Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Monday 8 September 2025, 7:00pm

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Monday, 8th September 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

2 Minutes - 14th July 2025

Share this agenda point

Draft CHAC Minutes July 2025

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

Share this agenda point

25-292 Applications

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

Share this agenda point

25-293 Decisions

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

Share this agenda point

25-292 Applications

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

Share this agenda point

25-293 Decisions

5 Future Meeting Dates

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.

1 Declarations of Interest

Are we ready?

Good evening.

Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.

My name is Michael Jubb, and I'm chair of the committee.

I shall now call the names of members of the committee in turn.

Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.

And once you've confirmed it, can you please remember to switch it off?

And might I add that it's a good idea to turn your phone off or silent or whatever.

So that you don't embarrass yourself

Okay counsellor Ayers in alpha order

Counsellor Belton is presented apologies counsel Owens. I'm here to

Mark Dodgson will be late

tube strikes

He's I think he's coming straight from work. So he's held up

Roger Armstrong. Yes

Francis Radcliffe we have apologies from Andrew Catto. Yes. Good evening chair

Edward Potter

Libby Lawson

Good evening

Pamela Greenwood good evening and Peter Faro good evening, right?

Are there any apologies that I haven't picked up

Following officers are present we have Lauren way on

On the screen somewhere I believe

David Andrews.

Good evening, Chair.

Thank you. David Andrews.

Yes, sir.

And Barry Sellers.

Good evening, Chair.

And our Democratic Services Officer is Callum Wernham.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Are there any declarations of interest?

If there are, can you tell us which item on the agenda any interest relates to?

No?

Good.

Right.

2 Minutes - 14th July 2025

Minutes of the meeting of 14th July,

before the holes, I think, for most people.

So you may not quite remember what happened.

But are they a correct record?

Then are there any matters arising that won't occur elsewhere on the agenda?

I have one which I suspect Ms Lawson has which is Fersdowne Lodge.

Can we have an update on Fersdown Lodge, please?

I'm going there tomorrow.

That is the update.

Is there any more?

They will be presenting a pre -app proposal to us, discussions about ongoing use of the

building, so we'll have to report back to the next committee on that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any questions on that?

When this is a very long running saga, I have to say.

Any other matters arising?

No? Good. That gets us onto applications.

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

And I've been requested to defer the discussion on item 3 on the agenda, the first of the

applications, Moyer Court in Ballam High Road, so that Mark Dodgson from the Ballam Society

can be present for that discussion.

He will be here, we are told, in about a quarter of an hour.

Is that acceptable that we defer discussion?

Okay.

In that case, can we move to application 2024 -1857, 98 -104 Upper Tooting Road?

Who's going to lead on this?

that is me.

I should have said, by the way, I hope that most of you

have had a chance at least to have a cursory look

at the presentation which was sent out earlier today.

Okay, over to you, Mr. Andrews.

Okay, so this is in terms of the scope of works.

This is probably the biggest application we've got on the agenda this evening in that it

is total demolition of all the existing buildings on the site, which is a collection of much

altered, mostly Victorian, some later than that, commercial buildings with residential

use above, complete demolition of those and rebuilding of, as you can see in the description,

part four, part five storey, plus basement building giving 23 residential units and commercial

use on the ground floor.

Now, this has been trundling along for a while, this site.

You can see that the application number is actually from last year, so it's been in

a while.

And it affects the setting of a number of heritage assets, principle one being the grade

two listed King's Head pub to the north.

Across the road we have the locally listed former sorting office, which is now in religious

use.

And we also have a little bit further to the north the row of Grade II listed 18th century

shops, what are now shops.

To the direct north, we have the Pentecostal Church, which is under consideration for the

current local list review.

So although it's not an undesignated heritage asset yet, we are nominally considering it

such.

And so within the broader consideration of this scheme, we are looking at that as well

for the impact on the church.

So you can see there that the plot that exists,

it's self -contained.

It doesn't, unfortunately, include

at the moment the advert hoarding,

which you can see there, which is between the buildings

and the pub site.

Yeah, as I say, the proposal is for the demolition

of that group of buildings and the building

of a much higher building on that site.

Originally there was also a line of small houses in the streets to the rear, but that's

now been removed from this proposal.

So I don't know if we can see the proposed drawings or the images.

Possibly the images might be, although those are the existing buildings, they've all been

much altered over time.

The basements, ground floor.

Yeah, perhaps if we can get to the CGI so we can see, gives the best image of the bulk

of the proposed building.

These elevation drawings aren't very good, I'm afraid.

They're not, they don't really give a, there we go, right.

So this is the proposal, so yeah, unfortunately,

we can't do much about that advert,

because it's in different ownership.

There may be some scope to see what the applicants can do

about buying that, but there will be heavy remuneration

getting rid of that advert.

But you can, yeah, I mean that's, you can clearly see the bulk of what's being proposed

there and the layout of it and how that's expressed at ground floor level.

Obviously the grain of this area is small individual shops.

This, there's been some attempt to break up the front elevation of this, but it does have

a different characteristic to what's there.

is very much a larger building rather than a collection of smaller ones which have been

subdivided and have that traditional shopfront layout very much repeated up and down Uppertutting

Road.

There has been some smaller, slightly smaller scale development of this type in Uppertutting

road, but this is quite different in terms of this particular site and represents a far

larger building in terms of its scale.

We've also got the balconies overlooking Uppetutin Road itself, the amenity space for

those flats.

And yeah, I'll probably leave it there just to see what people think.

I mean, looking at those CGI's, it's quite evident what it is.

We've got these repeated blind windows at the side.

It's really what you think about the scale, about the design, and about the grain of this

building that we're being offered, and about its setting on the surrounding undesignated

and designated heritage assets.

Just quickly, just to add in before the committee discuss this, as the committee are aware,

as part of the local plan, we identified mid -rise and tall building zones and we have quite a strong

local plan policy that protects areas outside of those mid -rise and tall building zones.

because the building is proposed to be five storeys, it would be a mid -rise building.

However, it's not located within a mid -rise zone, so wouldn't accord with policy in terms of LP4.

But obviously, the key principle concern or might be the concern for the committee might be heritage

asset impact, but I just want to make the committee aware of that policy context. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks. I think the last time I looked at this scheme, that policy wasn't in place.

So yeah, thanks for reminding me about that.

Okay. Are there any questions or fact, first of all, for Mr Andrews or Ms Lawson?

Councillor Ayers.

That restaurant is enormous.

Is there a need for it?

It's absolutely huge.

