Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 23 October 2025, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

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.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Planning Applications Committee on 23rd of October 2025. My

name is Tony Belton. I am the chair of the committee and I'm Councillor for

Battersea Park in Battersea, surprisingly. I introduce the people on the top

table and later others will introduce themselves as they contribute to us. But

First on the top table on my right,

the most important person here,

the one who tells us all what we decided,

where we've done it.

Evening all, I'm Becky Hickey

and I'm the clerk for the meeting.

Good evening everyone, I'm Nick Calder,

I'm the head of development management.

Good evening, my name's Duncan Mores,

I'm the external legal advisor.

Announcements were made by the government today

about changes in planning policy.

Just in case anyone thinks that they should be raised here,

in many ways they should,

but it's not business of this committee.

In fact, very important to the work of this committee,

but the council will have to reflect on those announcements

to planning changes, and there will be a response,

no doubt, coming to the appropriate committee in time,

but it's completely irrelevant

as far as tonight's committee is concerned.

And Mr. Calder would like to add a bit more.

Just for members benefit, we do have the link

to the statement from the government,

so I'll send that through as an email for everybody

after the meeting.

It's pretty complicated, I can tell you,

but that's another matter.

Councillor Humphries, have you seen the minutes?

You happy with them?

fine thank you okay if I sign them as a correct record I'll do that later in the

evening can I ask whether any member has an interest to declare in regard to any

of the applications or any of the business of the council or the committee

rather none do I have apologies count some fries from Councillor Govindia I'm

I'm afraid.

And I should say, on the agenda,

there's, I'm right in saying,

I'm sorry, on the agenda,

which was printed before last night's council meeting,

there's another councillor, Councillor Justin,

but he was replaced last night in a council meeting

by Councillor Jeffries, who kind of gives his apologies.

He didn't even know he was gonna be on the committee until,

so he was busy tonight, but in any event,

and he's not qualified until he's done some training

to be on the committee.

So we've got one other absentee as well, just to mention.

Any other preliminaries?

No.

Count the first item

is 174 St. Dan's Hill, which I,

ah, Councillor Sweet is here.

And Councillor Sweet is here to talk on that item.

Councillor Sweet, over to you.

Thank you Chairman.

Could you introduce yourself and the committee and so on?

Yeah, so my name is William Sweet.

I'm the Ward Councillor for Wandsworth Town Ward and a group of residents have asked me

to speak on their behalf about this application.

So thank you Chairman for allowing me to address the committee.

I've been in touch with residents on this application over the course of many months

and the process of a retrospective application,

then last minute deferral over the summer

and revisions since then must have been stressful

and exasperating for them.

This is a retrospective application,

but I ask colleagues to ask themselves this question.

If this development had been submitted

for planning approval in the normal way

in advance of construction,

would you have considered it to be acceptable?

colleagues will note that there was a previous building on this site and it's

crucial to consider the scale and bulk of the replacement building against this

and whilst officers have given their judgments I personally believe that the

decision on what an appropriate height is on this specific site is subjective

and that's exactly why an application like this should come to committee

officers have given their view but it's ultimately for you as committee members

to judge whether you think this new building

is appropriate in scale for this site.

It's clear that it's not of the same scale or bulk

as the original building.

The key photo, in my opinion,

is the one comparing the original garden building

on page 25 with the new one on page 24.

I'll just give you a second

if you want to turn to those pages.

The original building was a chalet -style building

you can see with a pitched roof.

And on page 25, you can see that the top of the roof,

on the right -hand side of the photo,

is just below the top of the fence of the neighbours.

And the top of the roof on the left -hand side is just above it.

If you now go back to page 24,

you can see that the new building has got brick

substantially above the fences on both sides.

And to me, there are many photos in this,

and perhaps you'll discuss other parts of the application as well,

but to me the comparison of those two photos is absolutely crucial.

I would urge you to imagine how you would feel

if such a significant increase in scale and dominance of a building

at the end of a neighbor's garden in an area particularly known

for its long gardens in an otherwise quite urban environment.

The officers have provided some approval conditions

to mitigate some of the concerns, but I note that these are quite different

from the conditions that the objecting residents requested.

If this were a new application,

I don't believe their requests

would be considered unreasonable.

They're seeking to reduce the height of the building

to something closer to the garden fences,

and I would ask that you consider their requests.

So in sum, I would urge you colleagues on the committee

to give careful consideration to the scale and mass

of the new building in its specific site context.

Thank you.

Can I remind members of the committee that we have had this application before us before

and we deferred it so that we could visit the site if we chose to.

Four of us did, though unfortunately illness prevented three of us went earlier this week,

wasn't it?

The days travelled quickly.

Excuse me.

So, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor Ayers,

and myself went and visited the other day.

Just, that's just the film in the background.

Any comments about this particular item?

Councillor Ayers.

My comments are one of frustration

because I was quite prepared to vote against this

because I think it is overbearing.

And I had hoped that if we could vote it down,

there could be some constructive negotiations

about reducing the height of the leading age.

So that I'm not, I do not think it ought to be

completely demolished, but I think it could use

and should use some reduction in the leading age.

The view that you're talking to on page 24,

I mean, that could come down four or five brick courses.

We can't do that because it's already

had permission of permitted development.

And it only marginally exceeds the heights,

apparently, according to the permitted development.

So I feel a bit thwarted in trying to do anything about it.

I also, I think it smacks of really quite unpleasant deviousness.

I know this is not to do with planning, but it's the moral approach where someone has

raised the back passage by sort of six inches so that it doesn't appear too high.

I mean that's cheating.

I think it's morally questionable, but that has nothing to do with planning.

It just affects my feelings about it.

Nonetheless, I would vote against it, but it's purposeless, so I will abstain on this

one.

I should have said right at the beginning, I do apologise for this, that the team leader

covering the area has got personal family difficulties, but is able to be here online.

Is she on the screen at the moment?

So I know members of the committee will know Ms. Richards,

she's here online.

I wonder if Ms. Richards,

you've got any comment to make

about what the councillor has said?

Hello, good evening.

My name is Ellen Richards.

I'm team leader for the West area.

Apologies for not being able to be there

in person this evening.

I completely understand what Councillor Sweet and Councillor Ayres have expressed really in terms of

their disappointment, I guess, in terms of how this situation has evolved.

As Councillor Ayres has alluded to, this has been rolling for a little while when we issued a

certificate in end of 2023, I think it was actually, for the construction of an outbuilding

at the property and the location it is currently. That was issued because it complied with overall

height limitations in terms of outbuildings. You can build an outbuilding to the height

2 .5 metres above ground and as long as it doesn't cover 50 percent of the garden area

and is only one storey. And so that was issued when construction works began. We received

complaints to the enforcement team who investigated the construction and it was found that the building

was actually in excess of what is permitted in that it's 0 .4 metres over the height that's

permissible and because it's within two metres of the boundaries. And as such, and also an

additional floor had been put internally to the building, which meant that it was now a two -storey

building, which isn't allowed under the permitted development rights either. And so that fell away,

and as such the application has been submitted retrospectively for the building that we see now.

I think officers acknowledge that the building is a significant scale.

This is largely due to the fact that it's been sunken into the garden below ground level.

and so when you view it from the actual garden of the application site, overall from the base of the lower element,

it is 5 .1 metres I think overall, so the frontage is quite a tall element of the overall structure when you view it from the garden.

I think, unfortunately, we weren't able to visit the site itself this week. But I think

in terms of assessing it overall, and I think there's an equally, on page 24, there's a

photo at the top, which shows what it looks like from within the application site itself.

So you actually get more of a feel of it as being a single build, a single structure,

if you like, at garden level because you can't see the sunken patio that sits in front of it.

But I do sympathise with the neighbours. They have had to see this being constructed and it's a far

bulkier and chunkier building than used to be on the site. Having said that, however, if you go to

other photographs that was included within the report at page 36 and 37. These images

give you a feel for the context of the site for those who didn't manage to visit the neighbouring

properties this week in terms of what else the context of the site is in terms of gardens

and how bulky the structure does look when viewed from, in particular, page 37. This

is a view taken from the neighbouring property at 176, which we did visit. And so you see

it in the context with the constitutional social club in the background. And so again,

you would, as you view it within the context of the garden, it reads as a garden outbuilding

in that setting. And so overall, we've had to take quite a balanced view really of what

it looks like as built. So I understand Councillor Sweet's question that he posed to other members,

what would you have done if this hadn't been built already? Well, you know, in some respects,

this actually gives you the actual view of what's been built on site and the impact within

the context of the gardens and the surrounding area. I fully appreciate that when you're

up close to it, certainly from the rear garden of 176, that was the last one, next door neighbour

that we visited, the flank elevation does look quite stark there and I can understand

why those neighbours are feeling like this is a towering over them at that point in their

garden. When we visited the other building, the other property at 172, that has a less

sort of jarring impact, if you like, just because the neighbour has actually utilised

the elevational wall to place a pergola next to it as part of the garden design of his

property. And so the impact of the structure isn't so great on that side. So I think it's,

You know, we completely appreciate it's a messy business when something is being considered

once it's built and it's retrospective in nature. But I think as we set out in the addendum

report it's a breach of planning regulations, but it's not a criminal offence and we can't

judge or try and evaluate what the intention was in this. Overall it is 0 .4 metres over

what would be allowed under permitted development above ground. And so on balance, officers

have taken the view that the structure as built is acceptable but subject to the conditions

that we've applied or recommended certainly. There's been a lot of concern raised by neighbours

as to the potential use of this building by the applicant and indications would suggest that it

could be, the way it's been built is that it could be used beyond as an ancillary building to the

passageway that runs at the back. We all visited it, that passage area, when residents currently

all have access across that pathway at the back. It's a private piece of land, it's only

them that have access to it. And a door has been introduced at the rear of the outbuilding,

which would enable direct access to the outbuilding without the need to come through the application

site at 174 and this is of concern to officers and so one of the conditions recommended is

that has to be removed and sealed so that there is no means of access into the building

from the back. In addition, we've recommended that all internal elements such as the ledges

that supported the extra floor and the staircase is removed. Again, this then sort of ties

in with the removal of the door at the back. There's also conditions that would require

the outbuilding to be used purely for ancillary purposes associated with the main house.

