Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 20 August 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 20th August 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We've gone live I think. We have, yes, gone live. For
the millions who will be watching us as they're all enjoying the August summer holidays. Sorry
to drag you in. Made sure the weather wasn't quite so hot as it's been recently, which
which would have been suffocating in this room
as some of you all know.
So this is the Planning Applications Committee,
20th of August, and I'm first of all
gonna introduce myself, Tony Belton,
Chair of the Committee and the Council of Battersea,
part of the ward in Battersea.
I'm gonna introduce members of the top table here
and others as they speak.
I don't think people can be expected to remember names
if they're all introduced,
but we'll start with the top table.
Good evening, my name's Nick Calder,
I'm the head of development management.
Good evening, my name is Duncan Moores,
I'm the external legal advisor.
Hello, Laura Campbell from Democratic Services.
Right, thank you.
I've seen a copy of the minutes,
I imagine Councillor Humphreys has,
and so I can sign them as a correct record, yes, thank you.
That's agreed.
Indeed, moving on to declaration of interests, if anyone has a financial or pecuniary interest
of any kind in any of the applications, then they must declare it.
Has anyone got anything to declare?
No declarations of interest?
Fine, thank you.
Apologies, Councillor Humphries?
Yes, Chair.
Apologies from Councillor Girindjian.
He was on leave last time, wasn't he?
He's having a long break.
Sorry?
Interspersed, okay fine.
Move on to the applications.
First of all, application number one,
which is land in Nine Elms Lane
adjacent to the United States Embassy.
and it's an application for two hotels,
which has been passed in the past,
has been passed before, and this is for a variation.
Ms Tucker, are you going to explain to us
what the variation's about and why?
Thank you, Chairman.
This application seeks a variation
to the previously completed legal agreement
to allow the phased occupation of the two approved hotels.
The existing legal agreement restricts the occupation
of the hotels until they have both been constructed
and requires all of the associated works to be provided
before both hotels can be occupied.
The proposed changes to the legal agreement
would enable one of the hotels to be occupied
prior to the completion of the second hotel.
The updated legal agreement would secure
the phased delivery of the works on site which would link to the phased occupation of the hotels.
A new provision within the legal agreement includes a long stop date to ensure that all
of the expected benefits associated with the scheme will be delivered by December 2028.
No other amendments are proposed to the approved development. This application solely relates to
changes in the drafting of the legal agreement,
and so there is no opportunity to revisit
the planning merits of the scheme.
This completes my brief summary of the application.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Can I ask if we're prepared to see different dates
for completion, why we thought it was so important
to have the same date last time it was considered?
Thank you.
So last time there wasn't actually
a date by which the applicant had to complete the hotels. There was only the standard date by which
they have to commence development within three years from obtaining approval. The reason a long
stop date has now been suggested is that previously all of the benefits associated with the scheme
would have needed to be delivered before they could occupy, so therefore that was the mechanism
by which to ensure that all of the benefits would be achieved, as
they now would be able to commence occupation of the development.
In the instance in which only one of the hotels was to be delivered,
we have included a long -stop date to ensure that all of the
expected benefits would still be delivered.
Mr Moore, do you want to be happy with it?
It was not a matter that I was involved in, but it meets the
test that you would look at for a modification application of
this nature. I had no legal comments on the report once it was
published, so I think it is a good application to recommend to
you.
Thank you. Any questions, queries or do we just accept the
officer's word for it as it stands?
Thank you, Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfields in Putney and opposition Speaker on the Committee.
Just a quick one really for reassurance I suppose for members. It sounds a pragmatic
solution to make sure this thing actually happens. We want it to come out the ground
and actually be built after the long history we've had on this site. I'm sure it seems
like you've done an awful lot of work and well done on that for getting it to where
we are on the thing. Just to be absolutely clear for we lay members of the Committee
who don't know the ins and outs of the legal agreements in the 106 and the recipe.
It looks like you've done everything possible to ensure that we're going to get the benefits
delivered that we want to get delivered. So I'm sure you wouldn't recommend it if it wasn't,
but I'm just really asking, I suppose, if there isn't any wiggle room for the applicants to deliver
half the scheme and then still not get us the public benefit part of it, which is obviously
so important for us as a committee for the community. Yes, we've had our contracted lawyers
go through every obligation in the original Section 106 agreement to firstly ensure that
the phasing of the occupation would be possible, but also to ensure that everything that we
previously secured as part of the original scheme would still be achieved.
Is the application accepted? Agreed unanimously. Move on to the next one, the largest of the
as an item on the agenda tonight,
to Armoury Way for an application for largely student housing
on Armoury Way, a site just across the road
we all know very well.
Mr. Burdawi, are you gonna give us a presentation?
Ah, we've got to get the technology working, have we?
Sorry about this technical hitch.
That's the way of the modern world.
We need a 12 -year -old to sort us out.
Thank you for your patience.
Nearly there.
All right.
Yes.
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
I
I can see there's six perhaps natural headings
if you try and keep comments to those headings more or less.
I know in the nature of things they spread a bit.
But as far as I can see, the headings are approximately
the principle of the type of accommodation
and student accommodation.
The flexibility of the building
that Mr. Bedawi talked about.
Obviously, transport implications being on the armoury way, the ecological impacts, the
general impact on the townscape and how it fits in with other developments or the borough
centre and on a more local level, the integration with the immediate locality.
It seemed to me to be general headings.
And the first one I mentioned was the
principle of accommodation, the student,
and I know members have got queries about that.
So let me ask you if you can keep to that subject
at the moment.
Councillor Worrell.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Worrell, Shastri and Queenstown Ward.