It's not unknown that there are large restaurants in that area.

A lot of the restaurants are considerably large.

But that's what they're saying is viable.

So we have to take them at their word.

And obviously if we were to give this consent for that use and it then didn't prove viable,

we would then look at splitting that up or looking at something else.

But we can only go on what we've been told is viable.

Our colleagues will be looking at it from a viability point of view as well.

But in terms of obviously that has led to the design, I was talking about the grain

and the splitting up of shopfronts into smaller units.

That has obviously led to the design,

the desire for this large open plan unit at ground floor.

But yeah, it's not unheard of in that area

for there to be quite considerably large ground floor.

Okay, Ms. Greenwood.

I don't know how much it's going into the ground.

As far as I know, it's staying speed.

Oh, I got it.

Oh, sorry.

I don't know how much it's going into the ground because as far as I know it's Dane

Street and an archeological priority zone as well.

This scheme I haven't actually looked at myself.

I'm reporting on behalf of a colleague who's on leave.

I would imagine that that has been looked into but we'll make a note that the fact that

We'll look at the the APA and about you know, what's required but yet noted I

Think it should be quite a wide zone

As far as I recall anyway, thanks

Mr. Dodgson

Chairman sorry, I apologise for being late. I think my questions been answered for me

I was asking why we discussing it when it's not in the conservation area, but I understand it's near the king's head. Thank you

okay comments then who wants to kick off on this miss Lawson

it's a disappointing proposal all sorts of ways previously we've commented on

the loss of those smaller terrace of buildings and the contribution that they

gave to the street scene and and the plans have gone forward and back and got

so the buildings are bigger and

bigger and bigger and there is

no heritage. We're a history

group, the buildings aren't

locally listed, they're not in

the conservation area, and so

I'm hopeful that other planning

will perhaps be something that

can be applied so that it can't

rise to that great height.

As far as the interference with

the listed pub, I do actually

think the sufficient space unfortunately we've seen things like that be approved

before but the height is something I would like to suggest could better

continue a reduced height would be better for the street scene in non

heritage planning aspects and it's not actually in that mid -rise zone yeah

That's great. It's not enthusiastic.

Other comments? Mr Armstrong.

Yeah, I don't know how much discussion there's been with the planners,

but the scheme doesn't seem to take any cues from the surrounding architecture at all.

I mean, I feel it's one storey too high, at least.

And it really ought to have a slate roof and be in red brick

can look a bit more like the traditional up -to -the -wing road

buildings.

And so it doesn't really address the King's Head public house

in any meaningful way.

And I think it's the design is not the right design

for its situation.

Mr. Faro

Thank you. I

Agree that I believe that I consider the building is too large for the site. I think it should be

At least one storey lower and that the what would be then

The fourth storey should be set back as the fifth storey presently is

I think that

as it stands the building will have

and negative effects on surrounding heritage assets

by being a far too dominant building in the area.

You showed an aerial view, I think, at the very outset

of the presentation.

If that view was sort of opened up and scanned back,

you get a sense of the area, which is essentially,

I think, more or less three storeys tall.

And I think this will, I was going to say stick out, I don't like the term stick out,

but I think it will stick out far too prominently.

For those reasons, I would object to it on conservation grounds.

Okay, does anyone want to make any additional points that haven't been made already?

Just to further say that I very much agree, although it's not a conservation matter,

that where there's a local plan and the local plan sets the heights of buildings,

these heights should be respected unless there is an extremely good reason why they should be exceeded.

I'm constantly disappointed at the way that everything has to be bigger than what's next

to it and also that the walls on the height of buildings, the way they are zoned in the

local plan, are ignored on the basis that the applicant thinks, well, one more won't

hurt.

I think in this instance it very much does.

Okay, Councillor Ayers.

I'm not entirely at home in this committee yet.

Do we discuss internal arrangements or just the outside appearance?

We discuss matters that are of relevance to the conservation area and or heritage assets.

I've got some detailed criticisms of the accommodation provided, but I take it that's not relevant.

I think not.

One more factual question then.

Are the flats all for market rent or are any of them social?

I don't know.

Mr Andrews?

I'm afraid I don't know either because that's not...

Obviously, you know, we're we're looking at it in terms of more

Conservation aspect so I I don't know. I'm afraid is the answer to that. I would say to your last point though

your point about the

The size of the restaurant

reflected in how

Large and open that ground floor is that is wholly relevant because the internal

Use is reflecting the external design so things like that

definitely relevant

Come back I think then that not only is the building to be

When it's huge it's two storeys but in closed kitchen

Haven't counted the number of

Covers, but it is really big

Council ruins

Yes, I can care with everything that's been said particularly about the size of the building just on the restaurant itself

I mean, you're absolutely right.

I mean, Dharwesh, I can think of all the restaurants

on that side and opposite.

And several of them are two -storey and glass.

And you can see from the road.

So I can see why they put in for that,

given the fact that the sizable restaurants are very popular.

Also, the King's Head has a fantastic beer garden,

I seem to recall.

So you'd be sitting in the beer garden

with this enormous oversized building

beside you, which seems a bit strange,

because there aren't that many beer gardens in the area.

But I do think it's in a way that with the building,

it's good to have a new development there

because there are bits of the road where,

I mean, we certainly as counsellors often hear,

people have issues with some of the freeholders

on that stretch of the road,

and things being needed to be perhaps done

to some of the fronts of the building,

some of the shop fronts, people's concerns about

the road getting tattier and that sort of thing.

So I think in a way having a new building is good.

Thank you.

Unless there are any other key points that people want to make, let me try and summarise

where I think we are.

We are concerned about the impact on the listed, the statuarately listed and the locally listed

heritage buildings.

We're concerned about the height of the building in particular in its context.

And particularly in relation to its nonconformity with the local plan.

I think we're also concerned about at least some

aspects of the the design of the building which don't really seem to reflect the

local character

upper Tooting Road

and

I mean, it's it's the impact on it on its on

neighbouring buildings and the people who use those

those neighbouring buildings, including obviously the pub.

So I think for all those reasons,

we are, it seems to me, objecting to this building.

We also have a concern that the archeological aspects

of this need to be looked at with some care over quite a wide area given that

we're talking about a building on ancient Stain Street. Is there anything

key that I have missed in that attempt at a summary?

Sorry.

I think the point that was being made earlier is about the local character.

It is a brick building or it has brick facings on it, but they're the wrong colour.

It should be...

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Have we got enough there?

In that case, I'm going to go back to Application 25 -O -225, Moira Court.

