Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 25 September 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 25th September 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Test, test.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the September meeting
of the Planning Applications Committee.
My name's Tony Belton.
I'm the chair of the committee
and I represent Battersea Park Ward in Battersea.
I will ask other members of the committee
to introduce themselves when they make contributions
rather than just getting a whole list of names
right at the beginning and indeed the offices.
I have one apology and that's from Councillor Tiller,
who's not feeling very well.
I hope he recovers soon enough.
I don't think it's, I think it's a transitory,
just not feeling very well.
Can I sign the minutes as a correct record?
Councillor Humphries, you've seen them.
Agreed.
Okay, thank you.
Just to record that members will have read
all the papers, if anything goes straight through
it's because we just agree it's not very contentious.
They have all been thoroughly read.
I ask whether any members have got any declarations
of interest of a financial or any other kind,
for instance family interest it could be,
but has anyone got any interests?
No interests, thank you.
Move on to the first paper, the applications paper,
and the first application, which is application 202 .4
stroke 3677 and stroke 3662,
to do with the Springfield Hospital.
Just to point out for those who are perhaps new to it,
the second application is for historic buildings consent.
and in this particular case is fairly nominal
because we're not actually changing the building in any way.
So I imagine the committee will agree to that
without any issue.
But the first application is slightly different
and I'll ask Ms. Kelly to introduce it please.
Ms. Kelly.
Good evening, I'm Julia Kelly,
principal planner for the West Team Development Management.
I'm just going to give you a brief background to tonight's applications on the Springfield
Hospital main building, principally for the benefit of new members.
I know some members are very familiar with this site.
Back in 2012, outline planning consent was granted on appeal for the whole of the Springfield
site.
This consent included provision of new hospital buildings, a number of new build residential
units and the conversion of some of the existing retained buildings. This included the conversion
of the existing Grade 2 listed main hospital building into flats.
Submission and approval of subsequent reserve matters have seen works on converting the
listed main building commence and indeed start to be occupied. The outline consent from 2012
provided a finite number of units to be achieved
through conversion at 262 dwellings.
However, through subsequent changes to the layout of units,
retention of some extra areas of the existing building,
and changes to unit mix, the applicants have already met
this number of units approved under the outline consent
within a smaller part of the main building
rather than across its whole.
To date, phase 6A, sorry, I'm slightly confused because I was
going to have a visual presentation, but it's not
working.
Phase 6A provided 72 residential units, phase 6B, 109 residential
units, and the reserve matters for phase 6C provided 80
residential units.
All of those that have been consented so far as converted
units are to be provided as private market units.
So, consequently, the conversion of the remaining part of the building to which tonight's
Section 73 application and listed building applications relates were the subject of separate
full standalone planning permissions granted in August 2024. These were to provide a further
32 dwellings in the main building, bringing the total through conversion of existing buildings
up to 294. Given that the full planning application was outside of and
additional to the original outline consent from 2012, it was appropriate
when it was being considered for current policies and objectives to be applied to
its determination, including current affordable housing targets. As such, while
all of the 262 converted units approved under the outline consent are to be
offered as market units, it was appropriate to seek
an affordable housing offer for the additional 32 units
being sought under the full permission.
The applicants at that time provided a viability report
dating 2021 for the full application,
and this was independently assessed on behalf of the council
by Carter Jonas, who found that contrary to the applicants'
own conclusions, the scheme could support
some affordable housing.
At that time, the parties were not in full agreement with some of the inputs to the viability
appraisals, but eventually the applicants agreed to the provision of five affordable
units, three social rent and two shared ownership, as part of that full planning commission in
order to secure consent.
Due to the layout and configuration of this part of the listed building, it was agreed
that these five affordable units would be provided in an adjacent part of the building
which were originally approved under the reserve matters as market units. This position was
secured through the 106 agreement associated with the full planning permission which was
granted in 2024. This brings us to the current applications which, as Chair said, propose
minor changes to the internal arrangement of the building, changing the internal configuration
of four of the units. In terms of the physical works to the buildings, these changes are
supported by officers, as it's not considered to be detrimental to the heritage asset, and
indeed would see more of the original fabric of the building being retained. As such, the
listed building application for these changes before you this evening is recommended for
approval. It is the associated section 73 planning application that is however not being
supported by officers. And the reason for this is that in conjunction with these minor
internal layout changes, the applicants have provided an updated viability report which
concludes the scheme due to increased restoration costs and other factors, is in deficit and
and cannot support any affordable housing provision.