In terms of the principle of the use of the building,
in terms of the student accommodation,
I was wondering whether we actually do need this amount of student accommodation in the
area.
We already have a number of building sites in development around Wandsworth that are
student related.
So I talk about the buildings across the road from Batsy Dog's home, for example, the debate
around the Booker Building that's being built around there.
It feels to me that we have a concentration
of a number of students in this particular area.
I do not see the demand for this amount of accommodation
actually being needed in this particular area
considering that I'm not too sure who besides the academy,
the Royal Academy of Dance, who the feeders would be
for the amount of students actually being placed in there.
I do have further questions around flexibility
of the building and I'll come back to this later. I think perhaps Ms. Tucker,
Ms. Turner, sorry, perhaps you've got comments on the students' accommodation.
Yes thank you chair. Hi everyone I'm Debbie Turner, I'm the Principal
Development Viability Officer but I deal quite a lot with housing and the student
housing side of things as well from a policy perspective. So we have done a lot
of work on this site looking at the real need
in this location for student housing.
Certainly from a policy perspective,
when you consider over concentration,
you need to look at it from a neighbourhood level.
And that's on the basis of 800 metres from the site,
which is quite a concentrated area.
So from in terms of, on the basis of looking at other sites
that we have and other student accommodation sites
that we have across Wandsworth.
Yes, there are a number of other sites
that are either in construction or recently built.
However, when you look at it from that,
at that neighbourhood level,
there isn't really any other student accommodation
in that location.
Obviously, when we have looked at this
in a bit more detail, again,
we have got several letters of recommendation from,
as you said, the Royal College of Art,
and also the Royal Academy of Dance as well,
who were very much looking for this type of accommodation
in this location.
So we felt that the specifics of this site
did meet those requirements to identify that local need.
And certainly, there isn't really any other
big student accommodation in the area
that would mean that there would be a concern
in relation to over -concentration.
Do carry on, Councillor.
Thank you for that.
It feels then that we are actually building two blocks
for two actual, one the academy and another institution,
rather than the general principle
about student accommodation as a whole.
That feels wrong in terms of the,
that we are actually developing something
for a particular institution.
I also, Voxhall for example,
or has a lot of new student accommodation actually going in,
I would dispute the fact that this concentration is needed
just for two particular institutions.
And it would, for me, be better built
for other types of accommodation than students itself.
Yes, no, I mean, that was certainly something
that we did consider in a lot of detail
as part of this application.
I think we had to look at it in terms of the wider site and obviously the
National Planning Policy Framework does push in the direction of mixed tenure
sites very strongly because that obviously helps a lot with with buildout
rates etc so we felt that this was providing an additional tenure on this
site and that it would be very very difficult on the specifics of this site
to push back and say that we were seeking conventional housing when there's already
going to be quite a substantial amount of conventional housing built on the wider allocation.
So certainly the specifics of this site mean that the student accommodation does provide
that mix which then aligns with the National Planning Policy Framework. So obviously this
this is looking at from very much just a policy basis,
looking at what the requirements are
in terms of national planning policy framework
and the local plan as well, and obviously the London plan,
which are all generally quite positive
about student housing, which then does mean
that it is difficult to try and identify
if there is a concern about need.
But certainly, in this location, again,
it's a very accessible location, it's very close to a number of different public transport networks,
so even if the students aren't necessarily students at the Royal College of Art or the
or the Royal Academy of Dance, there are a number of other HEPs which are quite close that would
that would certainly be accessible within half an hour using public transport. So the specifics of
this location and the wider context of this site mean that it would be quite tricky to
try and push back and seek more conventional housing when there is already quite a large
amount being delivered on this site. It does provide a little bit of balance in that sense.
When you talk about HEPs, higher education accommodation providers, do you include St
because there's a tendency to leave St. George's out
and it has a very large student occupation,
student occupation, student numbers.
Can you tell us about how much St. George's involved?
So at the moment St. George's hasn't been involved.
They haven't provided a recommendation.
I know that they tend to,
from the work that we've done in the past
on housing needs assessments,
they seem to prefer to keep their student numbers
a bit more consistent.
So certainly they haven't provided a letter
of recommendation or a letter of support
on the basis of this proposal.
Right, well there's any other comments on that?
Councillor Ayers.
I was very against this when I first started looking at it
for the very reason of a monoculture, which I think
we're touching on with the need.
But by the time I got to the end of the report, I'd come around.
So well done writing the report.
And that was mainly because of the flexible approach
to that it doesn't always have to be student housing,
like a little honeycomb of bees.
I mean, it could actually be a sort of family.
That comforted me because the buildings had to be there for quite a long time.
The thought of nearly 600 students thronging about for the future is a ghastly thought.
My other problem about the housing is that the units are by most of our standards small,
but some of them are absolutely minute.
The cluster rooms, the single bedroom is 16 metres square.
That's about four times that table.
And it's got a bathroom in it as well.
I mean, that is embarrassing.
I'm embarrassed that we might end up,
for all many good reasons,
affecting all sorts of other things,
put people in something that size.
So I'm not very happy with that.
The other reason is that I came around to accepting it was that because of the contamination
of the site, it almost has to be overdeveloped.
And it is overdeveloped.
The sad thing about this is, on many other schemes that we've all looked at, there's
not enough ground left.
There's not enough space on the ground.
Two parking spaces for disabled.
I know it's a car free site, but two, it's ridiculous.
That's not just for the students.
It's supposed to service also the industrial units
which are bound to have one or two wheelchair users
over the course of its life.
The mixed development notion, which presumably
is because of these industrial units,
how many people do you think that will employ?