And also because, as you'll see as well on some of the photos, I think again further into the report,

In the evening, if it's used at night, there is considerable light that comes from the

outbuilding due to the glazing at the front, which reflects back towards, which not reflects,

but residents can see it lights up quite a lot. And so there's also a condition that

would require some form of shutters to be applied to the upper part of the outbuilding

to limit light transference from within the building

out into the garden after dusk.

So with those conditions in place,

we feel that we can make a recommendation to approve.

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I must put my cards on the table.

I did say I went myself,

so let me put my cards on the table.

I did not think it was so intrusive as to reject myself.

I thought it was at the end of a reasonably long garden

and I think if we objected to applications

that were that intrusive, there would be a major constraint

on development anywhere in the borough.

So that's my personal view.

But I think our enforcement officer wants a word.

Straybold.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, just following up on Miss Richard's point

about the height of the building.

it's not actually 0 .4 metres higher than approved,

it's 0 .04 metres or four centimetres higher

than what was approved in the certificate of lawfulness.

And that measurement was actually taken

with the main objectors present.

I visited the site, spent a lot of time with them,

he had their concerns,

and to kind of clarify the measurements,

we took those together with the tape measure

and all agreed on what they were.

So that was four centimetres higher than 2 .5 metres,

which is what you can build,

and a permitted development

from the highest point of ground level.

And I did want to just follow up on Councillor Ayers' point

about permitted development,

just with my enforcement hat on really.

If the application's refused,

it does come back to my team to consider enforcement.

And if we were to enforce,

the requirements would be to modify the building

to comply with permitted development.

So if I can ask members to turn to page 23,

just so they can familiarise themselves

with that permitted development scheme

that we have certified.

So the applicant could revert to that and make some changes to what's been built, revert to that, and we would have no control over that development.

We wouldn't be able to impose any planning conditions to address their concerns regarding access to the rear, how it's used, the light spill.

And afterwards, once the building works are completed, they could carry out any internal works they wish.

So they could instal an extra floor level inside without planning permission, without any control from us.

So I think we need to look at this smartly.

You know if we if members decide to grant plan permission we can impose conditions that address and alleviate neighbours concerns and in my

Officer opinion that would be a better result for for neighbours

any

council Humphreys

Thank you chair, and thank you. Mr. Ray Voldemort Richards for those very helpful comments

I did just want to say first of all a thank you to the residents who letters was went on the site visit to

to visit their properties.

It was really useful for us, we appreciate that.

And we, as I think I said to one of them at the time,

I hope it helped them to understand

from our perspective as councillors

that we're not machines and we quite understand

the feelings that are involved and it's people's homes

and it has a significant impact on them

for more than the half an hour that we were there.

They're gonna have to live with it all the time.

So please be assured that whatever the decision is tonight,

we do take it really seriously

and we want to get a good outcome for everyone

within the constraints of the rules and the policies that we want to do, but thank you

again for letting us have a proper look. I think that for those of the D .K. it did really

help.

By the way, if I can interrupt, thank you for that, Councillor Humphries. I should have

said that myself. I agree with you entirely.

Mutually, whatever was in it, I think, from all of our points of view. I think the key

and it's something that Councillor Ayres raised earlier.

Evidently, we could say to any applicants,

you're not going to make the committee think

you're the most wonderful person since sliced bread

if you do behave in this way

and not put it in a proper application in the first place.

You're not starting off in the best place

to give yourselves a fair outcome.

We will give them a fair outcome,

but it doesn't do them any favours to start off on that.

Let me just say that before we start.

But having been on the site with it,

which was very helpful.

I think that the key thing,

where Mr. Raybould was just saying about the difference

in height between what's built and what's built out,

it's true, it's four centimetres

from where that ground level is now.

But I think what the objectives were saying,

and we have some sympathy for that,

is that ground level has evidently changed.

And I'm not entirely clear as to at what point that changed.

But I think that is a material consideration

because it was evident from two things

that I particularly saw, the DPM, the damp proofing membrane

that was in the brick courses at the bottom of the house,

the lower end of the slope that's there now,

it was, as it should be, above the ground level.

At the top of the site, where the level has evidently

been changed, it's below ground level already.

So that has evidently, A, it's not

going to really work very well as a damp proof membrane,

where it's below ground level.

And the ground level has obviously

been put in change since the building was constructed.

The other factor that was, I thought, notable was the fact that the door which is currently at the back of the property,

which had been boarded over but there was a proper UPBC door behind it,

was actually at a lower level than the part is now at the back of the building.

So again, that was evidently put in when the building was built at that lower level.

So the ground level since this building has been constructed has changed

and that evidently makes a material difference to what the overall height is.

and a significant difference in height actually.

So I just want to ask perhaps Mr. Raybould

how that colours the decision that we make.

Thank you, Councillor.

Quite right, really good point to raise

and there's been a lot of discussion between officers

about those ground levels.

My team have been out on numerous occasions

and it ended up in kind of me going out, as I say,

meeting with residents, looking at that ground level.

The difficult thing with this type of issue is

when building works have already commenced

and the ground level's been changed,

it's impossible to find the exact ground level that it was originally afterwards.

So it is a case of kind of looking at the sites, looking at the detail, looking at the surrounding ground levels,

and kind of making an informed guess, if you like.

I did that with the neighbours present, and that's been accounted for in the revised drawings that have been submitted.

And I think there's a copy of those on page seven.

And you might need to magnify a glass to see this.

But if I can take members to the top left hand image there, you'll see the rear elevation

of the structure.

And on the right hand side, you'll see two measurements, one in blue and one in red.

Now the measurement in blue, if you can look really carefully, is 2 .46 and that's from

the newly made up ground level.

And we're really careful just to be very clear what we're measuring too.

the red line there just next to it shows 2 .54

and that's going below the current made up ground level

to what we determined to be the best guess

of previous ground floor levels.

So there were lots of discussions about that

quite rightly to raise kind of home fees

and that's kind of the outcome that we arrived at.

Thank you, Mr. Edwell, that's very helpful.

So my instinct on this one, having seen it again on site

and as Ms. Richards was saying, it's true,

the view from the house end of the gardens, if you like,

does make it seem much more significant to the building when you see the full

extent of what would have been two heights of the building, but when you see it from the

neighbours side

it isn't as overly dominant over the fence line as it would have been.

So having said that, my instincts I think

ultimately was to say no let's start again we should refuse it, but in the light of

what Mr Rabel said about the controls we have over the

development as is, although it again as Councillor Ayr said it

rather sticks in the throat to have to say it.

We would have more control over those elements, other elements that are unfortunate

and we can make sure that it does stay as a single storey building.

I would ask on those conditions if it doesn't specify what happens to that back entrance

but as I said at the moment it's still a doorway, it's just covered over with a sheet of OSB.

I'd rather it be bricked up properly to make sure that it can't ever be reinstated

or not without much more difficulty.

And again, make sure all those traces, the staircase

and the elements that could make a ledges for the floor,

another floor to go in, are absolutely taken away.

And with those controls on that and the lighting

and the shutters and things like that,

the other efforts that are in there

for the conditions that are suggested,

I can just about swallow it, I think.

Do any other members of the committee have any comments?

if not, we've heard what three of us have thought,

all slightly different, I note.

But the officer's recommendation is that we approve

the planning application.

Are those in favour?

Which I think is one, two, five.

Those against?

None.

Abstentions?

Three.

so the application is approved.

Thank you, move on to the next item,

which Councillor Crivelli was going to talk about.

Have we heard, if I can ask Councillor Humphreys.

Sorry?

Oh, he's over there, as opposed to all the way,

I beg your pardon, I beg your pardon.

Councillor Crivelli, you were going to talk about the Lytton Grove application, the second

application on the list.

Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this application on behalf of residents

in Lytton Grove. Members will be aware from some of the objections that have been raised

that a number of neighbours are quite concerned about this application.

Their main concern about this application is the fact that they see it as being one

that already results in overlooking and loss of privacy in the Rush Home conservation area.

I know that a number of you will have been, if you have looked at the papers and the objections

that have been raised, that neighbours have been able to supply photos which show the

imposing nature of the development as it already stands. Obviously the concerns

from neighbours are that the potential alterations submitted have

the potential to exacerbate what they see as already being a very imposing

development in their area. If I could take some of the objections that have

been raised. First and foremost I appreciate that some of the objections have been

raised in the late papers but I just wanted to emphasise on behalf of

residents some of the points that have been made and I'd like the committee to

consider. I know that the residents have focused on the lowering of the

track and there was a requirement which was imposed with the initial permission

back in 2020 and then in 2021 to lower the entrance track to the

to the number 46 level, chiefly to counteract the overlooking but also to

deal with overbearing. Despite that, there's been a further attempt made

under the application to remove the lowering requirement by including a

revised plan. The point about this is that lowering the track is a fundamental

aspect of preserving the amenity and privacy of the neighbours and to

prevent overbearing. I would point out that one of the neighbours has suggested

in respect of lowering the track as it stands at present, the track

hasn't been lowered. As a result it's quite possible when you stand on the

track to actually see into the neighbour's kitchen window. So I

appreciate that in the late papers you say that's not part of the application but I

I would ask that the officers actually, a confirmation from the officers that the previous

approval firstly is to lower it, if they could give that approval and confirm that the applicant

is supposed to do it. I would suggest if that is the case, perhaps an informative could

be added to the report to make it clearly abundant to the applicant that they are supposed

to lower the tracking question in accordance with the original application.