Who's leading on this?

Mr Sellers.

Moira Court.

Yes, this is an application that's come in.

It's actually almost identical to an application that came in about 2015 for additional floor onto Moira Court.

Now Moira Court, as you can see from the heritage assets there, is a local history building

and it's in the context of you've got two conservation areas, each side of that Hebra

State to the southeast and Wonta Common to the west there.

Now, if we scroll down to, you can see the wider remit there,

it's the buildings towards the underground station.

Now, we've got here an aerial view of the existing development.

As you can see, it's fairly compact nature

with the development wrapping around at the top end there.

And the building is unusual to some extent, whereby the entrances are both front and back

as well on there.

And the architecture really is a 1930s building, but the architecture is such that it really

sort of gives that strong impression of the verticality of each segment of the building

where the flats go.

It's divided into eight cores with two flats on each side.

But what's being proposed is just another storey

supplanted on top.

Now, we've got one more storey going on,

which makes it a five -storey building.

There is, I think, showing here the mid -rise area.

Now, only part of that mid -rise area encompasses the building on the south -east corner.

So is that a justification for having a fifth floor across the whole of the building?

I'm sure perhaps it isn't.

So it's the way that building, where that extra floor is put on.

It's five units.

There's no affordable housing in that at all.

just five units being supplanted across the top with access from the...

There's a bridge across between the two blocks as well being proposed

and a lift going up there to that storey

and people would get access from that to the upper floor.

Now, there's no integration between the existing building and what's being put on top.

So it's rather a mismatch in that sense in terms of its structure, but also you look

at the architecture as well of the additional floor.

You've got quite a… well, you've got the brick with the render above that, but then

you've got the additional floor is going to be something in zinc cladding.

And the fenestration doesn't actually come to that one.

I mean, the elevation with the fenestration there, again,

doesn't pick up the fenestration of the main building.

So I think there's a mismatch altogether

between what's being proposed and what's there existing.

There's no link between the lower floors

and the upper floor other than the lift on one side.

So I mean, the application is very similar to the 2015

application which was withdrawn, not quite sure why it was withdrawn, but it doesn't

seem to have taken it at this stage further.

Any questions?

Questions to start with, please.

Mr. Dodgson.

Thank you.

Yes, I had struggled to work out from the key and the numbers what actually was what,

because we're numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, et cetera.

And four on one of the drawings said that that was a door

when it was actually against a wall.

And number two, again, it was a small window when it was actually on something else.

So I'm just slightly, could you just clarify then the whole

of the non -phenestrated areas are going to be zinc clad or are they going

to be painted to match the render below?

It was referred to as ink cladding

on the upper floor, which is the new storey,

and aluminium frame windows around that.

One of the keeks was said to paint,

paint something painted to match the render.

Maybe I misunderstood it.

Anyway, as far as you understand,

and the whole of that top floor will be in zinc.

Is that the case?

That's what I understand, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Do I see Ms. Lawson?

Yes, thank you.

I was going to ask the same.

There's a lot of detail lacking

and I couldn't see where the lifts were to be

and the only indication of what the bridge across

will look like is a very simple line drawing.

Generally, the whole thing, unless you can tell me, say there's more detail, just seems

to be lacking in any convincing sort of thoroughness of thought and design.

But I think this is more than we saw in the plans on the portal, but still not with absence.

Are there any more?

All right, okay.

Okay.

Are there any more questions?

Sorry, have we got any visuals from across the road running like that?

No, that's something I did mention in my comments to the case officer, because you've got the

impact on the Hebrew State Conservation Area, and there ought to be a photograph or CGI

showing how that relates, really, but there isn't one.

Okay, thank you.

Comments then rather than questions. Let me start with Mr. Farrow.

You're very kind.

To a degree, I'm not entirely sure whether anything we say here is going to be of much relevance,

because I don't think what is proposed is buildable.

It looks as though the means of escape provision are totally inadequate and they are probably

going to have to introduce another staircase, if not more staircases. The drawings seem

to show an inadequate understanding of the existing building. The plans show staircases

to the rear of the building but not staircases to the front where the main stairs are. I

I think what they're showing is a service stair.

So I think that it's worrying that the applicant doesn't

seem to understand the existing building very well, which

I think is evident, as Mr. Sellers says,

in what it is they propose on the upper floor.

Another reason why I think that we need to be concerned,

well, we don't need to be concerned,

because I think it will have to be withdrawn,

is that on the section, the thickness of what is shown for the roof construction is totally inadequate.

So the building is going to get higher than it presently is, possibly not a great deal, but it is going to increase in height.

they don't seem to have dealt either with the existing structures on the roof, which are going to require attention,

so I think they contain water tanks for the existing building.

All that apart, which I say probably makes any discussions we have about it irrelevant, I think there's too many storeys.

I mean, I think there's one storey too many here. I agree with the comments made earlier.

I think it's an inappropriate and unacceptable addition to the building.

Thank you.

Mr Dodgson.

Thank you and thank you Chairman for pushing that one item further down the agenda.

Thank you.

Well, this building is not a locally listed building for no reason.

It is a distinctively hot deco in some of its style, as was pointed out by Mr Sellers.

And I think particular features that are strong are those vertical stairwells with the lighting,

the fenestration on those stairwells.

And as was said, the brickwork and then the distinction with the rendered areas at the

top.

In fact, it's a building I hadn't really looked at very closely before.

and the more I look at it, the more I appreciate it.

And I think it actually forms,

particularly when you see it in Trinity Crescent,

it forms a very harmonious and pleasing building.

What's proposed looks like an afterthought

that's just dumped on the top of it,

has been said by Mr. Sellers,

none of the windows are in alignment,

and it would appear that the materials

are not appropriate either.

It would have considerable impact

from across the other side of Ballum High Road

and undoubtedly from Trinity Crescent as well.

The rear elevation, in my view,

is particularly unattractive

from what's been proposed for it.

And when they say that what they've done is subsidiary

and a high quality of design,

I totally disagree with that.

It just ruins the entire building.

So I would propose that this should not be accepted

for those reasons.

Thank you.

Are there any other key points people want to make

that haven't been made so far?

I think we have to be careful here

about the difference between what is proposed

and how well it's done.

I'm going to agree with Mr. Farrow

that it's fairly likely that this fails completely

on all sorts of technical grounds

and could not, as drawn, be built.

And I'm sorry to say this to the presence of officers,

but I find a failing in the planning department

generally is that there are a lot of stuff that couldn't

be built without modification.

