which emphasises that effective and inclusive community engagement is essential to achieving good design.

5. Equality impacts and risk of indirect discrimination
These barriers to participation raise serious concerns in relation to the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Decision-makers must have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity and ensure that protected groups are not disadvantaged.

In this case, there is a real concern that the Bangladeshi community, which forms a significant part of the local population, has been disproportionately affected both by the consultation process and by the potential impacts of rising costs and displacement resulting from the development.

6. Risk of displacement and failure to achieve inclusive growth
Local businesses and residents in the Brick Lane area are already under pressure from rising rents. Development of this scale risks accelerating displacement and undermining the existing social and economic fabric of the area.

London Plan policies on “Good Growth” (GG1 and GG5) require development to be inclusive and to ensure that existing communities benefit from growth. There is a clear risk that these proposals would fail to meet those objectives.

7. Concerns regarding the proposed data centre and its impacts
The inclusion of a large-scale data centre within the proposed development raises further significant concerns. Data centres are highly energy-intensive and contribute substantially to carbon emissions, which appears inconsistent with local and national climate objectives, including the UK’s net zero commitments. In addition, such uses typically generate limited employment relative to their footprint, offering minimal benefit to the local community when compared to alternative uses such as housing or affordable workspace. The introduction of this infrastructure also risks undermining the character of the area and does not align with the residential-led vision set out in the development plan. Taken together, these factors further weigh against the proposal in the overall planning balance.

8. Limited and overstated public benefits
While the application refers to economic benefits such as jobs and investment, these appear limited in practice. The number of genuinely accessible jobs for local people is unclear, and the provision of housing, community space, and affordable workspace is minimal.

When assessed in the planning balance, these limited benefits do not outweigh the significant harms identified above.

Conclusion
This proposal does not reflect the needs of the local community, fails to deliver the housing that is urgently required, and risks causing lasting harm to the character, heritage, and social fabric of Brick Lane. Many people in the community feel that they were not properly heard in a process that will significantly affect their homes, livelihoods, and cultural identity.

I therefore respectfully ask that you write to the Secretary of State to request that planning permission is refused, and that any future development prioritises housing, community needs, and the preservation of Brick Lane’s unique cultural heritage.

I would be grateful to hear what steps you are able to take to support your constituents on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]