Can I address you on the issue of the new side bathroom window? Objectors are

concerned about this as they see it being a substantial change. There was

originally a slim window next to the front door, it was hidden under a

portico and it wasn't visibly external. They see the new one as being a

substantially bigger application. New window is much wider going from 0 .05

metres to 0 .6m, 4 metres, an increase of 28%. It's now visible outside the portico and it's

much closer to the back door of the neighbours. There is a considerable concern about the

condition that it will have openable, obscure glass. The President shows a window with no

top and bottom portions, so it could potentially be fully opening. The Applying Officer's report

is it's an opaque window and fixed shut and that it should remain obscure glazed.

What actually appears to be in place is a new large clear window with a split top and bottom

portions which looks to the outside of his observer as being something that is fully openable.

Objectors have raised concern about what about the conditions about the glass is simply obscured and

not opaque. I appreciate you have addressed that in the late papers but I just wanted

to make a point about that. I think there is a nuanced interpretation about what is

obscured in a glass, however I'm sure committee members are aware of your own general knowledge

about this. In houses and flats there is a difference between a window which is clear

and just has film applied to it to make it opaque as safer in comparison to a bathroom

style window which is opaque by the very nature of the glazing that it has in the first place

I just think that that is something that the neighbours are concerned about,

saying that you need to put a film on it.

That's not going to be substantial in addressing the issues of privacy.

Solar panels, there's a considerable angst about the solar panels here.

The neighbours say that it is quite clearly visible from the street,

despite what the officers say, that you can actually see the solar panels from adjoining properties,

and you can see them from Lytton Grove.

There is a very serious concern about the extreme glare that is caused from these panels.

The neighbouring houses say that the dazzling from the panels catches their eyes,

that are unable to use their rooms at certain times without lowering the blinds.

I know that they have supplied photos in this respect.

I'd point out that it's already got 10 panels on the building

and I would ask why it needs to add another 10 panels to the building,

bearing in mind the impact that the existing solar panels already have.

The final point I wanted to make is, I know you've addressed this again in the late papers,

but there is considerable concern about the legality of the application and ownership of the property.

It seems to be suggesting in the response from the late papers that statutory forms don't have to be adhered to,

and I would be concerned if that was the case. I make an assumption that advice

has been taken in respect of the legality of this application and

ownership of the property and I'd be grateful if officers could address that

point. For all of the reasons that I've mentioned in relation to the impact that

this application is going to have on neighbouring properties, I would ask

committee members to reject the application. Thank you, Councillor Covelli. Apologies for

not picking out earlier. I was particularly concerned about the legal side of those objections

and asked questions myself. Ms Richards, would you like to cope with the comments that Councillor

of well you made. Yes that's fine thank you. I'll start with the issue associated with

the lowering of the track. The objection, the further representation that we received

in respect of this was linked to the fact that as part of a section 73 there are new

submissions of drawings associated with the development that have to be considered that

illustrate the amended elements if you like and as set out in the application details

section of the report. I'm just wondering what it is. Just for the members. From page

46 through to 51, that sets out what the amendments are under this section 73 application. As

such, those are the only things to be considered as part of the application. We can't revisit

it other elements of the original permission or anything beyond what is being sought for

amending. The track details, I double checked the drawings that the residents had referred

to and yes, they do have different numbers, but I checked the track details on both of

those versions and they were unchanged. And so as set out in the late papers, there is

no issue, there's no change in terms of what those associated details about the track levels

and so on, none of that has changed. But there was a requirement for that drawing to change

because it also included the elements that are being amended, such as the roof lights

and the solar panels on the roof. And so there had to be a revision submitted as part of

this application, which is to be approved and is recommended for approval. If the residents

consider that the works that was initially approved and granted associated with the track

hasn't been implemented correctly, then that is something that they would have to refer to our

enforcement colleagues to investigate further and that's how we establish whether or not there has

been a change in levels or the track hasn't been lowered to meet with what was originally allowed

under the parent building, if you like, parent application.

bathroom window, the issue was raised between the use of the word opaque and obscure. These

words are interchangeable in terms of how we understand them to be and the use of the

a particular window in the interest of protecting privacy and to restrict any overlooking.

This is a bathroom window and as such an opaque window, whether that be through application

of a concealing film or whether it's actually from a sort of rippled glass or the type that

we are familiar with, the requirements as approved on the drawings would be that that

has to remain opaque. And I'd imagine that given that it is a bathroom window, that would

actually be in the interest of any occupier anyway to ensure that that window remains

opaque because it is at ground level where external visibility into that room would be

more feasible. And I think in terms of the increase in width, yes, there is an increased

width there, but this is quite minimal again in terms of overall scale. And also the window

that this window is located, the wall that this window is located in actually looks directly

away from the rear of the properties where the residents live. And so it would be very

difficult for any direct overlooking to occur from within that bathroom. The solar panels,

it's acknowledged by officers that the extent of the solar panels is quite significant on

that roof slope. They're quite large and they cover a big proportion of that roof.

However, these would actually be permitted development because they are set in within

the roof itself, so they don't rise above the roof. So they are within the scope of

permitted development on dwelling houses. And I double checked that there isn't a restrictive

condition on the original permission that had removed any permitted development rights

to the building and so they would be entitled to instal these in any event. They are also

matte in their finish and so these are intended to limit any glare from sunshine. I have seen

the photographs that were submitted by the residents and I acknowledge that they indicate

that there is some reflection from the solar panels. However, as I say, we'd come back to

the point that these are permitted development under the regulations and as we've set out in the

report, this has also been dealt with within the report, that these are extremely temporary in

nature and fleeting, if you like, in terms of how they affect a person if they stood in that room.

so I don't think that we could have, there is any ground to refuse or reject that change.

In terms of the queries, we do have our legal advisor here to further add to this, but as set

out in the late papers, there was an issue raised as to the validity of the application because

the name of the applicant differed from the name of the landowner as held at the land

registry. We've received confirmation that the landowner is the daughter of the applicant,

which is Stonehurst Limited, and as such there is a direct link with the two elements and

the daughter was aware of the application and as such Certificate A stands and the application

is valid and it can be determined by the committee. And then in terms of the objection about it

not qualifying as being a Section 73 application because the term minor material amendment

has been used in part of the description or general description of what the development

is in within the report. This has been set out quite clearly with the advice of our legal advisor

that there is no distinct definition and there's no use of the minor material amendment in the

amendments under section 73. The nature of the changes proposed are relatively minor,

but they do have a material impact and as such this is the correct method to seek those

amendments as part of the original commission that was granted. If it was considered not

to have any material impact we could have considered it as part of a non -material amendment

application under section 96. So where there wouldn't be any consultation associated with

that, that's just to change some details within a condition or a plan number. Whereas this is

actually taken into account the impact of those changes relative to policy and has enabled us to

review it more fully and in the round in terms of the impact on conservation area and on

surrounding properties and so again this complies with the guidance set out in

national planning policy as well so officers are satisfied that the correct

procedure has been followed. Thank you miss Richards.

Councillor Humphries. Thank you chair. Did I say who I was the first time around?

I can't remember. Sorry? Did I say who I was? I don't think you did actually I was

I was just thinking about that.

Well, it's a bit late in the day now,

but yes, Guy Humphrey's councillor for Southfield

is in part, and he's halfway through the meeting,

nevermind.

Yes, I could sympathise with the neighbours,

because this has been quite a long, drawn out

history of applications and such.

Like I can understand it's very upsetting

when it keeps coming back for changes

over what was agreed in the first place.

Shall we, and thank you, Ms. Richards,

for the clarity on the legal points.

I think that's one of the issues that seems like we've addressed that fairly.

The window, the bathroom window, just a small point on that.

Again, I completely accept the fact there's no real difference between opaque or glazed,

obscured.

It's the same thing.

It will not be able to be seen through clearly.

But I can't, I was just trying to see if I could find it, but perhaps you can find it

for me.

There was a suggestion somewhere that it would still be able to be opened on a restrainer

or something like that.

And the original permission again was for it to be fixed shut.

I don't see why that part of it should change.

I don't really have a problem

with it being a little bit bigger,

but if it was considered necessary

for it to be fixed shut the first time,

I don't see why that should change at this point.

Could you just clarify if I've got that right?

Mr. Richards?

I'm just going to be a moment going to the relevant part because I've all seen this myself

in terms of the windows. So that refers to the issue associated with it being on a restraint

restricting restrictor mechanism and would now be openable relates to the

first floor window a first floor window to limit any opportunity of overlooking

or seeing through a window so the so this is the window facing southeast that

has been amended that's on page 56 and a paragraph 2 .6

Thank you, so the question is...

the plans have been amended.

Hey, you're both talking at the same time.

Mr. Richardson, did you finish?

I was just going to say that in that paragraph,

it actually sets out that this allows for ventilation

to the bedroom area while also preventing

any wide visibility from that window.

So it's to provide some through air at that level.

Yes, thank you, that's helpful.

but if that wasn't considered necessary before, why is it considered necessary now?

I presume it's because they, well the building is pretty much built and I believe possibly that

they have realised that this, there's no real through air that is at that level between

the two bedrooms and through that part of the building where the roof meets in a pitch.

So that's the only reason I can think of that necessitates it to be an openable window to

allow some ventilation into the bedroom.

Okay.

And I think the restrictor, that's the point of it being restricted, is that you can't open it fully.

So you've got quite limited views that would come from the bedroom as a consequence that would overlook the neighbouring property.

Yes, thank you.

That's the only answer I can give you, I'm afraid. I can't refer to any other documentation at this moment.

Thank you, I understand that. My concern is, of my understanding of restrictors, the problem

with restrictors is that yes it does restrict it while it's on the catch, but there's nothing

to stop you undoing the catch and opening it further, so it's not a very effective way

of guaranteeing that it can't be opened more than the restriction that it has.