It does nonetheless get approved because no one's thought about that point. It's not a planning matter, but it should be

Which leads to two changes and the change here? Yes, it's going to get taller than shown

I would agree thoroughly with the Dodgson that the material is entirely wrong

But I would say it's not entirely let's not

Say that the principle is wrong because I think if you look at say Ormond court on the upper Richmond Road

where another storey was craned on top, prefabricated,

on an even more distinctive building of the same period.

It's extremely successful because it was designed

with considerable care to be the right colour,

to have verandas that match the spacing

of the building underneath.

The whole thing was designed as if designed

part of the building.

This is not, and yes, you're right about

certain technical failings.

They don't even add up.

They claim in their design statement

that the entrance to the lift core

will stop people getting through the back.

But actually, it doesn't fill the gap.

There's something not there that's mentioned.

And the same goes all the way up.

As you say, what happened to the back stairs?

Where have a lot of the bits gone?

Oh, and there's a second lift, but not a second stair.

which opens straight into the open air.

I mean, it just, I wouldn't want to go home to that place

on a cold, wet, windy night across that bridge.

Would anybody else?

Are there any other key points that people want to make?

Councillor Ayers.

I was just nodding at my point.

I think the bridge would have its own need to have its own suicide watch.

It's just sort of in mid -air with no roof, no guardrail, anything.

I mean, technical reasons.

And you're talking about these means of escaping cases of fire are ridiculous.

We really are a joke.

that length of that corridor, escape distances and not having a second staircase.

So although I agree that it's possible, I think that the idea of putting another storey on is fine,

the principle of that to me is fine, it's just been very badly done.

So I would support objecting to it.

Okay, I'm going to try and summarise and tell me if I get it wrong.

There are various questionable aspects of the drawings.

Just, I mean, the drawings are, it seems to me,

non -understandable in several respects.

Where they are understandable, they raise all kinds

of building regs and other technical questions.

Set that all aside, but I think we

have to mention them, the materials and design of what

is being proposed, notwithstanding the opportunity,

it seems to me to add a decently designed upper floor, additional floor to this building.

Materials and design are completely out of keeping and it seems to me unacceptable on

a locally listed building, which is quite a distinguished one.

I have noted it a number of times as I've been down Bellum High Road.

I think that what is being proposed will have a damaging effect on the heaver, on the conservation

area opposite and it is therefore unacceptable.

The application is to put additional buildings additional from the building.

I think as a committee we would probably be more sympathetic to the idea of increasing

the height of the building if the applicant was providing some benefit to the remainder

of the building. It is a fine building, it's a locally listed building, it has its merits,

but it does look like it could do with a little bit of maintenance. And for example, the windows

don't match, I think some windows have been replaced piecemeal. Were an application to

come forward for an additional storey, together with proposals to improve the existing building,

I think we'd be minded much more favourably,

we're minded to look upon it much more favourably.

Sorry, forgive me, thank you.

Any other points people want to make?

Not, then let us move on to,

this one is well known to us.

Waterfall House, 20 .25, 2531.

And I, can we just, before the presentation starts,

can we just get an update if there is an update to be had on where

the appeal on an earlier application hasn't got to?

I can give you an update there isn't really anything up to update I'm afraid

chair. There is a real backlog of appeal cases within the Planning Inspector at

the moment as far as I know it's still being considered by the

Planning Inspector we haven't received a decision on that appeal as of yet but

obviously it is a consideration when we're looking at this scheme as that

scheme was proposing signage so in combination if that was consented and

then this as well as the cream cumulative impact but I'm hopeful that

the next committee we should at least have a decision by then from the

inspectorate okay so I take it that in these circumstances we just have to

review this application on its own merits,

not in relation to other applications

that have come forward on this building.

Is that right?

Yes, because that has been refused by the local authority.

I think that's being considered by the inspectorate,

but once that decision has been made by the inspector,

then that becomes a material consideration

if they disagree with council.

Okay, thank you.

So who is going to do the presentation?

Is this, again?

It's me, it's me again, yeah.

Okay, so yeah, looking at this one in isolation, but with everything else in the background,

given also the previous history and the proliferation of signs on this site.

This is for the dentist surgery.

And if we can see the elevation drawing from that's, yeah, so that's what's there at the moment.

So there's the hoardings that are there.

So they've got a canvas sign affixed to the front boundary wall.

and then these two large, well, one's the dentist and one is the nursery.

And I think that canvas sign on the, I forget when this, this is,

I think this is some time ago, I think they've taken off that canvas sign

on the building itself from if memory serves.

If we can look at the planning elevation of what's proposed.

So these are the nursery signs that are proposed.

Quite where they need to, one above the other,

I've not really, yeah, that's kind of beyond me

in the same location.

But that's what, I mean, it's a very simple application.

It's not, it's what is proposed.

So yeah one freestanding sign behind the wall and one affixed to the front wall

And there's not really an awful lot for more for me to say on that one so questions or comments

So have I understood correctly that the lower one will be already on a wall that's already blocking out the view of the property anyway

Yes.

And it's just the upper one in a way that will be added.

Will be added.

Thank you.

Yes, my question is just to ask how many of the signs they've got are currently legal.

Because if it's none, then we have to consider this one way.

If what they've already got has been there long enough to have been consented effectively,

then we're in a bit of a bind.

And as far as I'm aware, Mark, I think they want two signs because they've already paid

the sign maker for two signs.

Ms. Fransch.

As far as I'm aware, none of the signs have actually been given consent.

They've sort of muddied the waters because there is the multiple use on the site.

There's the nursery and there's the dentist, both of whom have done things that have been

unauthorised.

So it's kind of like a game of whack -a -mole, really.

You know, you get rid of one of them and then another one pops up and you think, okay, right.

So pending the eventual decision from the planning inspector, we'll have a greater

knowledge of what is legal.

Hopefully none of it will be.

And we can say, okay, you know, you can have one sign each.

Surely that's enough in this day and age of the internet and, you know, all this sort

of thing.

But yeah, that's where we are at the moment.

If I may.

Sorry.

Mr. Farrow.

If you look at the drawing which we have on the screen there, the lower sign is slightly

squiffy.

It aligns with the fall of the wall.

If you look at the photograph of where the existing sign is, they put that horizontal

so it will read horizontally with the sign above it.

In the amount of event that we consider it's acceptable, I think we should ask them to

make sure that the bottom sign lines up with the top sign.

Thank you.

Or vice versa, perhaps.