The applicants are therefore also seeking a variation to the existing legal agreement
to remove the requirement for the provision of the previously approved five affordable
housing units and associated viability reviews.
The Planning Service has had the applicants' updated viability appraisal independently
recently assessed by PBS Dorking and they dispute the applicant's conclusion that the
scheme cannot support any affordable housing. There have been protracted discussions between
the parties but unfortunately agreed position cannot be reached.
One of the main points of contention between the parties is regarding the benchmark land
value. The applicants contest that their original benchmark land value from their previous 2021
financial viability appraisal, which is based on an existing use value as an
office, including landowners premium, remains appropriate. However, both
cartridge owners previously and BPS Dorking now do not consider this
approach aligns with the actual condition and use of the building in
question and is not compliant with the NPPG. The main building to which the
application relates was formerly used as a mental health hospital with ancillary facilities,
including ancillary offices. The Council's advisors contest that a Class E office use
value is not therefore appropriate to benchmark the land value of the site against, as it
is simply not comparable to other Class E office uses without significant refurbishment
and investment, as well as requiring a change of use.
A number of other assumptions within the applicant's viability
appraisal, including profit levels and interest rates,
do not reflect market conditions at this current time,
or take into account the council's recent whole plan
viability assessment assumptions.
The applicant has listed a number of points where they
consider that the PPS assessment on behalf of the council
is incorrect.
However, officers do not consider their statements to be reflective of the contents of the BPS
reports and consider the conclusion of the independent assessment that the scheme is
able to still support the provision of five affordable units to be justified.
This has been further verified through review by the Council's own in -house viability team.
As mentioned in the officer committee report at paragraph 4 .25, it is recognised, however,
that providing just five affordable units out of a total of 294 units in a listed building,
where there may be greater service charges incurred and more difficulty in providing
the units, may be difficult to attract a registered provider.
Officers have therefore put forward an exceptional case for a payment in lieu to be made instead of on -site affordable provision.
This has been calculated on the basis of GLA methodology both by the Council's own viability officers and by its independent assessors.
And a figure of just over 1 .26 million has been reached.
Whilst the applicants acknowledge the methodology for calculating this is correct, they have
stated they would only be willing to offer a payment in lieu of £700 ,000 for the currently
consented five on -site affordable units, given that their position ongoing is that they believe
the scheme is unviable.
Officers do not consider that this reduced figure is acceptable or has been robustly
noting the correct methodology only considers the difference
between the gross development value including affordable housing
on site compared to the gross development value with all dwellings being
delivered as private marking housing. Officers
recognise and acknowledge the importance of preserving and protecting the Grade 2 listed building
and the good work the applicants have done in terms of ensuring the
future of the heritage asset which was for many years on the
heritage at risk register.
Officers also acknowledge that there have been areas of increased costs since the applicant's
original viability assessment some four years ago, and also now have access to actual sales
figures from those units already occupied on other parts of the main building.
However, an agreed position simply cannot be found between the parties.
Given the continued dispute from the applicants and the inability to move this matter forward
through negotiations and with officers satisfied that they would be able to successfully defend
their position at any appeal.
The section 73 planning application before you this evening is recommended for refusal.
This is on the basis of the failure of the applicants to demonstrate that the development
for the additional 32 units has maximised affordable housing delivery.
It is concluded, therefore, to be contrary to policy LP 23 of the Local Plan and the
objectives of the London Plan and the MPPF.
Thank you, Mr Kelly, for a very clear exposition. I would like to clear the decks with the very
uncontentious application for listed building consent, which is the
second of these two. Is that generally agreed? Everyone's happy with the listed building
concept. Okay, so that one's agreed. Now the other application, you've heard the officer's
recommendations, it's up to us to decide. Any people got it? Councillor Colkley.
Thank you chair, Councillor Coakley for St Mary's Ward. I fully support the officer's
recommendation to refuse the section of the application. I was just wondering after curiosity
because we're refusing the application but we, so with the five current units that are
due to be provided on site if we refuse the application,
will the current consent be to still build the five units
on site, and then would the officers return
to negotiations with the developer
in order to get that payment anew of the $1 .26 million?
Yes.
I should say, sorry, I should say we have two officers here.
Ms Simms, a newcomer, who is a viability expert, but I think although it is about viability,
I think that question relates to Mrs Kelly's comments.