My other point was about the glare from the solar panels, the PV's, and yes we've all

seen those pictures and I think they were quite startling even though they are supposedly

mad how that is going to have an impact.

As you say Mr Richards it does cover a significant, in fact not the majority of the pitched roofs

on that side, there's hardly any tiles around those very large PV panels so I can understand

it and as you say in the report it does in officers opinion not going to cause too much

of an issue but I'm just questioning that a little bit.

it does look quite dazzling in the scenes. We know the summers are getting hotter and

warmer and longer and all the rest of it. If I was living there I would not like to

see that.

Nonetheless, Mr Richard said we had no power over that, did not we?

The thing is that yes, you can put them there under permitted development, but under permitted

development, am I not right? It still does not allow you to cause overly, whatever the

phrase is, impact on the neighbours, even though it is under permitted development.

Is that right? Do we have any control over that? Otherwise you could put mirrors on the

and it would not be conditionable or anything.

Can we not have it?

Do we not have any control over that?

And that's the question to start off with.

Well, I thought Mr. Richards said we didn't.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

The only conditions really is to do with actually

how they look.

It's not in terms of, there are limitations as I set out, but it doesn't actually specify

that it should not cause any impact directly onto sort of amenity issues.

So it says to limit their appearance, but that's the sort of, to try where practicable

to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building.

So again, that's not a limitation necessarily on its, how the perceived impact of it from another property or at a moment in time in terms of the sun hitting that piece of equipment, if you like.

I guess because it is reliant on the Sun as a source for its functionality, so it would be quite a difficult thing to control and measure.

We've had quite a few questions and answers on variations

to an already extent, permission.

Have we got any other comments from other councillors

or are they prepared to make a decision?

Right, well we've got the officer's recommendation,

you've heard the officer's comments about it.

So those in favour of the officer's recommendations,

Those against, it's passed by six votes to two.

Thank you, Councillor DiCervelli,

for representing your constituents' position very clearly.

And they have taken them into account,

even if perhaps not the constituents' satisfaction.

Move on to 51 Dryborough Road,

which is for a house, well it's a house in Dryborough Road.

Does that stand on its own?

Are people happy with that?

Or does anyone want to raise questions?

Councillor Ayers.

Yes, I didn't say who I was either last time I spoke.

I'm Finna Ayers representing East Putney.

I wanted to say that I think this is a very good application.

It's a curious little house,

out of scale with everything about it.

It's quite gauche as it is,

But I think its extra storey turns it into a really interesting and unusual little building.

So well done, I'm voting for it.

Any other comments?

Councillor Humphries.

Don't worry, I'm not going to go on on one.

I agree with Councillor Ayers.

I think I know that house reasonably well, I go past it quite often and I think it is

improvement on what's there actually, it'll make it look better. There was only one tiny

detail, it says on .112 page 68, it's informative to clean the existing brickwork because the

existing brickwork is going to look, it's a little bit tired shall we say and if we

could put an informative or a condition on there to make them clean the brickwork as

part of the addition of the extra storage. I think it would make all the difference in

making it look more an entirety, read better together.

I think there was a mention of that in the report,

but I don't know if it's down to an official condition

or a informative at least.

Any comments, Richards?

We hadn't conditioned this.

We would just, I think in expressing this,

because this is a visual concern, I guess,

when something new goes on too,

because the building's quite run down at the moment.

And I think that's why this was included

in there really was as a nudge to perhaps you know to unify the two elements but I don't

think there'd be a problem with sticking an informative on there just to advise that that

would be an improvement overall but I don't know.

So we're all happy with 51 driver road, that application is approved.

Mr. Richards, thank you and hope your issue gets resolved.

Thank you.

Good night.

Moving on to 206 -208 Mitcham Road and Stella Road,

commonly known, Amen Corner.

We have a Councillor Akinola presentation

about an application which involves quite a large number

of new homes and is obviously contentious locally.

Councillor Akinola.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of committee.

Councillor Akinola, board councillor for Tooting Broadway.

I'm here to represent the views of local residents

on Mitcham Road, Stella Road and Byton Road

for the proposed development.

So they strongly object on six particular grounds.

One is the overdevelopment and the scale

because the building is excessively large,

the proposed building is excessively large

and out of character with the surrounding area.

They believe the height and massing will dominate

the streetscape and intrude on the privacy

of neighbouring homes and gardens.

And I know that this is mentioned in the report

from the DPA, DRP, but I don't think it really takes into account that it still means that

people in these new accommodation will still be able to look into people's gardens, if

not directly into their houses. They are also concerned about loss of light and privacy

because it will reduce daylight to usable rooms in the nearby properties. There is a

a light report, but they believe it's factually inaccurate

and has been reportedly been returned for revision.

I'm not sure if this is true.

Balconies and windows will overlook gardens, as I said.

Some less than a metre causing serious privacy concerns

to the residents.

They are also concerned about the lack of affordable

housing, which is at a whopping number of zero.

The proposal does include 28 residential units,

and they believe that this fails to meet our own

Wandsworth Council's priorities, which is true.

They believe there will be an infrastructure strain

because they experience currently basement flooding

in the recent years and the sewer is under a lot of pressure

and this is actually being highlighted

in the design review panel's comments as well

and they're not addressed in the application.

So I think this should really be addressed

before an application is accepted.

They also are concerned about parking

because it is a zero parking development.

I'm not sure if we're allowed to not allow residents

to get parking permits.

So I'd be interested to know the answer to that question.

The bin corridor opens onto Stella Road

and they've raised serious concerns

about rubbish collection, odours,

rubbish overflow and vermin,

which is issues they have already experienced

with previous developments by the same developer.

They think the placement of the bins on collection days

will create hazards for pedestrians,

especially children attending the nearby nursery,

so this would need to be addressed.

Overall, they feel that the development risks

damaging the prevailing character of the neighbourhood,

and they request that the committee rejects the proposal

to protect the contextual integrity of the neighbourhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Akinoda.

I can answer one of your queries very confidently myself,

because anyone who's been on the committee

knows that we've had many applications

where people have not been allowed to apply

for controlled parking.

So there's lots and lots of precedents for it.

But nonetheless, a whole series of comments.

Mr. Grainger, Missy Lamb, I'm not sure you...

You...

Your responses.

Oh, sorry, I beg your pardon.

Missy Lamb's gonna do a presentation first

and thank you for reminding me.

Miss Elab's going to do a presentation first.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Wendy Milab,

and I'm a principal planner for the EAST team in Wentworth.

The application site is 2628228.

Could you speak to the microphone?

Oh, sorry.

Is it better?

Yes.

So I will start again.

My name is Wendy Milab.

I'm a principal planning officer for EASTEM.

The application site is 206 to 208 in 208 Mitcham Road

and 208 Stella Road.

It is located on Mitcham Road next to Amen Corner

and also have access of Stella Road.

It is made of three properties.

So on the pictures to the right you can see 206 Mecham Road,

which is a two -storey property with attic and basement

with a light well which is hidden

by the planting on this picture.

There is an access way between 206 and 204 to the right

which provide access to the rear parking

at the rear of the site.

The application site also includes 208 -208 -D Mitcham Road, which from now on I will only

refer to as 208 Mitcham Road.

It comprises commercial on the ground floor and residential above.

At the rear of 208 was 2A Stella Road, which was a garage that was demolished recently

and it had access of Stella Road.

The application site is surrounded by two -storey terrace properties on Mitcham Road, Byton

Road and Stella Road, and the more recent development at 204 Mitcham Road, which comprises

commercial on the ground floor and residential above.

The application is for the demolition of the remaining existing building and the erection

of a part -free four -storey building with basement and front and rail light wells.

It will provide flexible commercial floor space

on part of the basement and ground floor

and 28 residential unit on part of the basement,

ground floor and above with private

and communal amenity spaces.

The provision of waste storage, cycle storage

and landscaping is also proposed.

Here are more pictures of the site.

So to the left is our views from Mitcham Road.

At the centre top are views from the rear of 206 and 208.

And at the bottom is the car park at the rear of 206.

And in the background you can also see the rear of Stella Road and Byton Road properties.

The top right corner shows the rear of 204 Mitcham Road.

And at the bottom it's the alleyway with Stella Road in the background.

To the left are the properties on Mitcham Road,

and to the right is the rear of 2 Stella Road.

There are two separate planning permission on these sites.

They are now expired.

There's one at 206, which is for the demolition

of the building and the erection of a new building

to provide flats as well as a new dwelling

at the rear of the site.

There are also permission at 208 and 2A Stella Road

for erection of roof extensions and re -extension to 208

and the demolition of the garage at 208 Stella Road

and provision of a new residential unit.

So this proposal is for a three part forestry building

with the four -storey element that will face Mitcham Road

and be in line with 204 Mitcham Road

up to 210 Mitcham Road.

It will step down to three -storey at the rear.

It will also include basement level

with front and rear lightwell,

as well as improvement to the streetscape

along Mitcham Road with new planting, new trees,

repaving, and new front boundary treatment

around the lightwells.

The garage will not be provided on site.

It was deemed acceptable to officers

due to its relatively small size at 132 square metres

and its location in an area which is mainly residential.

The proposal will include a commercial unit

on part of the ground floor and basement

of 120 square metres on eight,

which will provide new economic and employment opportunities,

which is considered acceptable as well

in this out -of -town centre location.

In terms of design, it was assessed at section 2 of the report.

However, in terms of a summary,

the proposal is considered to better enclose and define a main corner

and enhance the appearance of the streets in a wider area.

The full storey at the front is considered to sit comfortably

within the surrounding context.

With regards to the light well,

there will be new elements in the street scene,

but with the proposed planting and trees

that will be part of the scheme,

they are proposed to not be

underly harmful to the street scene.