So when you're doing very clever statistics about two wheelchair spaces being enough,
I don't think you've included the industrial units.
Actually, I have two final points.
I noticed that the Wandall Walk is a bit optimistic because it's going to be sharing the main
vehicular access route across the site.
It's not going to be very cosy, is it,
with all the traffic going past?
Separated, yes, but by a jungle,
but by a hedge, fine.
Well, that's better than nothing,
but I think it's optimistic the way it's been described
as a nice sort of green, peaceful little grotto
across the site.
And my other question, this is just an idle,
off the wall question.
I notice we're getting quite a large amount of money
to upgrade the local health facilities.
Are there enough nearby to cater
for an extra 600 people on the site?
Now there's quite a few there.
I perhaps start with Mr. Tiddley,
in terms of the car parking,
actually in terms of transport and traffic in general?
And I'll ask Mr. Tiddley for his comments.
Thank you, Chair.
David Tiddley, I'm the head of transport strategy.
So to deal with that point first on the parking,
I mean the application has been assessed by us
in terms of the compliance with parking standards.
I share your concern to an extent.
but we can only really assess the application
in front of us against policy
and the application has been consulted upon
with Transport for London in accordance
with the London plan and will of course go back
to Transport for London for their stage two assessment.
I'll probably add that the servicing arrangement
and the parking arrangement on the road there
does give us a little bit of flexibility I think
in the future if there was a desire
to make slight amendments to how that operates.
More generally on the transport side,
because the application is primarily a car -free development
and we wouldn't expect the students generally to have cars.
And in fact, they generally won't be able to have cars
and they'll be excluded from the controlled parking zone
permit scheme.
That just generally mean that most of the trips
will be by public transport and by walking and cycling
to the public transport network.
And I think one of the sort of major benefits of this scheme
is the extent to which it does open up
the sort of pedestrian permeability and cycling
permeability through the site.
And it helps to unlock the gas holder site as well
that we dealt with last time, which we noticed
was rather landlocked without this coming forward
to help tie the thing together.
There is a contribution towards the railway station
improvements, which are planned and relatively advanced now.
And as I said, we assessed it and considered
it to be acceptable in transport terms.
That's all very well.
I just want to make one other point, which
was because the servicing goes off the Transport for London
network left in from Armoury Way and left out into Swandon Way.
Those two junctions have had quite a significant amount
of sort of assessment bias by Transport for London.
And we've already had sort of the first phase of this,
first stage of a safety audit carried out at those locations
just to make sure that we're broadly comfortable,
that they will work during the post -construction period.
Thank you.
I think that covers what I was going to ask about when, I mean it's all very well not
having cars but there's ingress, egress from refuse trucks, delivery vehicles, bicycles
indeed coming, having them coming wobbling out onto Armoury Way.
But you're satisfied with all those?
Yes we wouldn't, for a development like this we wouldn't want to get to this stage without
being reasonably confident it would work.
and so as I said help the first stages of the road safety audit processes already occurred
with this. We estimate there will be 50, I think it's 50 servicing vehicles per day
associated with this development but they will combine with the servicing vehicles from
the gas holder site on leaving the site through the single entrance and so there is a significant
uplifting traffic coming out of both sites together,
turning left onto Swandon Way.
Councillor Worrall, you want to come back?
Yes, it's just a clarification.
In terms of disabled access and disabled parking,
considering the number of potential students
that are actually going to be involved here,
the fact that we are just considering
a couple of disabled parking spaces
feels really discriminatory against disabled students
and not encouraging them in terms of accessing
further education.
And I'm just wondering whether as part,
if we should be passed this,
are we allowed to ask for an increase
in terms of disabled access and parking spaces or not?
Because it feels really, it goes against the grain
of actually encouraging more disabled people
into further education.
What I'm afraid you're going to get as a reply
is it's in accord to the policy.
I happen to know that both the vice chair
and I agree with you absolutely.
So if it accords with policy,
then we ought to be asking people
to look at the policy in future,
even if this particular application's a bit late.
But Mr. Tilly, you think it's slightly more flexible
than that, I think.
Two things, I'm looking at the case officer
for a moment here, but the numbers of disabled
person's units is 17, is it?
I can't remember.
Right, right, okay.
So there's certainly scope obviously
for more disabled people to be in the building
than actually disabled people who have cars.
And those are two entirely different things really,
speaking of somebody who has a disabled person.
Yeah, there are not too many blind people driving cars.
And given that the units will be accessible
and the local public transport network
is relatively accessible as well,
we would certainly hope that disabled people
can move into the site without considering
it essential for them to have a car.
So that's one of the starting points.
But if we did find that there was more people moving in
where a car would be necessary,
I'm sure we would be able to work
with the developer to try and find a solution to that.
Okay, my list of various things,
I don't know if other people want to jump in
on anything else, but I was certainly talking about
the ecological impacts, which I think you kind of covered,
Mr. Badawi, but perhaps you could remind us.
The development will have 0 .52 urban greening factor. It will have an uplift of 26 % in habitats
and 31 % for river habitats. This uplift will happen from biodiversity enhancements on site
that will help the river habitats, that will enhance the river habitats in the future.
The landscaping, all landscaping opportunities have been exerted on site. I hear counsellors
here saying that there is not much space on the ground, which is true, but all landscaping
opportunities have been examined for the development.
Okay. Councillor Apps.
Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward. I'm very sorry I was following your
list and I've only got flexibility, so I just want to come back to a couple of points. My
question flexibility is if it was to be amended, if the plans were to be amended, would that
require them to come back to this committee? Yes, this is a material change of use for
the site and they will have to come back and prove how it will be built.