The existing parent application, as we call it, is still extant, so as it stands there
is consent for five affordable units on the site. If they wish to implement that development,
they would need to provide those five affordable units secured by the 106 agreement.
In terms of returning to negotiations with the applicants,
we have had protracted
attempts at this and they've indicated that they would appeal any decision to refuse.
So I think that would probably be where the next step would be, but
from an officer point of view, we feel confident that we could defend that appeal to secure those units.
Thank you. Any other?
Gaa, Councillor Govindia. Welcome back from your lunch break.
Thank you. Councillor Govindia, member for East Putney Ward.
A question about oak fir and teak towers.
Has work started on them?
or if it hasn't started, is it possible to, in technical terms, to mothball this bit of
the listed building site and carry on with the rest of the listed building area?
As far as I'm aware, work on this phase of development 6C hasn't commenced.
to work on other parts of the building have 6A and 6B.
And there is the opportunity.
There's quite a lot of flats being provided.
So there would be the opportunity
to continue to work around this whilst this matter is resolved.
Follow up, Jack, of course.
Ms. Kelly, you mentioned that the applicant's
talking about an appeal.
What's in your judgement the likely time scale
between tonight, our resolution, and the possible outcome of an appeal?
You could probably answer that question as well as myself. It's hard to say. I mean,
we've got, you know, some appeals seem to come through very quickly, others seem to
take months, years, so it's out of our hands, it's down to the planning inspector and their
workloads, et cetera.
So I wouldn't think it would be particularly quick
if I were to guess, but that's just a guess.
Go ahead, Sir.
My observation really following those questions
is that delay is always the enemy of delivery.
And delivery is one of those things
that in both planning and house building
is the one thing that eludes delivery of housing.
and I just wonder whether, whatever happens tonight,
whether greater and different approach,
and greater effort should be put in the negotiations
and a different approach taken to get things built,
because getting things built is what this government,
the mayor, and everybody else is pushing for,
and I think this decision tonight probably
against that sort of approach.
I have a lot of sympathy for that view in all sorts of situations.
We ought to take into account the costs and significance of delay.
But in this particular case, the applicant has got a planning permission which they have
accepted before.
They know the risk they are running.
I hear what you say but I don't expect members to go along with that particularly.
Councillor Humphreys, did you have your hand up?
No, sir. Okay, Councillor Pridham.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Pridham for Lavender Ward in Battersea.
Obviously they've offered a sum of £700 ,000 rather than the £1 .26 million it was that it had been asked for.
would you be able to provide an indication as to how far that could go in terms of providing affordable housing elsewhere?
I don't think we're able to answer in terms of, do you mean in terms of how many units that might be able to support?
Yes, possibly, because I assume that the 1 .26 was based on the five units that were initially
as parts of the fine. So the 700 ,000s, if that's based on five, would the 700 ,000 just
be roughly three or would it be, does it not quite work that simply?
The housing cabinet member would say, because I've heard him say it so often, that the building
costs and so on are such nowadays that he's up the base figure to £500 ,000 a unit, if
that helps you.
Can I just confirm Victoria Simms' viability, just really to confirm the figure for the
1 .2 that the council and their independent assessor has calculated is based following
a formula set out in the London Plan where you take the value of the units if they were
private and then you take the value of the units if they're affordable housing estimate
and it's the difference between those minus the appropriate profit. So it's formulaic.
We are not aware of how the applicant has calculated their offers, which there have
a few through the process.
Councillor Warrell.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Warrell, Shaftesbury and Queenstown.
Just to help me understand the basis of any appeal,
should we decide to go against this tonight,
would the focus of the appeal be around land value
or what would they actually come back and argue around?
because there's a number of themes tonight,
but I was just wondering what would be the main focus.
In our opinion, the viability assessment
will be the only thing that is the subject of the appeal.
Many of the inputs into the viability assessment
have been agreed, so the key significant difference
is the benchmark land value.
In terms of how the appeal might be, it would be really for the planning
inspector to decide whether it would be this inquiry or a hearing or written
representations and we couldn't really comment as to which but it's a
relatively, I mean the evidence has been undertaken already the work the
assessment has been provided by our consultants as with the offices so it
wouldn't be significantly matters.
It is just purely these figures as to whether this calculation
is viable or not.
Now, Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair.
Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfields in Putney.