In terms of the three storey elements at the rear,

it will be steed away from the sides and the rear boundary

and is considered subservient in scale

and look a little bit like an outrigger

to the four storey elements.

The impacts on neighbouring amenities were assessed

in details at section three to seven of the report

and were found to be within acceptable parameter to offices.

This is the proposed site plan and the proposed grand floor

plan to the right, sorry.

In terms of quality of accommodation,

79 % will be dual aspect units,

which is 22 units out of the 28.

The applicant provided a daylight assessment,

which confirmed that the scheme will have

acceptable level of daylight and sunlight.

And this is especially relevant for the duplexes flats

at basement and ground floor.

You can see a little bit of the layout on the right,

on the right side of the slide,

which is the ground floor plan.

It will comprise a three bed and five four bed units.

They'll all be dual aspects and they will all exceed

the minimum requirement floor space

of the National Space Standard.

The three bed units will be in excess of 40 square metres

and for the four beds units,

it will be between 10 and 22 square metres.

In terms of amenity space, 310 square metres

were required as a minimum for this scheme

and the proposal provide 417 square metres.

About half of it will be through the large communal garden

shown in green on this slide.

There will be a lack of play space,

but that will be offset by a financial contribution,

which will be secured in a section 106 agreement,

and will go towards first on recreation ground.

This slide show a little bit more details

with regard to the basement and ground floor duplexes flat,

which was a concern that was raised

at the design review panel,

So especially to the right, you can see a section,

a drawing that shows that the ground floor and basement

were set back or will be set back

from the main front elevation,

which will provide more defensive space

and natural surveillance to the flat.

There will be also the installation of planters

across the entire width of the ground floor windows.

You can't really see it clearly, unfortunately,

on the slides, but you might be able to see it better

at page 99 of the papers.

There are two lines, two red dotted lines,

one that goes across the tree and one that is

located further to the right that represent the distance

of the light well and boundary treatment.

So the line that is within the tree represents

the narrowest distance between the ground floor

and basement windows to the streets.

This slide shows the existing and proposed front facades from Amen Corner.

In terms of unit mix, it is considered policy compliant and the provision of four beds is

considered especially a positive aspect of the scheme.

There will be no affordable housing proposed as part of this scheme.

The applicant submitted a viability assessment,

which was reviewed by the council external viability

consultant BPS, as well as the in -house viability team,

where it was concluded that the scheme will be in deficit

and therefore unable to support affordable housing

on -site or off -site.

Early and late stage review mechanism will be secured

in the section 106 agreement.

In terms of carbon saving, 70 .87 % will be reached.

The BRIAM excellence will be reached as well

for the commercial units.

Urban greening factor of 0 .4 will be met.

And an exceptional level of biodiversity net gain

will be reached with plus 16 ,000 % or so,

which is due to the poor level of biodiversity

on the existing site, but also thanks to the high quality

landscaping strategy of the scheme.

This final slide show a little bit the existing situation.

It's like 3D views of the existing massing on site

to the left, what was approved in the centre,

and what is proposed tonight.

The application is recommended for approval with condition and a section 106 agreement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Hepp.

Quite a few things that Councillor Acnola raised, issues about sewerage, parking, I

said something about parking in general, nursery placing, its scale of development, et cetera,

but I know one that will concern all members

is the lack of affordable housing.

So perhaps can I ask straight away

why we can't have any affordable housing

if we had our normal policies?

I guess there may be roughly 10 units

in some form or other.

But perhaps Ms. Simms can help us on that.

on issues of affordability.

Hello, thank you very much.

I'm Victoria Simms, Senior Development Viability Officer.

So, yes, the viability assessment as submitted by the applicant has been thoroughly reviewed

and scrutinised by the Council's assessor.

We would have started off with a viability deficit in the region of £3 .7 million and

And through the scrutiny, the work that's been undertaken, that gap has closed.

The deficit is now 1 .2 million.

So all of the component parts of the appraisals have been assessed and evidence has been provided

to push back on any changes.

But ultimately, following the appropriate viability assessment process and guidance,

the scheme has been deemed to be unviable to provide any affordable housing.

Additionally, it's quite interesting to note the officers have also looked at the configuration of the scheme

to see if there were potential changes, sensitivity changes, that might have also been able to consider

if it would improve the viability, for example, looking at the mix of units and, for example,

looking at whether some of the four -bedroom properties could be made into additional property,

smaller units. And this was also tested by BPS. And ultimately, yes, it did improve the

viability, but not sufficient to ensure that the residual land value of the development

was in addition over the benchmark land value, which is, as I'm sure you will be aware, the

determination of viability.

I suppose looking at the nature of the scheme, it's in one of the lower value ends of the

but bill costs would remain pretty strong. It's one of the issues that's been challenged,

both looking at the bill costs in the proposed scheme and pushing the applicant to assume

appropriate costs to reduce the benchmark land value, reflecting the nature of the existing

properties but ultimately again they're income producing flats and some commercial units,

although some are not included in the detailed appraisals. This is where the viability has

come out.

So in simple terms, it does actually accord with the council's affordability policies

if you apply the policy including all the measurements

of the policy and viability.

That's what we're told.

Now I'm sure members will have questions.

Open up to questions, comments.

Councillor Gazzacolte, Councillor Ayers,

Councillor, I think Humphreys as well.

So Councillor Colby.

Thank you, Chair. Councillor Coakley for St Mary's Ward. General points are again,

disappointment about the affordable housing hopefully in the late stage viability we'll

be able to call some of that back. Biodiverse net gain is really good so that's positive

for the scheme. My only question really about the scheme was on page 93 mentions how the

commercial unit on the bottom is being,

is basically being demolished and not being replaced.

So I was wondering if that workspace

is currently being occupied and if that's the case,

sort of, what would be the future of the occupier?

Sorry, that was about the commercial unit.

That it was a very, it was a, I think,

a unit is a little bit of a glorification

because it was an MOT garage, that's right, isn't it?

Yes.

And it was a very lightweight structure,

a lightweight shed with a very low number

of people employed on the site.

But as part of the, this site has been looked at

several times, so there's been two permissions

which have effectively established.

Excuse me, my name is Nigel Grainger

and I am the East Area Team Manager.

I only did that because everybody else has done it tonight.

I didn't want to feel left out.

Sorry, Councillor Coggy.

Yeah, so the employment opportunities have been re -provided in the commercial unit and given less of a strict use class

because this unit would have actually been in its debate whether it's a sui generis class of its own use

or whether it's a B8 which is a general industry use right in the middle of residential occupiers

which often we regard them in planning terms as bad neighbour uses,

but they evolve over decades and decades and decades.

So commercially, there's no policy objection from officers

in terms of that use dissolving and going.

It was very small and the employment opportunities

were provided within the up -to -date facility

that fronts onto the main aim and corner,

along with a much broader range of use classes

and commercial opportunities that are way more friendly

than a general industry use that's secreted

at the back of the site.

So the current occupier, whoever's doing the MRT gouges,

they'll have the option to move into the new units?

Is that what you said?

I don't think you'd repair a car in a garage.

Yeah, that's why I was confused then.

So it would essentially be that they'll have to find a new space.

It's been gone a while.

Okay, so it's vacant at the moment.

Yeah, yeah.

Car maintenance has moved on a bit since places like that were the council heirs.

In urban design terms, I think this is a good scheme.

It's got a good bulk and it curves around on the site, providing a good strong kind

of armpit, as it were, to that junction, which I think is very successful in terms of its

massing.

I share the concerns about the size of it at the back.

It looks to me to be exactly the right scale for the front, but the back does look a bit

big.

But I don't know quite what we can do about that.

If the viability is questionable with that amount

of accommodation, although we can't ask them,

I presume, to do anything less.

So I also quite like the character of the elevations.

And although you will hear me spit teeth at basements,

I think the basements have been very well designed.

Also, like the circulation areas,

which are not mean and mingy as in so many schemes

of this sort of scale.

They've got a certain breadth to them which I like.

So I will support this scheme.

Councillor Worrall, and perhaps you'd be the first person

almost other than of course Mr. Granger

is now to introduce yourself.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Worrall, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Board.

A couple of questions.

The first one is around parking.

So on page 78, the second last paragraph, you indicate that there will be a provision

of one disabled parking bay made actually available for residents, I believe.

My question would then be is, in terms of the flats that are available, how many of

them will actually be disabled access or disabled friendly in order for that ratio to actually

be worked out?

Because on the basis, I would presume

that there would be at least one flat or two flats that

would be disabled friendly.

The other question I do have as well

is in terms of the commercial viability of the building

itself, I believe from the papers that you're giving it,

is it a class C or class E recommendation?

Considering that this is not going to be a building

with people, with residents, what restrictions

are gonna be placed in terms of what's gonna be used

in those commercial settings in order for noise

and other issues, and then how does that then affect

the viability of the building, going back to then

the affordable housing issue that was actually

raised earlier?

Thank you, Chair.

Our requirement for disabled access units stems from the London Plan, which is 10 % of

all units, so 10 % of 28, so we've got three units as disabled units.

And there's a subsequent percentile of what those units require of space, which Mr Tiddley

can allude to if you would like to elaborate on that.

In terms of the Class E use, it's a very broad use,

but one of the main principles of it,

especially when it comes to, so it's obviously shops,

you know, lots of retail functions and things like that,

but when it comes to employment generating uses,

we literally go from office space all the way through to,

it starts at E, Class EGI and goes through to EGIII.

EGIII is potentially the most impactful use because it's effectively light industry, but

there's a sentence within what that use can be and it's for the purposes of economic purposes

that generates no degree of light.

it has to comply with this to be EGII,

that it can be capable of being performed within that unit

with no impact to the amenity of neighbouring residential

occupiers.

So it's quite stringent in so far

as that loud, repetitive, functional operations,

hammering, things like that.

That actually would go into a different use class

where you would hopefully not try and insert that into a location like this.