Sorry, Councillor Humphries, you've been obstructed by my name tag all this time. You had a question,
I think. Thank you, Councillor Bender. I was just
sympathising with your valiant effort at the beginning of this discussion to try and put
into categories which lasted about three seconds before we went off on a complete
talent so I think quite nowhere so I try and drag us back to the the forms I've
got some comments on all your various headings but if we've done transport
with mr. Tiddly so I chip in on that first and then go back to the other ones
what go on go on okay thank you okay so yeah I mean I agree with a lot of the
comments we've had from colleagues already on this it does seem so we say
over optimistic to look at the numbers of people going to be involved.
And we're kind of stuck, we've had this discussion before, haven't we?
We're kind of stuck in that, where we're trying to play catch up with the modern world, with
what vehicle movements there are on sites and in the world these days.
So I imagine particularly if we're talking about student accommodation, we're going to
be getting a lot more, we're getting Ubers, you know, rather than people living there,
things like that.
We're getting hire bikes that are coming in and out of sites, we'll be getting delivery
bikes, a lot of delivery bikes coming in and out of the site all the time and it doesn't
specifically talk about the provision for those hire bikes. I know there's a lot of
spaces for people to have their own bicycles but a lot of people nowadays don't want to
keep their own bike, it gets nicked, they use hire bikes. What's the provision for hire
bicycles to be kept on the site or is there going to be a bay for hire bikes like we're
seeing across the borough now? I mean that's a big aspect that isn't really covered at
The service thing as well, we've got the combination of the usual thing of the industrial units
and only two parking bays. I really have a scepticism as to whether that's going to be
adequate to service both the needs of the residents and also the needs of the businesses
as well, the people we're trying to encourage businesses to take up those units in the site.
And I've also got a problem with the access. So it sounds great in theory that we're all
to come in on the Swandon Way end, sorry the Armoury Way end and go out on the Swandon
Way area. I noticed in the report there is an exception to that which is for the National
Grid vehicles surfacing their site on the west of the site and it says they will be
allowed to come out of the same exit. I wondered that sounds very difficult to manage. How
is that going to be managed in reality? How is that going to be managed to stop other
vehicles if there's physical access for those vehicles to turn around and come back out
to the same site, what's to stop an Uber
popping in that entrance, doing a UEE
and coming back out of the same entrance, for example.
That's for now.
All right, in relation to the higher bikes question,
they are not required under policy,
but there are requirements for short -stake cycle parking,
and the short -stake car parking numbers
are in line with policy, and actually a little bit more.
So, the hire bikes can use these spaces if that is allowed in the future anyway.
It depends on the parking areas allowed by the bike companies.
Do you know how many spaces that is?
Yes.
It's 14 cycle spaces outside the entrances.
For blocks A and B.
For those blocks?
Yeah.
For over 400 residents?
Yeah.
Yes, the short stay requirements, hold on please, a 0 .75 long stay space, which you
are not asking for, is one short stay space per 40 bedrooms and also 401 space for 40
bedrooms and one short stay space for 1 ,006 square metres of light industrial use.
These are the London Plan figures.
What else I think perhaps that needs revision in another area?
My question about the access to the site.
Sure.
National Grid only goes onto the left -hand side.
Anyone going anywhere to the site will have to take a right turn.
All the signage will make it clear to people that they're not allowed to turn back.
The way it should work is national grid are taking a
different route and only national grid drivers will be the one
told they can leave out of Armoury Way, but everyone else is
going in. There is nowhere for them to go except the right -hand
side, which is for the development or the gas holders, and the
signage should work from there. There are questions for signage
plan.
But how would it be enforced just by the signage?
It will be underserved we'll have a look at it under the travel plan and the undermine the servicing management plan
We can add something so will the national grid vehicles will they turn around on their part of the side?
Is that the idea won't be placed them to do it on the public realm part of the site?
Yes, they will they will go to their own
their own site and they will park there.
They can't actually physically get out from Swandon Way
because of the height of Block B or the Rotunda,
which would not, their vehicles won't be able
to go underneath it.
I can feel the chief planning officer
being very uncomfortable about some of this,
but I have to say that I do agree with members.
The explosion and use of electric bicycles
is something that could never have been predicted
at the time that the plans were written up.
And it's one of the real problems
with the planning process.
Plans are, which you experienced when you were in my seat,
the plans are devised many years before
and a rapidly changing situation.
So just go down near the college in Park Gate Road
and see the parking, the cycle parking around there.
Large number of students, there's gonna be a lot of them.
Councillor Apps.
Yeah, I had some questions related to
some of the sort of antisocial behaviour
we could see on the site.
I see that it is an area of concern to the police
and that they think there needs to be due regard
to the planning of that area.
In my own ward, in the adjacent ward,
I've also seen a lot of mopeds and maybe fast electric bikes
using cut -throughs through parks and open areas.
I want to know what kind of planning and thought
has been put into the management of the public realm space
in order to try and design out those kinds of issues.
And what kind of, sort of, is there gonna be CCTV
or other mechanisms used in order to make sure
that that can be enforced?
Thank you.
Yes, these concerns were raised by the Metropolitan Police.
They mentioned that because of the location,
the area is open to the public, and the nature of the proposal
can lead to concerns with antisocial behaviour.
And they requested several points
to be included in the management plan.
The management plan for the site will be under Section 106, which should cover the location
of CCTV outside the building and inside the building and in the communal areas, access
control to the buildings and the cycle stores and how access would work between different
floors and the communal amenity areas and the semi -private communal amenity areas.
It will talk about on -site management across the buildings and the duties for management
team, as well as of course fire exit strategies and management of light industrial spaces.