The values that are discussed and the difference,
I think one of the interesting aspects of this
is a claim by the applicant that the difference in value
between the agreed developments and when that was divided,
but as you said, yes, it was okay to get the five
affordable units and now the difference
in what's going on since then.
And I'm assuming the principle difference
between then and now, as we all know,
from what we read in the media,
and also I know from personal experience,
build costs have gone up massively in the insurance,
although in time terms it's not that long, we do know that month on month costs are escalating.
So I just had a question about how much we've taken that into account and how up to date
those values are, because obviously it's a changing market in a changing world, but I
do know that is something that's significantly impacted on development costs these days.
Yes, quite right. The independent assessor on behalf of the Council has undertaken a
full review of submission prepared by the applicant, including the cost information
that they provided, and this has been prepared by a fully qualified quantity surveyor, a
cost consultant who is very experienced in this matter in for viability assessments.
In the initial report some questions were raised which weren't provided by,
and the responses weren't necessarily provided back and they did in the initial part of the
negotiations remain a small difference in the bill costs but when we reached the final stages
of the negotiation as it were our consultants assessed the outcome of the assessment to assume
whether the £1 .2 million was viable in their opinion, and they undertook an assessment
based on both the applicant's later costs that they provided us and also their cost
consultant's opinion of difference. There was maybe a million pound difference, I can't
remember the exact figure, but our assessment of whether the scheme is viable has been assessed
both bases with the applicant's revised costs that were provided to the council after the
original assessments were undertaken.
Yes, Councillor.
Thank you, just carrying on from there.
The applicant has said it's in the late items
that they understandably would robustly defend
the appeal and whatever.
And we all know from bitter experience,
it's a bit of a bagatelle when you get to the pins process,
it can go either way.
So Ms Kelly is telling us that she's got a robust and strong case to defend our decision
if we go with the officer's recommendation.
I'm just pondering on the fact that, as Councillor Govindi was referring to, the delivery.
We're all conscious that the most important thing that we need is delivery of housing
of all tenures.
And I'm wondering, playing devil's advocate for a minute, it might not be prudent to take
the 700k, agree the approval, build those units out wherever we can build them out,
and you need to actually have a real house that somebody could go and live in soon, rather
than have this protracted delay where we're going to drag it out for years and years.
And it's in the lap of the gods whether we win or not, and are we going to get any units
for anybody to live in.
So the point of principle of the affordable housing, there may be a pragmatic approach
where it might be better to take what's on the table and run, in layman's terms.
just putting that out there.
Well, this site's had a couple of delays,
one of which I hold a number of people responsible for,
that rather annoys me,
but also one that your party was responsible for
by delaying increased level of affordability,
as I seem to remember.
Of course there's pressure to get on with it,
and there's also a gamble,
as I think you quite rightly say
about the way the inspector decides,
but it's also a gamble on people's housing
and living conditions and we've got a desperate shortage of affordable housing in the borough
and there's an application here which they have approved, which we have approved, which
they can proceed with and they are doing a good job by their own standards and trying
to make the best deal for themselves.
We're trying to do the best deal for ourselves I think and they have an application approved.
Those arguments are well known on all sides, I think.
Unless there's anything to add to that,
I suggest we go to a vote.
Anything to add?
Okay.
Those in favour of the officer's recommendation
to refuse this application,
those in favour of the recommendation, that is, to refuse.
Those against?
Okay, well the decision has been to refuse move on to Hunt and Whore,
Eardley Road and Mr. Grainger, I think.
I think it's fairly straightforward.
Have you any comment, Mr. Grainger?
No?
I would be just describing the description of development on the banner of the proposal.
So it's the erection of a three -storey building plus a basement level to provide new residential
units and commercial units that's within Newscast's EEG and the recommendation is to approve.
Any...
Councillor Galindo.
Thank you, Chair.
They talk about the height.
The height of the building is, proposed building,
is higher than adjoining building.
Am I right?
That's what they allege, and that's what I read
in the plans, but I wasn't sure
whether that is actually the plan.
Isn't that, you may be right,
but I read that as a reference to the previous,
the first version of the plan, and not the second, but.
Hence my seeking to clarify
And what we are being asked to approve, has it now come to the same height as the ridges
of the adjoining terraces?
And the second, because I don't read it like that, but maybe I'm wrong, but the other question
I have is that the development proposes commercial space on basement and first floor levels.
Presumably this is to, in a sense, to provide commercial space that is being lost.