Okay comments I'm going to take this Lawson first

Well, I did wonder if the two signs were in anticipation of the nursery

Being one of them being approved or both of them being approved and there being some sort of negotiation between the dental practise and the

Nursery the dental practise has got loads of those signs because they plastered the whole perimeter

the building itself. So this is progress and it's great that they're actually seeking

permission to advertise off the building itself. Although obviously what's proposed, the

raised signs, the footings have been made, the verticals are already in, but if the signage

is removed, more of the building is revealed. I would be more minded to allow and accept

the sign on the wall and I would have it horizontal regardless of anything above it. And perhaps

too that would set a precedent or some consideration for a second sign for a dental practise. I

understand the needs for, yeah, I don't think there's anybody that doesn't know

that Waterfall House is a dental practise and a nursery. We're all desperate for

Nurseries and dentists so and everyone wants to go there because it's a great building all the extra signage isn't successful. It doesn't contribute

anything and

unfortunately ruins a

Fabulous building it should be enjoyed by everybody that passes by whether they need the building or not

Any other points that people want to make counts around and just on the point of advertising the nursery

I mean you look around schools across the borough

I mean, they might put on a wall

if the school gets outstanding or something,

a bit of a banner.

But the idea that you would have something on a wall

and something on a building listed or otherwise,

sort of bright and colourful,

I mean, you just don't tend to see that

on the actual building.

Okay, Mr. Dodgson.

Yeah, I think we need to, obviously, bear in mind,

it's an important building, but we want it to be used,

and we want people to be commercially successful there,

because if they're not, then it'll crumble and fall apart.

So they do need to be able to advertise what's there.

I think it's just that it's a duplication.

I mean, I'm not totally against there being a separate sign,

you know, nothing on the wall and then a separate sign,

because plenty of schools do that.

I can think Nightingale Lane and so on.

But I think it's just the duplication I object to,

really.

OK.

Let me try and summarise again. What we are objecting to in this application is

the duplication of the signs. I'm not entirely sure we are being asked to approve the signs,

the content of the signs or the signs, the size of the signs?

Can we have that?

No, I'm quite clear in my own mind,

it's nothing to do with either the design

or the information that's the text that's on the adverts.

I think that what we do object to is the duplication, the size, and the way in which particularly

the one, the upper one, obscures the view of a very distinguished building that is in

a very prominent position at the entrance to the borough,

at the entrance to Tooting.

And that is simply not acceptable,

to obscure the view of a listed building in this way,

it seems to me.

And that's, sorry, that's notwithstanding the point

that Mr. Farrow makes, that of course,

Commercially used buildings need to be able to advertise the services that are located in that building.

It's just that what is being proposed here is completely inappropriate,

it seems to me, for, what's it say, a listed building.

Does anyone want to add or subtract from what I just said?

Talking about the signage, where to put it, which we have been in a way.

I keep somebody said whack a mole earlier and it's exactly how the planning department

had to deal with Roehampton University who have lots of listed buildings, lots of lovely

walls and a habit of putting up very big signs at very short notice, which we're forever

chasing down.

But I do notice the ones that people see, read, and notice are actually the ones on

the wall rather than the ones up there.

So why don't we say, please do not obstruct the view of this listed building.

you've got a wall you can use.

On then to 2025193, actually is that, yes that is right,

Rain House in Subbrook Road.

Who's leading on this, Joe?

Mr. Sellers.

Well, this is an interesting site.

You've got an existing four -storey building,

probably dating from about the 60s, 70s.

Look at the context there.

You've got, this is highlighted in blue on there,

and to the rear is the Nightingale Lane conservation area.

And also just to the rear, you've got the list of building,

Greater Mister Building, number 74 at Nightingale Lane.

And next to that, you've got a pair of local listed buildings, number 68 and 70, Nightingale

Lane.

So that's the juxtaposition of the proposal.

Now the proposed – okay, it's only three flats which has been proposed, but this is

two flats on top of the four -storey building, which makes it a five -storey building again.

Now, the four -storey building, if you look at it in the context of the properties around

it, is much taller than the existing residential area, which are all two or three -storey buildings.

So existing building is already four storeys, so adding another storey on top is very challenging

given what's around it in terms of conservation and interested buildings.

So, I think we've got...

Yeah, the drawings will show that additional there.

Again, I think the main building is sort of brick and that,

and then this is a different entity in terms of materiality.

But to put a five -storey...

To make it a five -storey building, I think,

and then otherwise two or three -storey area,

it's very challenging to do.

There's one additional flat which

is going into the basement, which I don't particularly

have any particular objections to.

It's just really the issue with the two flats

on top of the four -storey building, which I think

is very prominent.

We've got a shot there, I think.

Yeah, just to show you.

OK, there's a parapet around the top of the building, which

from views is not so apparent, but it's still, I think it is very visible,

and the impact on the local area is quite substantial.

Thank you.

Questions of fact?

Mr Deutsch.

Are there any visuals of it from the back,

which is where the listed building is and the conservation area is from the rear?

that we're not aware of, certainly.

We've got just the rear drawing, that's all.

The CGI is just two street ones, street views.

Because am I not correct in saying the buildings

either side of it are not in a conservation area?

That's correct, yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

I should say this is a Battersea application,

Application so I I have things to say about it, but I'll let others go first

Any mr. Dodgson well I

Very much we were saying previously about extensions to the top. I think if if if it was detrimental

For the setting of the building behind it

from that point of view, the addition of additional storey was detrimental, then I would oppose it.

I personally agree that the whole area is a low built, low lying area.

And I don't think that for whatever reason, I don't think we should be going higher in storeys.

But that's not necessarily a conservation area matter as such.

Let me let me make one up one or two points

first firstly

Obviously, there is the the local plan policy issue that this is creating a mid -rise building

In a street that is mainly

two storeys

And that

I mean although it's not in itself in a conservation area,

I think that is a matter that we ought to have

some view about.

I think that the,

it is unfortunate at best that they have presented

no visualisation of the impact of what's now proposed

on the listed buildings, statutory and locally listed,

on Nightingale Lane, and the rest of the

Nightingale Lane Conservation Area.

So that is something that's

Really very obviously missing

from from the the application

Those are the two key points that I would make

Other comments, well, I was just going to say that I think what we need to do is distinguish

As I think we have done previously

To whether the effect of adding additional storey on the building is detrimental to the building

or detrimental to the surrounding area.

In this instance, we're not concerned about the building

in as much as it's not within the area.

But I do think the effect of an additional storey

will be detrimental to immediate and nearby historical assets.

And for that reason, I would oppose it.