In terms of the public realm, condition 10 requires management and maintenance strategy.
This condition, under the addendum, it will be a draught management and maintenance strategy
from the applicant at the moment and once a company comes in the condition will allow them to come in
and resubmit another management plan that will actually work with the people who are taking on the site.
I guess Mr Tiddly has got more experience of trying to handle bikes going too fast down the
embankment and all sorts of other places across parks and commons than the rest
of us. Your comments Mr. Tiddley. Yes I have and it's always a challenge trying
to prevent access by bikes and mopeds and still allow wheelchairs and buggies
and that's always been a particular challenge and there's not never been a
perfect solution to it. I think one advantage we have here is the access is
are all off the Red Route into the site in the main.
And so anything that actually comes off
Armourie Way going into the site
or coming back out into Swandon Way
is coming off the Red Route network.
And that is very heavily covered by camera
and by TFL enforcement.
So I would imagine any motorbikes going in
to deliver pizzas off there
would be quite easily picked up actually.
Difficult. Moving on, sorry, not moving on the other people joining in. I was going to
move on to townscape and a bit of the comments made by people in Barchard Road for instance.
But before we get there, I've got Councillor Pridham, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor
Colkley.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Tom Pridham, Lavender Ward in Battersea. My question actually
goes back to the first of your headings, Chair,
with regards to the nature of the accommodation,
and I wonder if you could just comment
on the amount of student accommodation
that's due to be constructed in Wandsworth,
and following on from a comment Councillor Laurel made earlier
about neighbouring boroughs,
how that relates to neighbouring boroughs,
and also in the context of the requirements
across London as well.
And whilst we're there, the last point,
Councillor Pridham mentioned, what the London plan says
is the amount of student accommodation that should be supplied on a kind of average borough
basis?
Yes, thank you, Chair. So in terms of the London plan, it requires 3 ,500 student bedrooms
per annum across London. It doesn't provide any borough specific requirements, which then
obviously makes it a little bit tricky. In terms of the amount of student housing that
that we've got in the pipeline.
We've got off the top of my head,
I think we've got around,
I think it's about 1 ,700 bed spaces
and that's rooms that are either nearly complete
or have permission.
So that includes things like Palmerston Court,
which we know are pretty much complete
but haven't quite been occupied at this point in time.
So in comparison to say, for example, Lambeth,
it's, Lambeth obviously has a very significant amount
of student accommodation, so we are far, far lower
in terms of relative student housing
that we've got in the pipeline.
Generally, much wider, we know that obviously
Tower Hamlets, again, they have a significant amount
of student accommodation as well in the pipeline.
It is one of those aspects that we are looking at
very closely and that we are looking at sites individually
and making sure that they can demonstrate
that there is an identified need for that site.
And that's very much what I was saying earlier,
that we felt that in terms of the tests
that we need to adhere to in terms of
planning policy requirements,
that this did meet those requirements in terms of
we can see that there are HEPs that are wanting this accommodation in this location.
So in terms of other boroughs we generally have less in the pipeline but that doesn't mean that
we obviously still need to look at it in terms of where the concentration is and how does that
impact a neighbourhood level. But that's 3500 average is across all, not the city,
across all 32 including say Sutton and I imagine we were all when you say we're
below average I think you meant on compared with the inner cities exactly
yes yeah in comparison to you know Lambert and Tower Hamlets we are a
little bit lower but obviously in terms of those outer boroughs so say for
example Kingston Richmond etc we are we are much higher yep can't sound brings
Thank you chair. On the same topic, so let's drill down on some of those numbers. So we've
got three and a half thousand in the London Plan per year and as you said we've already
got 852 on the Urban Nest site. We've got 762 coming on the Booker's site, another 434
on this site, which gives us 2 ,048, which is already 60 % of 3 ,500.
So I think we're fairly punched above our weight,
considering the number of higher education providers we have in the borough.
I know we all have to do our bit for London -wide,
but I don't think we should sacrifice our own benefits within the borough,
particularly for the benefit of students elsewhere, to be honest.
Also, looking at some of those examples you were talking about earlier, Ms Tucker,
about...
about the expressions of interest or letters of support from those people that are in the borough,
RAD and the Royal Academy of Art. RAD or Royal Academy of Art haven't actually put any formal
interest in it as such, they've just expressed support, correct?
Yeah that's correct.
Yeah and in fact if you look on the RAD's website they already have a deal with Bannest in Battersea,
so the likelihood of them actually taking up any of the places within the borough or elsewhere
when they've got better see much more on their doorstep is very remote and also to add some
numbers into that for context they only have a thousand students at the RAD of which only 58 %
of full time so I think the numbers we're talking about looking at that are actually going to use it
realistically in the borough it sounds great for the applicant to say they've got letters of
support and I quite welcome that but I think we need to look at the detail of what's actually
included in there and what that's going to mean as far as our residents in Wandsworth are concerned
It's not quite as rosy as that would make out to seem I don't think.
If we're 60 % of the way there then we're 40 % short aren't we?
No, no I mean 60 % of the whole of the London requirement for one year.
No, no 60 % of the average borough requirement.
Well as we've heard some boroughs have more and some boroughs have less but that's for
the whole of London 3500 not for Wandsworth.
No.
Yes.
Yes, 3 ,500 per annum across the whole of London.
Per annum.
Yes, sorry, okay.
So, yeah, I apologise, it's not really a question, is it?
We're just trying to put some context into what you're saying.
I know it sounds great and of course the athletes are going to do their best to make it sound late,
but I remain to be convinced, let's put it that way.