But I kind of wonder whether this is unreasonable or unrealistic.
This is a car repair workshop. Nobody is going to welcome a car repair workshop to return to this location.
The space that is being proposed is likely to be something.
What is it that it could be used for and it or will it sit there empty looking for a tenant for a very long time?
Mr. Grainger any comment
Okay star see sorry, my name is Nigel Grainger and I manage the East area team
within the I think this the drawings the actual true elevation on page 34 does actually show that the
The scheme as amended is above the height of the the more conventional domestic looking properties either side
I think we recorded that in para
3 .5 on page 43 in terms of it being approximately
1 .2 metres higher however
the way that
negotiations
progressed with this proposal was that the first,
the as submitted, the envelope was very much rectilinear.
It had a ground first and second, a sheer elevation
and was just effectively a rectangle on its side
that made no attempt to integrate
with the spatial character of the location.
So after again, a degree of time,
negotiating the more appropriate setback of the roof detail.
It was considered that in order to achieve
contemporary head heights, et cetera,
that particular exceedance of height
from the neighbouring properties
could be tolerated in spatial terms.
The commercial basement, the commercial floor area
within the basement and ground floor,
There's a policy basis with which to re -provide employment generating floor space within the
local plan.
So there are two policies which really target this.
We've been pragmatic in applying this policy because there is a primary position in particular
areas but there is a primary default position of no net loss.
However, we have to be cognizant of the fact that the MOT garage there is a very lightweight,
it's open all the way down one side, it's effectively a shed and it's not a building.
And the reduction of the 400 odd square metres to a provision of 218 square metres in a contemporary
building with a much useful floor area is arguably could actually accommodate more people
in employment terms than the existing building
where there would be a must,
you know, the floor area is generally used for storing cars
whilst they wait to be worked on, et cetera.
But I do hear you in these locations
in terms of the potential use.
There has been an indication
by a particular jewellery manufacturer
for potential uptake for this unit.
It's a kind of place where a very niche or a particular user would want to explore operating
from.
I don't think the rental values would be anywhere near as that they could potentially be in
the north of the borough, which could make it more inviting, depending on where the actual
customer base is or where employers are.
So we have achieved a degree of policy compliance
in terms of re -providing that floor area.
And hopefully certainly our evidence base
that supported the 2023 local plan did indicate
that this kind of floor area was required.
So we've sought it's re -provision in a better format.
Yes, councillor Galbinder.
Thank you. I mean just going back to the issue of height, that's what seems to have
aggrieved local residents and going up by over a metre is quite chunky. I mean elsewhere
we would have not been very sympathetic to that sort of increase in height. I mean early
The New Road is full of essentially two -storey Victorian cottage terraces.
They're quite modest homes.
This is going to be quite a chunky intrusion into that space, which is, I think, regretful.
On the commercial, I hear Mr. Reingranger's points.
I only hope that we won't be faced in time to come with an application to deal with it
by somebody saying I can't let it and it's a bit of an encumbrance and I'd like to use
it for something else.
Please sir, can I have permission?
Which so often happens.
Early road is hardly the centre of retail and commercial life, is it?
So I understand the concern.
How flexible is the building itself?
It's very flexible.
The uses have been indicated in para 1 .5 on page 41.
So it's rather elongated use class, E, brackets G,
brackets I, brackets II, brackets III.
They allow offices, research and development,
and light industrial processes.
So light industrial processes can be literally anything as long as they don't impact on the
residential amenity of the area. So if you can perform a function within that that
constraint then you literally can do rather a lot. So there is plenty of options for
future tenants to decide what elements of that use class that they could
fit within.
Definitely here is that the basement will be an expensive bit of construction.
There is a lift between the basement and the first floor commercial space.
These are all very expensive bits and if the space is then subsequently found to be un -letterable,
We are loading on this development quite a lot of cost,
when probably a more flexible approach could have delivered something else quicker and cheaper.
The applicant must have a certain level of confidence to have done it, I might guess, or to apply for it.
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, my concern is just that.
I know we can't speculate, shouldn't speculate,
as to what might happen in the future.
But it is somewhat ironic, is it not,
that we've got an application for nine units
and a little bit of a commercial space.
And it was, Councillor Grindia says,
at some point in the future they would come back
and say we can't let it.
And it would be 10 units, and then it'd be eligible
for affordable housing.
So, you know, one might say that that might be a little bit of a wheeze to get around
it, wouldn't you?