Although, I think that as an addition to the building, it's not too bad.

But I think we should be sensitive to the effect that making the building that much taller will have on adjoining assets.

I mean, if I can just comment on that, it seems to me that the weakness in our argument,

if we follow that line, and I do sympathise with it more than a little, is that we have

no evidence in front of us, or very no visual evidence adds to the impact that it will

Or is will have or is likely

to have

Perhaps the way forward is to comment on this application rather than actually

objecting to it

But mr. Armstrong

Yeah, one of the chief issues. It seems to me is that

creating a precedent because it creates precedent

where other sites being redeveloped will use

that to argue for all the buildings.

So, eventually, the whole of what is fairly low scale residential street

might become gradually inhabited by four or five -storey blocks,

which I think will affect the character of the entire area in time,

although we're just being presented with this one case.

One more comment from Mr Catto.

Could I just comment about your comments, Ram Song?

I think what's coming up when we're looking at Greenview Court answers your question the financial pressure in an area such as

Such as both of those would prefer the existing Edwardian houses

By several millions to occupy that site compared to the flats

So I don't think there's much worry right now of it leading to the street getting knocked out

What happens is that when the sites come up for redevelopment,

they get whacking great big pseudo Victorian houses put on

rather than smaller, more residential, single family

houses.

So that is the difference.

I'm sorry.

I don't think that is relevant to this.

We have to look at this application.

What I would like a view on is whether we are objecting or whether we are commenting.

I would suggest we're objecting.

How could we?

What would we be objecting to?

I mean, insofar as the conservation area is concerned, we've got to spell that out.

But we aren't in a position to do that because we've not been shown the impact so you're you would favour commenting

Yes, okay, it seems to me that we comment that

Although we are not

again the principle of adding an additional floor to

reasonably modern

block of flats

We note that this makes, in this instance,

for a mid -rise building, thus contrary to the policy in the local plan.

And we comment that we are unable

to reach a view on the impact on the conservation area,

because no evidence is provided for us,

and that is a gap in the application that needs to be filled.

Is that acceptable as a summary?

Forgive me. Yes and no, Chairman.

What we are seeking to do is to give some guidance and advice

to the Planning Applications Committee here.

And if this application was to go forward to a planning application...

Well, it's going to go forward to a Planning Applications Committee,

I think that it would be better to comment that we consider it is likely to have an adverse

effect in as much as it is presently a tall building relative to the other buildings in

the street in which it stands.

And when it's a little bit taller, it will continue, the effect will be greater.

And for those reasons, we believe that the development will have an adverse effect on

the conservation area.

I think Mr. Sellers made the point quite clearly at the outset that the building was, as it

stands, taller than its neighbours.

And I think making it taller will make it taller.

Must stress sorry that

The our view

Surely is that before it goes to PAC?

some evidence needs to be provided as to what the impact is likely to be.

That's a gap, a key gap in the application and it shouldn't go to PAC

without that gap being filled. Thank you. Can it not come back to us though?

Too late.

Just move on to Riversdale primary school.

Two applications here for the usual reasons.

Who's leading on this?

Hey, chair.

Right, thank you. So slightly different sort of application that we have from the previous ones

now. And so we've got Riversdale Primary School on Merton Road. Let me get the presentation to

work. So this is the location of the school here. So the school itself is listed. Listed in 2009 as

part of a big survey by what was English Heritage at the time, now Historic England, as part

of a big survey of the London board schools that was undertaken in 2008 and 2009, and

this came up as one of those which was considered of particular architectural merit and a good

example of those London board schools, which meant that it was sufficient to meet the criteria

for national listing. So it's not within a conservation area, so we're looking at just

So the list of building here, we've got some other list of buildings within the facility,

but the principal concern is the school itself.

So the school was built from around about the end of the 19th century with some alterations

in 1902 to take account of some of the changes to the Education Act, which allowed for larger

big open classroom spaces that would benefit ventilation and sunlight to the pupils.

built in a Queen Anne style, three storeys plus basement. So I take you through to the quite a

quintessential board school here in the Queen Anne style. Quite a distinctive feature in the local

townscape which includes the brick wall and the entrances which are stone entrances to the school

which you see here.

So this is the existing street view here from Merton Road.

The school has been subject to a few alterations.

So you see at this location, you've got a temporary building

within the immediate setting of the school here.

This is supposed to be removed as part of the proposals.

And here you look, there's a winter view here

that's through from Coronation Gardens

towards the south boundary of the school.

And there was a further extension not that long ago

in a yellow stock brick here towards the rear of the building.

What they're seeking to want to introduce was a free -standing classroom building along

this southern boundary here, so along the right close to the boundary wall.

So Street View, Google Earth view of the site, you see it's quite a contained school.

That's that extension that I referred to that's been added and this is the temporary classroom

here it's just a single storey. You've got quite a distinctive feature from on the Merton

Road elevation with towards the rear part of the site and this is the location here

which is currently a sort of astroturf area for the school which is proposed that will

be introducing the new classroom block. So single storey modular building to be removed

and then this Astroturf area is the subject of the application site.

So they're proposing a two -storey self -contained building within the immediate setting of the

Lister building right towards the back boundary of the site.

And then they're proposing the artificial grass area, which will be lost as part of

that to be moved in the location of the temporary building.

This has been subject to pre -application discussions.

There was an initial pre -application discussion that took place with offices, looked at two

options.

One was a single -storey building and then a two -storey building.

The preference was going to be a single -storey building in terms of the impact on the list

of building.

But it wasn't clear in those pre -application discussions what the purpose of this two -storey

building would be.

So since that the application has come in for a two -storey building, two -storey building,

and this is to serve as a self -contained SCND classroom building.

So it will remove all of this SCND facilities within the main school building

into this self -contained building, which is why it needs to be two storeys.

Two classrooms, either side with the staircase and storage and toilets contained within it.

So they get four classrooms within the block.

SCNT schools, they need certain requirements that may not be possible within the main school

buildings. One being they need quite large classrooms, open spaces, they need spaces

to be able to put children in like tranquilly spaces to allow them to take time out of the

classroom, which can be a bit harder to achieve with some of these listed board schools, which

of select different arrangement and some of the layout of the internal layout of the board

schools are part of their significance so much harder to alter.

It was mentioned in the agenda that there was proposed to be some updated drawings sent

through so this is reflecting the most up -to -date drawings.

It is of modular construction and the original application that came in was quite simple

construction, they have sought to try to update the design to reflect more of the architecture

of the main building.