So, yeah, with that caveat in place, you may have seen that we typically take out day nurseries

from a lot of these facilities because of the transport and the noise impacts,

because that's within Class E, and that normally rings through a lot of these Class E uses.

But, yeah, generally that's what you can do within the very broad Class E.

Can I just add to that? Sorry, there's also a condition regarding the internal insulation

between the commercials at ground floor and the upper floor, so that gives them extra

reassurance that the noise won't be dispersed upstairs.

Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. I'm with Councillor Ayers

on this one again. I think this is a really good scheme. It has to be said, yes, obviously

instinctively mourn the loss of the historic building, but that's got a precedent on it

for being gone anyway. We can't say that. And I actually have some knowledge of that

particular building and it is in a shocking state of repair, so it will probably fall

down before it gets knocked down the way it's going. But the actual replacement encompassing

that part of the site as well I think works really well, as Councillor Ayres said. It

carries on the corner from the modern building that's next door on the northern side and

I think it works really well.

And the detail on the facades and the stone work

around the fenestration, I think it really is gonna

raise the level of the schemes in that area.

I know some of the schemes we've had

in the recent past years have been a little bit sparse,

shall we say, or bare.

And this one I think architecture is gonna work

really well on that corner, so I welcome

all that side of stuff.

Despite your enthusiasm, if Councillor Akinola's comment

about flooding and sewerage applied,

then we'd all have to change our minds, wouldn't we?

So can we have just a word about Councillor Achen,

those points about flooding?

Yeah, the flood risk, so this assessment

starts on page 126, section 13.

So this all stems from what the expectations are.

It's not in a flood risk, and it's not in a risk

from any river flooding, it's all surface water flooding.

And the flood risk assessment has gone through this in detail.

This is obviously shared with colleagues.

It's a slightly curious person within our office,

but it's called the Lead Local Flood Authority.

And they have a statutory function to assess,

particularly with they come into factor

when we're looking at surface water flooding and they look at all the measures and do testing

in one in a hundred year events and the physical measures that have been put into place in

terms of attenuation and how to actually deal with rainwater events indicates that this

particular scheme, the measures inside of it would be sufficient in order to not overload

the existing Thames water assets and also the entire scope of the technical

sort of solution that's proposed within that is captured as a condition to be

implemented within the scheme and then maintained and retained thereafter.

Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

I know you're looking my way.

Just going back to the commercial usage of the building once again, I was wondering whether

we could put a restriction in terms of the opening hours of commercial venues within

the building space itself.

I just want, as we are bringing more people in terms of residential units, I live in a

place where actually we're having this conversion at the moment and the noise affects the rest

of the building after hours.

I'm just wondering whether a six o 'clock or seven o 'clock provision for the types of commercial

premises could actually be put in place.

Yes, Mr. Grange.

Yeah, it's a very good idea and we have the same idea.

Condition 42 on page 144.

The commercial unit hereby permitted shall not open to customers

other than between the hours of 7 in the morning to 11 at night, Mondays to Sundays.

Sorry, thank you, I missed that, reading that.

Okay, Councillor Humphries again.

Thank you, Chair.

You chopped me off a little about to actually ask a question.

Oh, did I?

Sorry.

I'm glad we got Councillor McInnolat's point about the series sorted out anyway.

As I was going to say, my only concern about the scheme is to do with the access from the

rear of the alleyway of the side road.

I just wanted to cheque, it didn't refer to it much in the report, but that's going to

be quite heavily used I imagine because it's access to all those units at the rear.

I just wanted to cheque, A, what the minimum width is of that space at the back there,

and I just had some concerns about things like security and fire access and things like

because there wasn't a lot of detail on that side of stuff.

And I'm assuming we've ticked all the boxes

to make sure it's adequate, but lighting,

safety and things like that at night, et cetera.

Mr. Grainger is just checking up on the details of that,

just in case people are watching

and wondering what's happening.

Right.

Yes, there will be access to the rear of Stellar Road, which will be a secondary access.

There is no restriction per se or limitation of how many people can access the site from

this site.

In terms of the width, I don't have it on top of my head, but I can have a look while

we carry on discussing.

The issues have been addressed of things like the fire access, they're happy with all of

that stuff and the police as far as any kind of safety aspect.

It's been through, so they have to produce a fire safety statement and it goes backwards

and forwards with our own consultants and our consultants are very, very thorough.

Okay.

Well, we've heard all about that.

Do people accept the recommendations that stand?

Oh, sorry.

Strictly not in the rules, but let's be a bit flexible.

What do you have to, what are your question?

I just wanted to ask Wendy if you could tell me why,

because the schemas in Tooting Broadway,

why is the money from the section 106

going to Fursdown Rec and not staying in Tooting Broadway?

So, we consulted our park team with regards to where the contribution would go and Furzone

Recreation Ground was the closest park in relation to the application site, which is

about 700 metres away.

Well that's it anyway, you've heard what's been said.

Members, do you accept the recommendation of the officers?

Agreed unanimously I think, unanimously.

Okay, moving on to Fishponds Road,

where we have Councillor Critchard to talk about

this small development behind Fishponds Road.

Councillor Critchard.

Hello everyone, thank you for letting me come and speak. My name is Councillor Critchard

and I am speaking on behalf of residents for application 24 -4488 which is the land to the

rear of 139 -145 Fishponds Road. The application indicates that this is going to be a building

a development with three houses

that all meet the legal standards for development.

But this does not mean, in my view,

that the houses are at all desirable

from an accommodation perspective.

There are bedrooms below ground

with a light well wall abutting these bedrooms,

so very little natural light will enter these rooms.

The ground floor windows either look out

towards the back wall about 1 .5 metres away.

And if you can actually imagine if you're in the bedroom,

you're down below as well, looking up at this massive wall.

And if you're at the front, this is a back land development.

The development at the front looks out over the garages,

which is not ideal.

There is access to a small roof roof terrace

for houses B and C, but the external access is split

between the deep light well and the terrace,

which I think is not actually in the spirit

of the amenity space that you should have.

So it complies with regulations,

but I don't think it's an acceptable arrangement

for residents.

The development has crammed houses into a very tight space

to maximise profit rather than provide a pleasant home

for potential residents.

The back land development means that residents' outlook

will be towards a set of garages, as I've just said.

I'm going to comment on the effect on the neighbours.

The proposed houses are built up to the walls

on the properties of Herrywood Road,

giving a sense of enclosure.

Even in a densely packed area such as London,

terraced houses usually have a separation

of two garden lengths and pack,

because I was on pack I remember

long discussions about this.

This is much closer than we would normally

consider acceptable on this committee.

So this isn't achieved for the back gardens of 64 to 74 Harrowwood and they will be shadowed

and enclosed more closely than we would expect in this urban area.

So my first premise is I ask that the committee reject this application.

However, should you be minded to accept it, I've got some more things, I'd like to raise

some points the residents have raised and then go on to some conditions. I'd

like officers to clarify one of the concerns the residents have is that the

current arrangement provides access to the garage that is covered by a separate

legal agreement. Can the officers confirm that even if planning application is

even if the planning application is granted if permission is granted that

does not overthrow any legal access or legal title around that land and what it can be

used for. Overlooking, I've already said that the development is overbearing, especially

for the houses in Herrowood Road. Please could officers describe in detail the measures taken

to avoid overlooking both front and back of the houses. The last one is the residents

are concerned about refuse collection.

I think there's been a change to the initial plan

so the residents have to bring their bins to the gate.

I just wanted to know from the residents,

other residents perspective, how this will be monitored

to avoid blocking access.

And now I'll come on to the conditions.

The first one on page 148 of the pack,

it says this development is going to be car free.

If this development is going to be truly car free,

an extra condition should be added

to stop the residents of the development

having permits to park on Fishponds Road.

Fishponds Road is already busy,

already has very limited parking space,

and if the development is car free,

we should absolutely make sure that it is with a condition.

The residents particularly have also asked for a further condition on the gate on the

Fishponds Road access and in fact we could go for gates at both ends but it was particularly

the Fishponds Road. Currently this is kept locked for general route use. They have asked

for a condition on a proper gate that is openable by the residents as well as the people in

the building, but is also can be secured properly so there's no extra people coming in and out.

This area has had problems with vandalism in the past because people get in round the

garages and they can't be seen.

Actually the residents asked for a secure gate at fish ponds.

I think it might be quite reasonable that the developer also puts a secure gate on the

other end because there's two ways through.

Currently it's a fairly rickety old gate held together with a padlock, it could be nicer.

Further questions from the residents on the conditions.

For condition three they wanted to be certain that the materials were going to be the same or higher quality as indicated on condition two.

That condition 26, which is on the obscured glazing round the terraces,

that it says it does not require the amendments design stated to avoid enclosure of neighbouring properties.

I think that might need some clarification about how that works.

that area that one point is I think it's the usual 1 .7 metres obscured glazing

and they also asked if they could be involved in the construction access plan

I'm glad officers have put that in as a condition I think that's a very

important condition for this very tight back land space however the residents

are suggesting that it should all the access should be via fishponds road and

They would also be very interested,

this would be unusual for us,

but to ask them about the concerns that they might have

about how the construction will be accessed.

So I hope, I think I've covered everything,

if that's clear.

Just to remind the committee members,

I think this is not a good development.

I understand we want houses,

but I don't think we want to give our residents houses

of this poor quality.

we should be looking at something different here and I urge you to reject the application.

Thank you, Councillor Critchard for putting your constituents and your own view on this application.

I mean, Councillor Critchard's got at least two main areas. One is objecting

the entirety to the application for various reasons she explained and then if we were to

grant permission anyway, a whole series of conditions.

Let's try and deal with the first one,

the application in principle.

Mr. Grainger, any comments or any other Councillor?

No, Mr. Grainger, any comments?