But I wouldn't say that, of course.
But it's something to think about for the future, isn't it?
Because as Councillor Garin d 'Ia says, it is a very expensive way to build a commercial
unit with a tiny little corner of a basement and a lift.
And yes, are we being asked to look at this realistically, the proposal, and what would
be the return for the developer in leasing a unit like that?
At what cost would it have to be to make that viable
to recruit those build costs?
It just raises a few doubts in my mind.
There is a policy within the affordable housing policy
that specifically targets the circumvention of that policy,
naming exactly those scenarios.
So, you know, depending on how long,
there's always a matter of judgement.
if an application to convert it to residential
came in with six months or a year of practical completion,
then we would alarm bells, you know,
we would seek to invoke the circumvention
element of the policy.
Whether the configuration, I mean,
we're talking about potentially, you know,
what it could actually do anyway,
whether it be a single aspect, totally single aspect unit,
the basement doesn't have any light wells,
it doesn't really look set up for residential accommodation.
Councillor Apps.
Thank you very much, Councillor Sara Apps,
Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.
I had a couple of different queries actually.
The first was about noise, which is page 49,
particularly paragraph 5 .6,
which was to say that the standards
cannot be achieved with windows open,
so there's a plan for mechanical ventilation.
I wanted to ask about how sort of carbon efficient
that would be.
It's something I'm concerned about.
It's increasing levels of things like air conditioning
and buildings which actually extend the problems
that we've got.
The other point that I had is rather in the opposite
direction in a sense in that I'm aware that there's
a lot more car ownership in that part of our boroughs
to other parts of our boroughs.
So like for example where I live in Battersea
there's relatively low car ownership but in that part
because it's got a petal score of like two, three,
often journeys are quite different.
A lot of people do own cars.
And I wanted to ask if it was necessary to make it,
you know, no onsite parking,
and if people would be able to apply for,
I guess this might be one of the areas without,
you know, any parking restrictions,
or perhaps people will park on the roads.
But if you could just say what you think the plan is
for people parking in that area as well.
That would be helpful, thank you.
Do you want to answer that or is Mr. Murchie?
Whoever feels more, Mr. Murchie.
Thank you, Chair.
My name's Don Murchie.
I'm a principal transport planner
in the Council's Transport Strategy Department.
You're right, this isn't a controlled parking zone.
So there's no residents parking bays, there's no paint display bays.
The site itself, the front of this site has a single yellow line which means that parking can't take place.
I think it's 8 .30 to 6 .30 Monday to Friday.
And you're also right that car ownership may be higher in this area.
but that could be reflected by the fact
it has got a fairly low P -TOW
and because it's not a controlled parking zone.
However, given that it's only nine units,
that doesn't meet the policy requirement
for exclusion of the zone.
If it was a controlled parking ...
Sorry, excluding the site if it was a controlled parking zone.
So any car ownership from future residents,
that they would by day would need to park in adjacent roads
because they wouldn't be able to park immediately
outside the site.
Thank you.
Right.
Any other, can I just say in terms of comments
you were making Councillor Humphries,
which I understand there's also an argument
as you well know for trying to keep a relatively mixed
community and some mix and this will apply some mix.
who knows how it will work out exactly,
but I understand your argument,
there is a counter argument.
Any others?
Yes.
Just a quick thing on what Mr. Murch was just saying.
We were just speculating that we don't know,
but presumably the yellow line outside
is because it's an industrial site at the moment
and you don't want cars parking to stop the MOT cars
getting in and out.
Was there a possibility that that might be taken away
if it's just been -
I'm not on that road.
Yes, that could certainly be reviewed, but I think from memory it's not just that immediate
frontage that has a singular line, it is a longer stretch of Ertli Road on the approach
to a bend, so I think it's not only because of the commercial use.
It is, sorry, a much more heavily trafficked road than your average residential road, as
I'm sure you know.
So I wouldn't hold out too much hope for the other line being moved.
Was there an answer?
There was a question about mechanical ventilation, was there not?
There was.
And was there an answer?
Well, things moved on, but I'm more than happy to assist.
So yes, there is a scenario where noise levels couldn't be achieved with windows open, etc.
But the overarching sustainability strategy follows the mayor's hierarchical system of
you've got to be energy efficiency in the first instance and then use sustainable technology
to actually mitigate for its own usage.
So there are PV arrays on the roof and other air source heat pumps that go parcel of the
overarching strategy.