This is the analysis that they've sought to achieve the slightly better front elevation

with a much more clear entrance which was rather lost in the previous iteration of the

design.

And this is the two elevations.

So there's slightly more detailing added in in terms of the balustrade on the central

section and there's a little bit more of a kind of verticality to the facades.

As I said, the entrance has been more assertive, well made more assertive in its architecture,

but it is still largely a modular style of classroom construction, which is effectively

a rectangular classroom building right in the setting of the listed building.

There isn't any street view images as in there's no proposed street elevations to allow you

to see it in its context with the school.

So I'll take you back to that street view where you can see the current single storey

building over the brick wall.

It will be set further back, but unfortunately we don't have that view to be able to see

the building in its context with the listed school directly next to it. So apologies for

that. That hasn't been provided as part of the application and I believe the officer

has requested that information who wasn't able to attend tonight to present it. So I'll

take you back to the street view from Merton Road to give you an idea of what potentially

what it would look like. So this is the view that probably is most effective. Bear in mind

that the rear elevation of this building

is quite visible as well across the gardens.

So it's really to get an idea from the committee

what the thoughts are of the design of the building

and whether the proposed height and location

of the classroom building is considered appropriate

given it's in the setting of the listed board school.

Thank you very much. Factual questions. Obviously it is regrettable that we haven't got any kind of

CGI to work with. It's very difficult to imagine what the impact is going to be on the school and

on the street scene but anything else anyone wants to raise? Mr Farron.

If you could return to the proposed elevations of the building. It's not clear from the drawings

because I think the notes are missing what the panels between the windows are. In other

Let me double cheque on my other screen for a second and I can give you that information

straight away

While I'm looking for that if anyone has any other questions and I can keep looking just so that there's no delay

Any any other factual questions to start with?

No, there don't seem to be any.

OK.

So we have, where there isn't brick,

there is a stone door surround to the main entrance.

But the areas which aren't brick are light stone -coloured

rendered panels.

So it's not metal.

is render. In between the windows you see that there's these sort of frames that are proposed

just to add a little interest so they're in between the two floors and then in between the

window in the centre that aligns with the the main entrance door. They're called they're concrete

mouldings. So that's the that's so that's the materiality of that of those some elements which

aren't brick okay thank thank you comments on this mr. Dodgson to start

with um and this is a very distinctive building I think frame it's a beautiful

building it's an impressive and it's got a very beautiful setting and it stands

out as a tall building with gaps on either side of it with greenery and

And although there is that low one -storey building, I suspect that for pedestrians, probably barely

visible from the street from Merton Road, but what I do think looks as though it could

be going to happen is if they build a two -storey building in that gap, then that setting will

be compromised.

And I was a bit surprised that they haven't gone for maybe the bits of the building that

behind the original building, why they can't add another storey to perhaps that, just a

thought, because that won't then compromise the setting from Merton Road. It might compromise

it from the street at right angles to that, but it won't compromise that setting. So I

feel uneasy about the setting, the positioning of the building. I don't find I can really

Comment much about the detailing because I feel that I didn't really have a sense in my mind as to how this is really going

to look

Other comments mr. Kato

Well, I think I'm just gonna follow on that. I can't really comment on how it's going to look

We've seen two elevations out of four

One of them will one of the short ones will face straight on to the main building

So probably doesn't matter but there is a fourth side to this still missing

It's, if anything, but really particularly the back one,

the side facing the park, I think,

has not had enough mention compared to the side facing

Merton Road, but the park side is just as public a view,

which is part of why this building,

the main school stands out.

And we really would like to have seen,

and again, I think it's a comment,

rather echoes what we said about the last application.

It's we really would like to have seen that in the context of the building

It's next to because I have a horrible feeling that it's an attempt to do something

Sort of period ish that completely and utterly fails

To look convincing in any way and I'd much rather that they echoed the very plain yellow brick box. That's already been built

Miss Armstrong

the design of this little building with this little balustrade and it's kind of

reached me down Queenham it's rather nice and but I here again it's it's like

the rain house scheme where we haven't got a elevation showing the effect from

Merton Road, so it's sort of slightly an incomplete application.

Are there any other key points that people want to make? Mr. Farrow. Sorry, I've just been

looking at the application online. There are more drawings of the rear elevation and

there's a little more information about the setting, but I agree with colleagues

that if you're going to put an application in, to put a building next to a nationally

listed building, you ought to be demonstrating more clearly what the effect, what you're

proposing is going to have on the listed building. And I think this doesn't do it. That said,

I do think that they have made a good effort. I share Mr Armstrong's view. I think the

building could well be successful in its relationship to the building as it stands. As it were in

isolation from the building, you can see that they have made an effort to relate to it in

in terms of the elevations.

But whether the bulk of the building

will relate to the existing building

is not clear from the submitted drawings,

both the ones that are on the planning application case file

and the ones we've seen this evening.

I think it's going to be a tricky one

to come to a conclusion on.

Okay.

I think we're in the territory again of making a comment aren't we rather than

Reaching a definitive view on on this

There are and I was looking at this this afternoon

It is impossible it seems to me to tell from what has been submitted

what the impact is going to be,

A, on the street scene in Merton Road

and from the park at the back,

and the impact on the listed building.

It is very difficult to reach a view

on how it will relate physically to the city.

in spatial terms, to the existing board school,

which is what we have to be particularly concerned about,

in addition to the street scene and the view from the park.

And it could work, but we can't tell.

And I would challenge anyone to be able to tell from the drawings what the impact is going to be.

So I think what we're saying is that this application should not proceed

any further until that work is done by the applicants.

May I express some sympathy to the applicants? We tend these days to be seduced by the presentation

of computer -generated images. The problem the applicant has here is to create a computer -generated

image of the existing school would, well it wouldn't be a nightmare, but it would require

a considerable amount of effort to model that existing building such that we can see the

new building relative to it.

So I say with buildings which are easier to replicate in 3D, we tend to expect that as

a bare minimum.

In this instance, I think they have a problem.

They've shied away from it.

What we have to do is go back to the old days, looking at 2D elevations.

My view is that I think that in the corner where it is,

it probably will not have a detrimental effect on the building.

It's set away from the road frontage.

I don't think you'll read it readily with the building.

And I would like to see more information, but I'd be cautiously welcoming it as a proposed development.

Any more comments?

What's been presented, Flat roofing is helpless against the Victorian, the existing Victorian

school.

Okay, any other comments?

Okay, let's move on then to...

Sorry.

2025 -2661 Greenview Court on Baskerville Road backing on to Wandsworth Common.