Picking up on Councillor Aire's points earlier about,
It's interesting, isn't it, that they've done that exercise in future proofing,
which we don't often get from applicants in this kind of context.
In fact, I don't think I've seen it before as a specific item on the thing.
That, again, although it might be welcome to see, gives me some doubt as to the applicants' confidence themselves
that they're going to be able to rent it out to student accommodation.
They've done that much work on it to get to that stage so far.
So rather than that being a positive for the site, I'd rather see it as a negative, to be honest.
The request for future proofing, we asked for it when we had the DRP because of how
the blocks look, the appearance of the blocks and their depth didn't give us enough comfort
that it will be possible for future proofing. So we requested evidence of that. But the
policy doesn't actually require future proofing. What they did is go beyond policy requirements.
I remain with a comment that it's interesting that they did so much work to demonstrate that
if they think they've got such confidence in being able to let in a student accommodation.
Mr Badawi, the developers are actually in the business of providing student accommodation, are they not?
That's their business. Just to mention that.
Just to confirm, it's not a speculative application that you might have had on other sites.
this is actually from downings who were major provided they've got a big site in Lambeth and
all over the country so we're reassured that they want to do the student accommodation. It was us
that asked to have that alternative just to see how it could operate. I understand that but I
still question the need for it in that part of our particularly. And by the way on when you
When you were talking about 3 ,500, how many of that would you count for one year, by the
way?
You've done those figures very nicely, but actually, by the time we've got the application
and the build and so on and so forth, they're not all for one year, are they?
I didn't just say that it were for one year.
What I'm saying is it was an illustration of the numbers that we've actually got and
how that puts it in the context of 32 London boroughs providing their contribution towards
what London needs.
Yes, but how many? It's 3 ,500 over five years if that was the period.
This is very different.
It's complicated, isn't it?
Councillor Colquay.
Thank you, Chair, Councillor Colquay for St Mary's Ward.
I wanted to ask about the affordable student housing in this.
Firstly, asking there are a bunch of different
sort of classes of property that got slightly larger ones, more luxurious ones, and then
they've got these compact ones which Councillor Ayres said are 17 metres squared. So in terms
of the affordable housing, is it going to be a range of these different types or is
it only going to be the tiny compact housing that's going to be the affordable housing
because if so that's going to be a bit jarring to me personally. And then also on the subject
of affordability I looked up the maximum maintenance loan a student can get on the government side
and it's about 13 .6 thousand pounds per year. So with that in mind, how much are these affordable
units going to be because they should be targeted to people that don't have a lot of external
money and are relying on these maintenance grants. So yeah, how big is the disparity
between the rent that they have to pay for the affordable units and the
maintenance when they can get.
Yeah so in terms of the the mix, I'll start with that point, so at present we
we can't in terms of in policy set out which specific units are affordable and
which aren't and the reason that it makes it very complicated to do that is
is often when higher education providers,
when they essentially sign up for an agreement for PBSA,
so there's purpose -built student accommodation,
they don't often take the whole of the development.
They might only take part of it
or they may only take one block.
Therefore, that then means if we've specified
which of those units have to be affordable,
that can then impact on whether a HEP
may then be interested in those units
and it may create issues in terms
of their nomination agreements.
It may be that say for example,
they need a number of wheelchair accessible
and it may be that those don't then correspond
with the affordable units that we've specified
in the section 106.
So we haven't specified which units
are going to be student affordable on accommodation
and often it creates a lot of challenges
if you do do that.
And it's not a requirement in policy to do it either.
So, but what we do do is as part of the condition
to the section 106, they have to provide us
with floor plans of which units that they expect
to be affordable student accommodation,
and we can then recommend to them
which of those we would prefer
to be affordable student accommodation
as part of that process.
In terms of the costings, they're actually set out
by the GLA, so in terms of the weekly rents
that are set out for the affordable student accommodation,
those are on the GLA's London Annual Monitoring Report,
and those get updated each year,
and they are on the basis of essentially 55 %
of the maximum student loan per week.
So there is a clear process set out by the GLA to make sure that those rents are adhered
to and again as part of the section 106 we have to essentially agree that they aren't
allowed to let those units unless they are below those rent levels.
Okay. The only Councillor Humphries.
Just a quick one on the affordable as well. I'm glad Councillor Colton raised that.
The norm again, just for clarity on this, would be 50 % affordable, wouldn't it?
And they've come down to 35 % because of the cost of the decontamination, as we heard.
We haven't. Have you seen specific numbers on what they
estimate those costs to be to make sure that's robust?
We were provided with those numbers and also the GLA were involved in assessing that as
well. So the GLA confirmed that they were happy with the 35 % and also we felt that those
costs were considerable enough that the 35 % was acceptable but we were very much led by
the GLA on that process.
Councillor Ayers.
Councillor Ayers.
Is that? You were just saying thank you were you?
Okay.
Councillor Ayers.
Thank you Chair.
I have a detailed point about Block A.
On the ground floor
there's a gym.
It's a shower
and the loo is across
the main corridor.
It seems to be very strange.
Does the gym not have its own shower
and Lou. I mean it's not specific, it could be anybody having it as far as I can read the plan.
It doesn't seem like a good idea to me but still.
There is a toilet right next to the door of the gym.
Sorry?
There is a toilet space right next to the door of the gym.
It's across the corridor.
Well, on my drawings it is.
I can share if you allow me.
Can I share?
Yes, of course.
I think we've covered most things.
obviously there's some unhappiness,
but nonetheless, on balance, given the benefits
getting this site into action after many years,
and how it works for the gas works site,
I personally think it's a good scheme.
I like the look of it, which is something you can't say
for the bits down Swanton Way, in my view.