But that's produced a 54 .3 percent, sorry, 57 in total carbon emission reduction for
the entire site.
but any mechanical cooling system would also be subject to the overarching score,
which is reviewed under the conditions that we impose post -construction, which is on page 67.
So we've got carbon reductions on page 20 and then further information on the PV panels at 22.
All of that can be reviewed again to get the full picture of the entire mechanical and
electrical plant within the context of the carbon reductions.
There are some issues, but the officer's recommendation is very clear.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you.
move on to the next one which is 14 Bellamy Street.
On the one we've just had you mean?
Yes, okay.
Councillor, you've been here abstaining.
On 14 Bellamy Street.
14 Bellamy Street.
Again, Mr. Grainger.
This is an application for extensions to the rear of the property.
Nothing much to be said about it.
Which I understand actually, that's fair enough.
Waste our time when there's nothing much special.
Council for Ayers.
The right hon. Member for the Council for East Putney.
I think the thing which sticks in my craw is the front elevation. I have no problem
with what is going on at the back. That is fine. But the front elevation is OK, except
for the fact that the porch is a pretence. The porch leads into the main bedroom. The
entrance is no longer through the porch, it's down the side.
And this seems to me to be totally perverse.
I understand that there's nothing we can do about this
if the owners actually want to do it like that,
but it's a horrible notion.
More than they thought.
We'll all take architectural lessons from you.
Can't say it at some point or other.
I know you've...
Isn't there also a case to...
Isn't there also a case to keep the street cohesive?
The other houses don't have potties.
But they do have main entrances on the front.
But no potties.
This has got a roof and columns.
I mean it's absolutely potty. It's more Disneyland.
I absolutely understand what you're saying,
but there's not grounds, unfortunately, to refuse, is it?
Any other comments?
Is it approved?
Approved with aesthetic objections,
but I don't think that goes in the minutes particularly.
Unanimous, is that right?
It's unanimous, yes, I think so, unanimous, right.
move on to Ballum High Road Station Parade.
I think again it's pretty clear what this one's about.
Any comments?
We've had objections that we've all taken on board I'm sure
from neighbours, but is it agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you.
move on to Woodbury Street.
Woodbury Street, any objections?
Agreed.
I can assure you I did at an earlier stage in this process.
I didn't think the whole terrace was so worthy of it
in this particular case.
And there are courses for courses, as you may all know.
Councillor Ayers, yes.
Yes, it's me again.
I know you can't refuse a planning permission
for the reasons that you end up with a rubbish flat.
But there really is a rubbish flat, that one bedroom flat.
The kitchen is big enough to serve a three bedroom family
unit.
The living room is a corridor.
But I know it complies.
I know all the areas are OK.
But it's a terrible flat.
Nevertheless, I won't vote against it
because I know I can't.
I agree.
It's not great, but it might be something
that a young person might be able to afford.
So I'm still not that against it.
Sorry.
What did you say?
I said a young person might be able to afford it.
So have we decided between us that it's approved unanimously?
Even if reluctantly perhaps.
Approved unanimously, thank you.
Move on to Thompson's Prep School, Broomwood Road.
You might say the same answer actually,
the objections may not be aesthetic,
but approved unanimously but with reservations.
but maybe not wrong. Councillor Apps. So I noticed there was an advisory note
about noise. I was surprised there wasn't a similar advisory notice about or
advisory I should say not advisory notice, advisory about traffic if the
traffic would be monitored to make sure the impact was as expected. Any comment
on the traffic?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
As you can see in the report, we know what proportion of pupils are currently taken to
school by car and it's, despite applying a pro -rata increase to that, the actual increase
the number of cars is very small, it's only seven, with an increase of 30 pupils.
But I'm pleased to say that this school, compared to many of the others in the borough,
is working very hard with my colleague, the school travel advisor, in terms of developing
their travel plan. They're very proactive, they're very helpful. The pupils, I understand,
and are very proactive as well.
And as long as that feeds through to their parents,
our view is that any small increase in traffic
won't be detrimental.
Councillor Apps.
Thank you.
I'd just like to say that the seven more cars
is a prediction and it would need to be monitored.
It's possible with the expansion in places,
parents might be coming from slightly further away.
So whilst I think it's based on good evidence,
it also, you know, I'm conscious that nearby neighbours
already feel like they have a traffic problem.
So you wouldn't want that to get any worse.