Who's leading on this?

That's me again, Chair.

Okay, over to you.

Thank you.

So, Creamview Court, 25 Baskerville Road, as always.

So, this is a bomb damage site along Baskerville Road within the toast rack of Wandsworth Common

Conservation Area.

So, you see here the existing Victorian context of Baskerville Road, so all these buildings

back onto the common which is also locally listed. And Greenview Court was built in the

1950s when a set of three houses were built as part of the Victorian development of the

toast rack. So for number 28 originally before the bomb damage had an attached building to

it and then another set of semi -detached buildings. So of note here you see within the designated

heritage assets and non -designated heritage assets. So the rear elevate, well it looks

as though the rear part of the site is locally listed but in fact it's actually a boundary

marker which sits within Wandsworth Common just on the boundary with Greenview Court.

So here again you see the context of semi -detached pairs of buildings that line the very strong

grid pattern along the toast rack, which is the residential area which sort of kind of

goes into the common.

Some existing street view images to show the building, very quintessential of its period,

good, simple, flattered development with brick building, quite a few trees of note just to

pick up on, street trees and in the front garden. So it's quite shielded from view when

you go along Baskerville Road. You see here in its context the rather grand semi -detached

pairs of buildings, well that one being a detached but was originally was part of a

semi -detached pair. And then the side elevation of that building has just been rendered. So

this gives you again that context of Baskerville Road. There's a general consistency across

Baskerville Road in terms of the buildings being the projecting gabled bays with the

arched entrances which are slightly projecting as well. There's some variations between some

of the groups, some of them are slightly more innate with barge boards and some detailing

and others are slightly more simple in design, but there's a general consistency in terms

of height, design and character and that kind of regular grid pattern of gabled projecting

two -storey bays. And just the image there to see the building in its context with those

two, with the Victorian building on the other side. The existing ground floor plan, you

So there's two flats per floor,

so largely four flats across the whole block.

Existing buildings are quite squat

in relation to the buildings,

either side of it, very squat roof.

So what they're proposing here,

this was touched upon in a previous scheme,

when we were discussing a previous presentation,

so they're seeking to largely reinstate

some of the lost townscape on this part of Baskerville Road.

So total demolition of the flattered development

and its replacement with three buildings,

basement up to second floor level,

second floor being contained within the roof form.

And it's really trying to take a similar form

to what was there previously

and the character of Baskerville Road

with the semi -detached pairs.

So you have one building that will be physically attached,

to number 28 and then a separate semi -detached pair.

See here, this is the proposed basement

and ground floor plans.

And this denotes the boundary marker in this location,

which will be fully protected as part of the scheme.

Now, the interesting thing about Baskerville Road

is that you have both elevations having a public facing,

are both public facing elevations.

So the top part of the buildings can be viewed from the common and are quite characterful

with the, some of them have got quite large gables, some of them have got dormers and

some of them have got these gables integrated within the roof.

So that's the elevations.

So they're seeking to largely reflect almost exactly the buildings either side of it.

You see what will be proposed number 27 will be largely a mirror of number 28 in terms

of the front elevations and again for 26 and 25.

So this is just the elevations and then you're looking at the street view.

So brick wall reinstated along here which currently is a hedge.

As I mentioned the rear elevations are as visible or as prominent as the front elevations

therefore it's very important to see in its context with from the common. So they're seeking

to try to introduce some of the features of the existing buildings with the large gable here

and then a very simple dormer with PV panels and then a projecting bay here and then you have

your kind of usual bifold doors at ground level which won't be visible from the common.

So this gives you an idea of the view from the common itself with the rear elevation

and there's a boundary marker which will be protected. I'll take you back.

So there's no, we mentioned CGI, there isn't any CGI's but something to note is that this

is a follow up application. So there was a previous application on the site, I think

I think it was 2024 as far as I remember.

It came at a time which was between panel,

between committees,

so we weren't able to bring it to committee,

but regardless it was refused partly on the basis

of the rear elevations not being in keeping

with the character of the area

and forming a very cluttered and disorderly rear elevation

which would cause harm to the character and appearance

of Wandsworth Common Conservation Area

in views from the comment.

So they have sought to try to address some of those issues

with the rear elevations, which is why we've got some of the more detailed elevations for

the rear, just as much as the front. We didn't have a low loss of information in the previous

application in terms of the front elevation boundary treatment either, which we do have

a bit more information on. So it would be really interesting to get the committee's

views on what they consider is if the actual scheme is appropriate in terms of the number

They're seeking to reinstate largely what was previous there before it got bombed and

if the design is considered appropriate both from the front and the rear elevation.

Thank you.

Factual questions, if there are any.

Mr. Catto.

You mentioned there had been a previous application.

Clearly there's a council policy that's against loss of units and we're being asked

here to approve knocking down six and building three.

Was that referred to in the previous refusal?

I would need to double cheque that.

I was looking largely at the reason for refusal

in terms of heritage grounds.

I can probably cheque if that was one of the reasons for when

I remember.

I think when I looked through it,

I don't think it came off as a reason.

I think it was justified.

But I can double cheque that for you.

Mr. Armstrong.

Can I cheque about chimney stacks?

Sorry, I forgot to look at the front elevation.

Oh, they are. Yeah, right. Good.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

which read from this committee's point of view pretty well until you get to the next

Number six and then number seven and then number eight where

17 17 18 and 19 on the where

Applications that this committee has objected to have

have been granted.

I think we just note that.

We are of course an advisory committee and our advice is not always accepted.

Having said that, I think in all cases,

improvements were made in the proposals before they were accepted.

Whether that had anything to do with what we said I do not know

Okay

Please could I please raise a technical point since I've got since we've got council staff here the

application for

best 36 best per road

Which was approved?

Was for a long time, I think still is marked on the council's website as final decision under consideration

This is not the first time it's happened to an application we've been watching the last time I

commented I

Got an immediate oops. Sorry from the team leader this time

I asked the question of the case officer and have had no reply for some weeks now.

Obviously, that's something that would be useful if one of the officers could take that away and cheque the correct position.

Is there any other business?

5 Future Meeting Dates

Or are we all exhausted?

In that case, I ask you simply to note the future meeting dates

and we'll be here the night before bonfire night.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is now finished.

Thank you.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth 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.

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Monday 8 September 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory CommitteeMonday, 8th September 2025 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Declarations of Interest

2 Minutes - 14th July 2025

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-292)

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-293)

5 Future Meeting Dates

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Monday, 8th September 2025 at 7:00pm