We think that the proposal is,

in the context of any backland site,

it is a challenge but we think that this has been,

has risen to those challenges and we think that

the design solution lies within acceptable premises.

Any, Councillor Colclay.

Thank you, Chair.

I think it is quite a clever use of space,

the house itself, I guess my main worry is the,

as Councillor Critchard mentioned,

and the waste disposed, the fact that the residents have to sort of take their waste

and put it to some unspecified collection point.

Would this be the same with food races?

Where would they need to pick up their caddy or just the loose bag?

And like would this be where existing residents leave off their stuff?

Or is it just going to be a couple of errant bags?

should there be like a designated bin?

It just seems a bit uncertain about

how they're actually gonna be disposed of the waste there.

So I think some clarifications on that would be helpful.

Certainly.

So as part of assessing this application

and coming to realise that certain proposed solutions

weren't solutions, they were inadequate

in terms of what was proposed by the applicants,

it became very clear that there was an opportunity

at the front of the gates.

There is an area not far away from the front gates

that wouldn't impinge on the opening of the gates

to instal a bin store.

So that would be big enough to be able

to house enclosed bins, excuse me,

so we can have enclosed recycling bins,

we can have enclosed putricable waste bins

and we can have food storage waste bins.

So that is an area that has been targeted

much closer towards the gate area,

which also alleviates the drag length

or the collection length for the council's waste operatives.

This has been the detail of which has been captured

within condition 20 on page 182. So this is a prior commencement to above ground works

in requiring the further detail of all of that enclosure and how it would work in terms

of its future management. And then obviously we would want that to be retained and maintained

as such for the life of the development. So that's been thought about. We've got an opportunity

to review that again.

I have seen an outline plan,

but it wasn't sufficient enough to capture

as a condition for it to be constructed as that.

In a condition that we sometimes have a condition

that is just a compliance condition,

we still need further detail on that.

So it would be a bespoke area just for this one property.

Councilman Fritz?

All three.

all three, they present on the day of collection to their own bin store and then it's collected.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. As we've heard, there have been a few goes at trying to fit something

on this site and I think this one works much more successfully than has happened in the

past with previous situations. I welcome the fact that they've gone above and beyond to

try and make it work, particularly with that close relationship at the back where Herrowood

woad gardens front onto it.

But that's my only area of concern.

I just wanted to bottom out.

It's something Councillor Critchard mentioned as well.

On page 16213, there's a drawing

of the rear renovation of the properties.

And I understand the first floor's on a mansard,

so it slopes away, which again,

really helps with the distances.

But it's the screening to the terraces again,

that we heard about, which was proposed to be brick.

And I think there's a suggestion

it could be obscured glass now,

just to make sure that's in there as a definitive thing.

So I think that'll make a significant difference

to the appearance of the outlook for the residents of the street behind.

But other than that I think it's a good scheme and I'm happy to support it.

Councillor Crouchard made quite a lot about the perspective front and back and you've

covered that to a certain extent, yes.

Any other, Councillor Ayers?

I haven't decided what to do about this because when you look at just the plans, they're

Rather good. Look at the elevations. They're good.

I just can't understand why we would build basements on the small site.

I can understand why we end up with it on big sites and on conversions.

Why would we make houses with such awful light and view conditions?

So I'm afraid I think it's... it doesn't look like it, but I think it's overdevelopment.

It's because we have squeezing on three houses instead of two that we need the basements. So at the moment I'm

Feeling as though I'm not going to support it, but I do haven't made my mind up. Thank you

Okay

Are you gonna

jump just to confirm a couple of things with with councillor

Humphreys the there's one thing that that during the

the latter stages of the assessment of this proposal.

To me, I considered it unnecessary

in order to achieve a visibility screen

to have a masonry visibility screen.

Now that would be opaque,

because opaque means that no light can pass through it.

So I thought it would be much better

to have that condition imposed

for the screen to be translucent,

which allows a degree of daylight to diffuse.

So in that regard, it could improve the overall.

It would make that element of the proposal more lightweight

and also have the ability for more daylight

to diffuse in the location.

Just alleviate that first floor renovation.

Can I pick up on a couple of other points

that Councillor Critchard made?

First of all, on the CPZ,

and I turn to other expertise here,

but my first reaction is the thought of making it

non CPZ for three units was over the top

for relative to the parking problems in the area.

But Mr. Tiddley, do you get a comment on that?

Evening Councillors, David Tiddley,

the head of transport strategy.

Yeah, it's exactly that, Councillor.

For a development like this, we would support it being

site car parking free, which it is,

but larger sites, so sites usually in excess

of about 10 units, would then be additionally excluded

from controlled parking permits in order to protect

the local amenity of local residents.

We find for very small developments,

that's not normally necessary for free units.

we wouldn't expect there to be a significant increase

in the car parking demand.

And over the last, probably the last generation

of having that policy, we've been able to simply

accommodate additional demand that does arise

through annual reviews of parking policy.

And so consequently, we haven't found significant changes

in the supply of permits or spaces over that period of time,

nor have we found that developments of this nature

to lead to subsequent on -street parking problems.

In respect of the other point that Councillor Kitchat

made about construction management,

there is a condition for a construction management plan,

and that would be effectively advertised

in the same way as any other condition.

So whilst we wouldn't normally consult individually on it,

we'll try and ensure we make a record of her desire

to ensure it's brought to her attention,

and then your residents can contact us

as they feel fit on that one, thank you.

Another comment Councillor Critchard made

was about the access to a garage having a legal,

and whether that would still stand

if this permission was granted.

I assume, it's always the case is it not,

that legal requirements take priority

and any application would have to,

or any situation would have to accept

the legal limitations, but Mr. Grainger.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head, Councillor Belton.

Yes, I mean, in terms of assurances,

there is, the applicant clearly,

I've seen a Lands Registry Title Diagram.

It's simply not a matter of the planning regime's concern to solve landlord and tenant issues

prior to the assessment and or grant of planning permission.

There is an understanding that the applicant is cognisant of the fact that there are easements

along that access way and all the arrangements that would need to be put into place for anybody

to have FOB access or any other access for the new gates would be in place, but that

would have to be dealt with entirely outside of the system.

Any comment about the gates, by the way, which is the last point that was mentioned?

The gates themselves, as part of the condition, we do have a boundary treatment condition,

but that didn't capture the gates. So you'll see in late items I've repeated the boundary

treatments but also inserted the very important words and the the gates in

terms of their their design and the arrangements fronting Fishponds Road so

that will obviously give us an opportunity to examine that as well.

Members the recommendation to approve this application is that agreed? Agreed.

Sorry, go to a vote.

Okay, those in favour of this application?

Six.

Those against?

Two.

The application's approved.

Thank you, Councillor Critchard, thank you.

We move on.

And another deputation, if that's the right word,

from Councillor Lawless, vis -a -vis a site

popularly known as Morley's for fairly obvious reasons.

But over to you, Councillor Lawless.

Thank you, Councillor.

My name's Sean Lawless.

I'm Labour Councillor for Tooting Broadway.

I'm here sitting behind me with Councillor Rex Osborne

and Councillor Kemi Akulela who was here

and we are all opposing this development.

400 local residents have also signed a petition against this and I want to express the concerns

which we all jointly have.

The petition was submitted yesterday night which I forwarded on to the chair so hopefully

you've seen it and it's been shared with you.

So some planning considerations around this.

The first is around hotel use and places to stay.

there's already a big concentration of places to stay in the local area.

I did some research today where I had a look at a 250 metre radius.

I've got a little diagram here.

In the map of the surrounding area, the proposed hotel was in the middle in red.

In blue you can see available Airbnb properties that are available tomorrow night.

There are also two hotels quite close by, all with availability tomorrow night.

500 or so metres away we have a Premier Inn hotel which has multiple rooms

available tomorrow night. There's the Pelican Hotel and Residence which is on

the site of St. George's Hospital. I went on their website and I was able to

book 15 rooms. I didn't actually book the 15 rooms but there are 15 rooms

available tomorrow night and hopefully it gives you an understanding that there

is lots of availability in the local area for hotels. Where people locally

have concerns if you've managed to look at the petition is that we had a

hotel get granted planning permission previously it was then sold off by the

the owners and a four -star hotel locally was promised and what then

transpired was there was an appetite for a Forster Hotel economically in the area

and it's now been offered to local authorities for temporary accommodation

which the council have taken on. This is where the sort of nub of the problem of

the local residents comes. So local residents don't have a problem with

temporary accommodation. We've done a lot of work with people to explain what's

going to happen and it's going to be a good council hub, a good scheme and we do

jointly support it, me and Councillor Osborne. But residents do have deep

concerns about how planning permission can be given for a hotel when there's no

real proof that there's a lot of need for a hotel locally and it will then be

sold off, flipped and used for a different type of occupancy. In this case

it was long term. And this developer and this owner does have hotels that have been used

for this purpose. Local residents and I do not trust that this won't happen again and

in five years we'll be sitting here arguing about why it was sold off and being used for

a slightly different purpose. So we would like cast iron guarantees that it won't be,

which I imagine the committee can't give.

There hasn't been any resident engagement.

There's been no drop -ins.

And I think that adds to the worries that local residents have

that the developer maybe doesn't have the local people's

interests at heart.

The third point I want to raise was around the standard

of accommodation.

I believe it's poor.

Thirty -three of the rooms out of 92 are windowless.

I don't see a huge desire for people to come and stay in a windowless room,

especially when there are so many options nearby, as the map shows that will have windows.

Number four is secure by design. So the police and council are both sort of accepting that there is

a risk here of extra antisocial behaviour or fly tipping. And Vant Road, we've got some photos here,

The entrance to this land on Vant Road has been a fly -tipping hotspot for a decade.

The landowner has not cared about the fly -tipping.

When it's been on private land, it's been up to the council to go and sort it out,

and it's been endless, endless in terms of the problems that we've had.