And the only thing I'd ask for is some way of monitoring
that to make sure the impact is as expected.
Well, as part of the travel plan process,
the school will monitor it themselves
by carrying out surveys.
that needs to be treated with a degree of caution.
But as soon as the numbers increase,
they will, I hope, carry out another survey of the pupils
to see how the numbers have changed.
Not strictly our business, but it's interesting.
I mean, given the average secondary school,
how many times per and how many years
do we review, go to the school and review their travel plans?
Is there a kind of programme of it?
There is a programme. The scheme is administered by Transport for London.
But obviously, my colleague is very closely involved
and they have to get an accreditation from TFL as part of their travel plan.
and that I believe is in place of three years.
It has to be reviewed at least at that frequency.
Right, so every three years,
does it vary between secondary and primary schools?
No.
No it doesn't.
Okay, well that's interesting to know anyway.
Councillor Worrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to go to page 121,
where it's mentioned as part of the opposition
to this plan, that the school has a historical issue
of breaching caps in place or agreed.
One, I suppose I've got two questions.
One, is that true?
And then two, if it is true, then how would we ensure
that the school does not then once again breach any cap
on its pupil numbers and use this as a justification
for their expansion?
Can you help us Mr Grainger?
Do you know?
Yes, I do.
There was, if you look at the planning history on page 119,
roughly in the middle of the page,
there was a section 106 deed of variation to regularise an increase in pupils from 586 to a maximum of 650 in 2016.
They operated at that particular time at 6, 3, 7.
So I mean that's an illustration of the maximum cap being exceeded, but ultimately it's been
regularised.
And an assessment has been conducted, there's a process that has been allowed to be engaged
with where we have an open book exercise in terms of looking at precisely what the impacts
of all of that at the time were back in 2016 and the increase to 650 was found to lie within
acceptable parameters. That's the baseline that we're working on at the moment, the 650
and the additional 30 pupils. Obviously the site itself can take it, the staffing arrangements
can take it. The monitoring, and I may need some help here, but I mean if you're in breach
of obligation within a deed, then ultimately, A, the council has to know about it and then
it's down to the council to decide whether it's expedient, whether it's in our interests
to do anything about it and the only way to actually enforce something like that, if it's
categorically known, is to seek an injunction at the High Court, which is quite a big move.
But in terms of how these are monitored, I mean, they have a register, they have a role,
so we know how many people are there.
I can't say in terms of the monitoring section on the 106, because I haven't seen a draught
whether we require that evidence to be produced yearly or something like that.
I can't give you a cast -iron answer tonight.
I don't know if Mr Moore's can, I'm not putting him on the spot,
but it's the sort of thing that we can follow up with tomorrow maybe or next week.
Perhaps more worrying will be worrying about a decline in the school population before long.
Any other comment?
No. Is this application agreed?
Agreed. Thank you. And the subsequent papers, the papers remind myself, we all know what
they are. I can't just remember the sequence tonight, but it's investigation of fire. The
decisions paper, is that noted for information? No one's saying anything but noted. Closure
of investigation files, closed appeals and ah, Councillor Devindi, which one are you
on? This is on paper 25333 on page 139. Right at the bottom, this is about the flat basement
A79 Falcon Road. It says withdrawn by the council to add additional information to a
I thought the appeal was lodged by the applicant. Why was the council withdrawing the application?
I must confess I don't know.
I should introduce myself. Nick Calder, Head of Development Management. I'll cheque that before you come back to him.
Count Snaps.
On the first one, Mount Clare, with the others where it says appeal decision date, it doesn't
actually say what the decision was, it just got the date and I wondered what it was.
The appeal has previously been dismissed and it's been in the paper. This is just referring
to the cost application.
Not the last we're going to hear of it, or what do you think it is?
there isn't because they've just appealed against the planning application that's been refused for
pretty much the same thing. So there'll be another public inquiry in January of this year.
A very interesting set of problems around there. Do you know the Greek temple or is it Roman temple?
There's a Roman temple, you must know it councillor Govindia.
There's an overgrown Greek or Roman temple
stuck in the middle of between a council block
and Richmond Park, completely isolated,
completely overgrown and three people know about it.
Councillor Govindia, me and someone
in the planning department.
It's for example.
Mr. Sellers will know about it, yes.
Sorry?
Anyway, it's an interesting problem but not for tonight.
Okay, thank you and good night.
Thank you.