So I just wonder, is it approved?
Those in favour of it?
Six, is that?
Seven.
Oh, I beg your pardon.
And those against?
Seven to two.
Okay, thank you.
We move on to the third application,
which is Calvert Road in Bassy Park Ward.
And that's, can I find it on page, gosh, I've forgotten the page number.
Where is it?
One, two, one.
And Mr. Grainger, I think you're going to say, introduce it.
Certainly Chair.
My name is Nigel Grainger and I'm the East Area team manager.
I've prepared a short summary.
Sorry, the report's short anyway,
but just to refresh members' minds
in terms of the salient points of the proposal,
there's a, yeah, this comprises a summarised position.
So in September 2017, planning commission was granted
as a hybrid application, which was for a part,
full permission and part outline application
for a 14 -storey building at its tallest level
comprising 39 residential units along with 1 ,248 square metres of commercial floor space.
This tall building formed the full planning permission aspect of this hybrid application.
The outline aspect was the provision of a new sports hall for the Harris Academy.
Eight of the 39 residential units were approved as affordable housing split between four as
intermediate rent and four as shared ownership units.
This application commenced on site and as discussed in the PAC report is stalled due
to the folding of the development firm leaving a hoarded and sightly site.
On the 26th of August 2002, a full permission was approved for an 18 -storey tall building
comprising up to 213 shared living units.
The section 106 planning obligation captured a payment in lieu of off -site affordable housing
at £6 .25 million. A late -stage viability review was contained within the Section 106
planning obligation as the payment in lieu translated to a 30 % equivalent affordable
housing quantum of the overall room provision and that was calculated on a viability tested
route. By way of explanation for newer members, a late -stage viability review provides the
ability for developments that have not achieved affordable housing policy minimum thresholds
to reassess the development's financial viability after planning permission has been granted,
but importantly before the development's completion. In very basic terms, these reviews compare
the original viability assessment that was submitted at application stage with the actual
costs and values achieved during the course of the development's delivery on site.
This can potentially trigger additional contributions to the council if the scheme proves more profitable
than initially estimated.
In conventional residential housing schemes, late -stage reviews are triggered upon a percentile
of the sale of the market rents, quite often around 75%, but this can vary.
but in this approved scheme for the co -living scheme,
the late stage viability review is triggered
prior to occupation of 90 % of the rooms.
As stated within the PAC report,
the late stage viability review has acted as a barrier
for developers seeking to unlock this stalled scheme.
This is due to the notable degree of uncertainty
that the review creates in terms of attracting finance partners for the scheme's delivery.
The objective of this Deed of Variation before members this evening is to achieve affordable
housing compliance as specified within London Plan Policy H16 and Wandsworth Local Plan
Policy LP23. In achieving compliance, the payment in lieu is required to be the equivalent
equivalent two, sorry, 35 % of the approved 213 rooms at a discount of 50 % of the market
rent. The result of meeting this threshold is that the late -stay viability review is
no longer required by London Plan Policy H13. So specifically to this application before
members, the payment initially offered by the applicant at 6 .25 million has been the
subject of independent review by the Council's external viability consultants along with
the Council's internal development viability team. It's important to appreciate that in
achieving policy H16 compliance, members are not being asked to make a special exemption
or a special case in allowing the deletion of the late -stage
viability review. It is the case that policy H -16 specifically
requires the need of a late -stage review to be dropped if compliance with the 35 % of the
50 % quantum is achieved. After negotiations on particular financial
inputs, a final figure of £8 .03 million has been agreed as the maximum reasonable financial
contribution to be served for funding the council's own affordable off -site housing initiatives,
which focus on delivering social rent housing as the most demanded tenure in the borough at this time.
As such, officers recommend that the application is approved subject to the successful completion
of a section 106 deed of variation capturing the 8 .03 million payment in lieu,
along with the deletion of the late stage viability review.
I don't think this is a case for breaking it down
to subject details as of the last case
because it's been analysed often enough in this committee
and I always seem to come out on the wrong side of it.
Any comments, queries?
Councillor Warrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I actually live down the road from this particular
I saw and have been sitting there for a while
seeing how it actually develops.
A question I have though is in terms of the present owners.
So we're seeking this particular variation
and money to be paid up.
This site has already had one previous owner
which I believe pulled out or actually went under.
I'm not too sure what the actual final outcome was.
In terms of the current owners, are they in the position then
to be able to develop this and deal with this
and deal with the money that's actually involved or not?
Because this is a site, I should say.
It's been through several iterations.
So that's my question one.
Question two is, oh, it's just a comment.
Unfortunately, the height of the building
that's proposed feels out of character for the neighbourhood.
I know many people have spoken to me in my local neighbourhood
around the actual, this building,
and their unhappiness around the actual agreed final sites,
the 18 storeys, I presume there is no way
that we can actually look once again
in terms of reducing the height of the building
in relation to that.
Yeah, this is a very similar, thank you, cancer.
This is a similar situation as the first item on the agenda
where we are not reexamining any
of the former principal decisions made on the site.
So the bill envelope, all of that is all agreed.
It's approved.
approved. The single only area of examination is this matter of the payment in lieu and
achieving this policy compliance with the London Plan 816 and then negotiating between
ourselves and the party this enhanced payment in lieu at £812 million.
Can they deliver? We are working extremely hard to, I think, what is indicative of the
intentions for the applicant to deliver is the fact that the, I made a point of
saying that on the 26th of August 2022 full permission was approved for this
co -living scheme. That scheme expires this month in a matter of days. We have
been working very hard behind the scenes to, if a favourable resolution comes out
of from members tonight, we will actually communicate with developers this evening
in order to complete this section 106 tomorrow
and therefore allow the applicants a very limited
but enough days to perform specific identified
building works to implement that permission
and then therefore they can take that on.
