Brick Lane: when democracy is reduced to two votes

UDRO report: development, democracy, and the fight for Brick Lane

Brick Lane represents one of London’s most culturally layered districts — historically industrial, later the heart of the British Bangladeshi community, and now at the epicentre of gentrification pressure.

In 2021, a proposal for a shopping mall and office complex at the Truman Brewery site passed by a margin of two votes to one, with only three councillors present.

7,487 letters of objection.

140 trader signatures.

556 resident objections.

Two votes.

The decision was upheld through the High Court, Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court in July 2024.

Most would have walked away.

UDRO did not.

The dispute: in depth

UDRO's intervention began as an investigation into the dispute over plans to redevelop the Truman Brewery Complex, specifically the construction of a shopping mall, with four floors of corporate offices above, in the car park of the Truman Brewery Complex on Brick Lane. The project was chosen because, at the beginning of this calendar year, it had become a high-profile legal case that brought the ethics of a London Council into question, and it had brought to the forefront the issue of gentrification, which continues to plague London.

It was this intersection of these two themes, which had become a recurrence in UDRO’s previous projects, as well as developments across London, that prompted UDRO to select Brick Lane as its third and final project for 2025. What nobody could have predicted was how the development evolved and necessitated a different kind of response from UDRO as an organisation.

The Old Truman Brewery was, at one point, one of the largest manufacturers of beer in the world. Increased competition from bigger brands eventually led to the Brewery’s closure in 1989. The entire site, which also includes the buildings, yards, and warehouses, has been owned by the Zeloof family since the 1970s. In 2020, they submitted plans to Tower Hamlets Council for a shopping mall with new office spaces. The biggest opponent of these plans was the Save Brick Lane Coalition. 

The coalition consists of residents and several community and heritage groups. The objection is on two grounds: the new structure would be incompatible with the Brick Lane Conservation area, and it would contribute to the ongoing gentrification of Brick Lane. The dwarfing of 19^th-century housing, potentially reducing light by 60%, is an obvious consequence that the proposal would have. When one also examines the history of Brick Lane, the latter objection is also illuminated. 

Brick Lane has been home to a strong Bangladeshi community since the post-war period, when Bengali men working in the garment trade opened curry houses on Brick Lane. By the turn of the century, Brick Lane represented the beating heart of the British Bangladeshi community. However, in recent years, several corporate buildings have been constructed that are at odds with the traditional brick character of the area. 

The coalition has cited two recent cases in the area that exemplify this trend. The first was the partial demolition of the Fruit and Wool Exchange in Spitalfields, which was home to local businesses, to make way for an international law firm. The shops now lie vacant underneath. The latter was the excessive buying of old properties in Norton Folgate (a street which connects Bishopsgate to Spitalfields) by the City of London. British Land then proposed to demolish these same properties in favour of office spaces. It is evident that the character of Brick Lane and its surrounding area has been gradually eroded over time, and that a new development in the literal backyard of an iconic brewery is a symbol of this decay. 

A committee of Tower Hamlets Council met to consider the application. They first met in April 2021, but the decision was deferred until 14^th September 2021. However, at the first meeting, only five of the seven councillors were present. At the key second meeting, two further councillors were absent. This meant that out of a committee of a potential seven councillors, only three voted on the proposal, which was approved by a margin of two to one. The coalition understandably did not feel that this was democratic, drawing attention to the fact that the planning application “received 7,487 letters of objection (a phenomenal number), a letter of opposition signed by 140 Brick Lane traders and a letter of objection signed by 556 local residents.” Their argument against the council’s decision is only exacerbated by the fact that the two councillors, who were present at the first but not the second meeting, Sufia Alam and Leema Quresh, both made public statements that were unfavourable to the proposed application. Councillor Alam expressed disappointment at the lack of housing in the development, and Councillor Qureshi stated on record that she would have voted against the proposal. Understandably, Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust brought a judicial review against the council in 2022, on the basis that committee members who had not been present when the application was considered in the initial meeting should have been allowed to vote on it at the September 2021 meeting. The High Court Judge upheld the decision. The Spitalfields Trust then appealed to the Court of Appeal, but this was similarly dismissed. Finally, the case was referred to the Supreme Court on July 25^th 2024.  

It was against this backdrop that UDRO intervened in the case.

UDRO's response

In late 2024, a significantly expanded proposal emerged — involving data centres, multi-storey extensions, office-heavy development, and minimal community provision.

UDRO submitted:

• A formal objection citing breach of the Spitalfields & Banglatown Masterplan SPD

• A Stage 1 complaint challenging procedural concerns

• Strategic guidance to the Save Brick Lane Coalition regarding Rule 6 Party participation in the Public Inquiry

Following our advice, the Coalition entered proceedings as a Rule 6 Party in October 2025.

For a volunteer organisation, contributing meaningfully to a live Public Inquiry is a significant institutional milestone.

UDRO's formal objection made the following points:

1.  A three-storey extension to the Boiler House building, above which the famous "Truman" chimney is located. 

2. Replacing the ancillary buildings on Buxton Street behind the Boiler House with a seven-storey data centre, with offices on the upper floors and retail on the lower floors. 

3. A refurbishment of the cooperage building on Spital Street to provide event space on the ground floor and art studio space on the upper floor. 

4. The relocation of the neighbouring waste facility to allow the construction of a three-storey building, similar to other parts of this proposal, i.e. retail on the ground floor and office space on the upper floors. 

5. The conversion of the Cash and Carry on Spital Street into a seven-storey housing unit with retail floorspace on the ground floor. 

6. The replacement of a building on 47 Grey Eagle Street, formerly part of a residential district in the late 19^th century, with a four-storey data centre. 

7. The occupation of Ely’s yard by a new venue, with a food hall on the ground floor and office space above.  Currently, Ely's yard houses several food trucks and a bar.  

Utilising this information, the legal advocate on this project submitted a formal objection to Tower Hamlets Council on the new proposal.  UDRO argued that it breached the new Spitalfields & Banglatown Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which prioritises affordable housing and emphasises protection of heritage, due to its lack of community provision and excessive office space, something that does not accord with this post-Covid world. UDRO also submitted a Stage 1 complaint through the council’s official portal, raising concerns about how the final vote was conducted, including the exclusion of public objections and the councillor who couldn’t vote due to Covid absence. Our two objections both sought to highlight how all aspects of this development, both old and new, completely ignored the economic and social realities of Brick Lane. 

The Save Brick Lane coalition was able to view our objections and got in touch with us directly, following the Truman Estate’s appeal of Tower Hamlets Council’s unanimous rejection of the new planning applications. They asked our insight as to whether they should intervene as a Rule 6 Party, which would allow the coalition to participate actively in the Public Inquiry resulting from the Truman Estate’s appeal, in relation to a particular legal question. UDRO had to mobilise quickly, researching the relevant law and its precedents, before assisting the Coalition with our recommendations. As a result, they have decided to participate as a Rule 6 Party, which has been ongoing since October 2025. In line with our advice, they have opted to seek more formal legal representation, but this was undoubtedly our most successful project this year. UDRO made a significant contribution to ongoing legal proceedings for a high-profile development.

Lessons for London

Alexander Kardos-Nyheim, UDRO's founder and Chief Executive, concluded with the following remarks:

"Developers depend on fatigue. They depend on intimidation. They depend on complexity.

Brick Lane shows that persistence matters. Even when developers win at the Supreme Court, scrutiny can still shape subsequent proposals and force procedural discipline.

London’s identity is not a commodity. It is not a data centre opportunity. It is not surplus land. It is lived history."