So yes, we are confident that this is a,
it's the most realistic opportunity
to actually unlock this site
that we've been exposed to for a number of years
and yeah, we are confident in that regard.
Councillor O 'Rourke.
Just picking up on that point about the developers,
could you then explain to me what forms of due diligence
you go through in order to ascertain
that should this go through tonight
and that they are able to fulfil the financial obligations?
I understand what you're saying,
but you still haven't reassured me that the company itself
is actually financially viable enough to proceed?
I think in terms of the specifics of the application,
obviously when we consider something of this type,
it purely is in relation to the land.
So obviously the permission goes with the land,
so for us we just need to ensure
that this is policy compliant.
There is still an early review,
which is included within the section 106,
so if they can't prove that they have substantially
implemented the site, now substantial implementation
and commencement are different.
So substantial implementation is a much,
let's say a much further along,
it's essentially a test that is included
within the section 106 that they have to meet
certain requirements to prove that they have
substantially implemented the site.
And if they haven't done that within that two year period,
then they will have to go through an early review.
So there is still very much an incentive for them,
even after they have just commenced
to actually substantially implement as well.
So we think that with both of those tests in place,
that they should, I mean, obviously you never,
I haven't got a crystal ball, but certainly there,
how quickly they've wanted us to progress this to committee
certainly shows us at this point in time
that they seem very proactive
in wanting to deliver this site.
Sorry, I ought to have checked this out myself,
but I didn't.
Is there any condition that says anything
about the sports hall being completed
before at the same time after the rest of the application?
There is.
There is, yeah.
that is all captured in the 106 that this deed of variation will modify. All of those
obligations that have carried forward are all there.
There is a short explanation in the conclusions and the other benefits of this scheme, Paro
1 .13 in terms of the uplift in the cost of delivering the sports hall. All of this has
been taken into account and so the sports hall will be completed before
yeah there is a trigger there's yet they realistically there there is a an
obligation for the for the sports hall to be completed before that I can't
remember what level the actual the actual three culvert road site if you
call it the Harris Harris Academy site but there is a trigger in terms of
phasing to give primacy to the sports world
and its completion.
I mean, I couldn't agree more with Councillor Worrall's
disgrace, not, I mean the Battersea Park Road side
of the site is well known, perhaps not so well known,
even perhaps even Councillor Worrall doesn't walk down
Dagnall Street all that often, but I do,
and for a long time, the side of the sports hall
was just open, unboarded up with just rubbles
strewn occasionally over Dagenham Street pavement.
It was a disgrace.
So it's been a disaster for a long time.
But we're not deciding on, unfortunately,
on whether we think the highest block is there
or is desirable or not.
we're deciding on whether we think this version
with this amount of money for affordable housing
is as good or is as acceptable as the version
they've already got planning permission for.
In fact, don't we?
That's the decision we're making.
So in that position, reluctantly,
I must confess it is reluctantly,
I'd have to agree with it.
Count Sarfiz.
Thank you, Chair, just a quickie.
Just to perhaps reassure Councillor Worrall
and his residents somewhat,
and even Councillor Belton, perhaps.
Mr. Grange did a very good job of doing a concise précis,
should we say, of the long and chequered saga
that we've had on this site, but for their benefit,
a reminder that everything in planning is a trade -off,
and is another example we've had in the committee recently.
the reason you've got an 18 storey building on that site is to pay for the
sports hall. So it's you know you can't the real realities of the pragmatic
world that we live in you you have to have some kind of compromise to get
things to happen that's why we've got it but I would join I think fellow members
of the committee and just saying that we welcome progress on this side and we all
want to give permission for things that actually gonna get built so let's hope
it does happen this time it gets built and it's a success for everybody.
I'm surprised councilman Fraser you even mentioned it like that because the
The benefit we've had from that is 20 years of dereliction
and goodness knows how many generation of school kids
have not had a sports hall at all.
I didn't agree with it in the first place,
but I, which not a position you took, but there we are.
I don't...
If, that past history.
No, it's past history, whether we would,
whether they would have knocked the sports hall down
if they hadn't got planning permission.
Goodness me, that's past history.
Anyway, any more comments or do we accept?
Does it approve?
It's approved.
Approved unanimously, I take it.
Yes.
Move on to the next item, which is
the tree preservation orders.
which are paper 25286 on page 135
and there's two applications.
Are they both approved?
Both approved.
And for those people who might be interested
on online or even in the gallery,
So, your notice is no grapefruit tree in Queenstown Road,
national news, that's just because
it hasn't reached this stage yet.
I guess we'll be hearing about that next month.
Who knows?
It'll come back in a couple of months to be confirmed
because it's out of consultation at the moment
after we've put the TPO on it.
Okay, thank you.
Then there are the papers for information.
Paper 25287, any comment?
Councillor Apps.
Yes, I was pleased to see that the two decisions
that were made by the committee were upheld in appeal.
So that was good to see.
It's hopefully a sign of some good decision making
and hopefully we can keep a good,
even say better track record.
Do you mean a better track record than the officers managed on their own without our
assistance?
No, you didn't.
That's not what you meant, but it's what I meant.
I will point out we lost a lot of appeals, but the inspector was actually an old enforcement
officer from Richmond, and I think he's got a grudge.
So I'm saying that in a public forum.
I hope he's not still working on ours.
Move on to the next paper, 25288, is that agreed? Not noted.
And finally, 289, is that also noted? Good, thank you and enjoy the rest of your August.
you