There has also been local police raids in the area

for drugs and the council has had to put up

two redeployable cameras in the past

to stop, to combat local and social behaviour.

So it is a concern that people have.

My fifth point out of six, you'll be pleased to know,

is the loss of commercial space,

especially in such a prominent town centre location.

So I think the current Morley site had 3 ,600 square metres

of commercial space, the approved scheme

goes down to 750, but the hotel scheme

reduces it down to just 260 square metres,

which is a 92 % reduction in commercial space

on our high street.

And then my final point would be around

if you are to accept it, then local residents

demand firm conditions be placed on the site

to ensure that it must be used for the purpose

intended in this application.

Rooms to boost tourism, to attract visitors to Tooting,

to spend money in our local area, not long -term leasing,

not to be offered in the future as temporary accommodation

for authorities, no kitchenettes.

And if any of these changes were contravened,

then we would want the developer to have

to come back to this committee and seek extra approval.

So thanks very much for listening.

I do hope you reject it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis.

I've just been reminded of something.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I've just been reminded.

If anyone feels that we need a break, then say so.

We do need, otherwise we'll proceed.

Okay, everyone seems reasonably happy, we'll proceed.

I think it's fair to say,

Councillor Lourd's comments

cover quite a few things,

but a very important one at the beginning

is the one about change of purpose

and if we were to approve the recommendation,

then what conditions could we,

so I think that's so important,

that whilst normally only considering the conditions

after an application, I think it's so important,

perhaps we might as well take that first.

Mr. Grainger, can you tell us about

if the owner wished to change the use, what happens?

Well, I think we just need to focus on

what we're all talking about.

If this was proposed to be turned

into temporary accommodation for people on the councils waiting,

there's still people from being housed by the home office.

So within that context, we have a situation here

where there are several strands as to why

another application would be required,

both as a planning permission and also as in a situation

to vary the section 106 planning obligation that's been proposed as part of the controls

for this proposal.

The way that the rooms are laid out and the way that this hotel is proposed to function,

there is no kitchen, there is no food and beverage offer as part of the way that these

Z -Well, that's the brand, that the Z -Well hotels operate.

That is due to the fact that the rooms are absolutely, pristinely clean, very

minimal and provide a very identified level of accommodation for their

customers whilst deliberately getting guests to go out into the community and

spend money engaged particularly at breakfast and particularly in the

evenings so that they engage in the local restaurant offers and food and beverage offers

in the immediate location and spend money.

So, also there are physical facets to the layout of this proposal that just simply don't

lend itself to being used by for that type for alternative types of accommodation.

The windowless rooms, there is no, there's not even a kettle in there, there wouldn't

be kettles in these rooms.

That's not part of the selling point.

There are no kitchenettes, there are no baby bellings.

None of that are proposed within the rooms.

Do I mean baby bellings?

You know the little things, yeah, yeah.

So, and in order to encapsulate that,

a document has been submitted as a management plan

that is going to be captured as part

of the Section 106 planning obligation.

And a planning, an obligation within a Section 106

legal agreement, it's a deed. So a deed is like the title deed to an ordinary property,

but this sits alongside the title deed. It goes on as a title on the land, it's on the

lands registry and it's enforceable by injunction to the High Court. So within that management

plan, it specifically stated that the accommodation is targeted only at visiting guests for stays

and not for any other type of temporary accommodation.

So that's to be secured within a clause within the section 106 planning legal agreement and

that is the strongest control that's available within the planning system to officers and

and the council and the residents of Tooting?

As it happens, Mr. Granger said to me at some point

or other that in planning terms,

to change this accommodation to the kind of accommodation

local residents might be concerned about

would be there's stronger constraints

within the planning system on that happening

than almost any other change.

so it will not happen unless there's another planning application and substantial physical

changes to the building I guess it would be.

So that's the comments from the officers about a principal objection, not the only one but

a principal objection.

If we can move on to other things by all means.

Councillor Worrell, please.

Yes, I'd just like to come back on the aspect of the rooms.

What you are describing is what I would call

a Japanese pod hotel.

So literally the concept is for somebody to book in

for a very short time, literally overnight,

and then book out in the next morning.

The aspect of a hotel is for people to actually stay

near the local area and actually then use it in a way

to actually maybe attend local amenities or local concerts

or whatever, or going to Central London or whatever.

What you have described really, as I said,

is a completely different business model

which then doesn't generate the idea of somebody

actually investing in the local area.

So Councillor Wallace actually, one of the objections

that was mentioned was about actually doing,

what sort of provision is being placed in the local areas.

So on the basis of your business model

that you're describing,

what I understand is the business model.

I know you're not describing it per se,

but you're representing a certain aspect

of a potential business model.

I can't see a justification for a hotel like this

in this particular area.

It doesn't make sense to me.

And so, yeah, just resting on that point.

Councillor Lawless also made quite a lot of that in terms of the number of hotels or similar

accommodation around.

Well, certainly, we simply cannot take into account AirBnBs.

They're actually lawful permanent residential accommodation that's rented out for no longer

than 90 days as there's a local provision that applies to London.

and they are outside of the planning system,

anybody can do it,

and they're not within the use class of a hotel.

So we've looked at the actual, the concentration.

There is no needs requirement within our policy

or the London plan,

but certainly there's an over -concentration policy

and the new holiday, I think it's Premier Inn

or Holiday Inn, no, Premier Inn or,

I can't remember what brand it is,

but anyway, it's in the Racks.

It's a Premier.

Premier Inn.

In the Racks building, we've got the hotel around the corner on Tooting High Street where

the Constitution Club is.

All of those within a neighbourhood level don't indicate that there's an oversupply

of hotels in this area.

What I would like to come back on to the actual quality of room, so we've been clear in that

33 are windowless out of the 92.

The floor areas range between 14 square metres and 30 square metres.

I've been into a 19 square metre room at their hotel, their facility at Piccadilly,

which is off Great Wind Mill Street, which has in excess of 550 rooms.

I looked at a 19 square metre room with a double bed.

They're not pods or Japanese style.

They actually do pods.

They do the ones that you crawl in.

They actually do that, but that's at a different location.

These are rooms that you can stand up there,

very tall head heights,

beautifully fitted out with natural oak materials,

very crisp, clean tile floors.

Soundproofing is one stage below

from a sort of engineering studio

for a recording studio level.

They're fully, obviously as you would expect,

they're fully controlled in terms of the environment.

There is no TV in order to make sure

that they don't cause a nuisance to adjacent guests.

The entire area, at 19 square metres,

it was perfectly adequate for a couple

in a two bed double bed unit.

I mean, going up to 30 odd square metres

to double that size would be obviously something

that would allow even more opportunities

and there'll be more beds in it.

But it didn't seem undersized to me

when I was observing these rooms at Piccadilly.

So it's certainly not the pod model.

These are conventional hotel rooms

that you can stand up in, very much so.

But from what I've seen firsthand, and obviously how they've been configured on plan as part

of the application, I didn't see anything that led me to conclude that the accommodation

was substandard, quite the opposite.

For many people, the point made by Councillor Lawless about the loss of commercial, the

space, lots of shops in the high street would be the most important thing and

any comment about that?

Yes certainly, so part of the town centre obviously this is all discussed at length at the beginning of the report under the land use section

which is on page 189, so the commercial use. The policies that apply to

to getting the right uses in right areas

when it comes to ensuring the vitality and viability

of any neighbourhood centre, particularly the town centres.

They're represented in policies 42.

Since the application was, the application,

the local plan was being examined

well, towards the end of COVID,

and part E and the flexibility of part E

had been with us for a number of years.

And the large format department store

had certainly gone into severe decline

as witnessed at Arding and Hobbs and at Morley's.

So that closed a few years ago

and the policies responded to that

in not protecting anything above ground floor.

So first floors and however tall the building is

in terms of retail can go into alternative uses,

but they have to be town centre uses.

Town centre uses are defined within the glossary,

within the local plan,

and hotels are identified as an appropriate town centre use.

So therefore, sequentially, in terms of putting uses

that are the correct uses in the right place

and not outside of places,

it's the right use in the correct place.

The reduction in the commercial floor area is addressed particularly within the actual hotel criteria

which requires and seeks to maintain active frontages.

So the active frontage along Mitcham Road has been maintained

apart from the double door requirement for the Z -well Hotel itself, the proposal itself.

So there's opportunities, commercial opportunities, that would still be in place to enliven the

street frontage and provide commercial opportunities at ground floor level.

I do know that the applicant is in advanced conversations with a number of recognisable

retail operators or grocers that are still yet to be finalised but there is

there is interest in the take -up of the larger commercial units.

Sorry, can I take you up on your offer of a break?

Yes indeed, I'm sorry. Immediately after the break

Councillor Abbs, who I interrupted just now.

Thank you.

We're back, apologies to those watching, if any.

Quick short break, we're dealing with the application

number six and the agenda, the Moree's application,

and I think Councillor Apps had a question.

Thank you, Councillor Apps, chefs from Queenstown Ward.

I've got a few questions, actually.

Firstly, I went to Arding and Hobbs for the police meeting.

Myself and Councillor Henderson were in attendance

at the Met Engage event that was on the top floor.

It was extremely nice.

I've got to say, much as I miss the old department store,

they've done an extremely good job

on creating a new use for that building.

On the hotel, we're a bit confused.

In some ways it seems like a luxury hotel,

in other ways it seems very basic.

I wonder if we could get a bit more information

about the model.

And separate to that,

Councillor Lawless asked,

or sort of raised some issues

that haven't really been addressed

around fly tipping and around antisocial behaviour

and perhaps criminal activities

and whether or not they're concerned

for this new development.

Thank you.

All right, Mr Grainger, where shall we start?

Fly tipping and criminal activities?

Yes, that's a good place to start.

So in terms of fly tipping, so the proposal is serviced on Franciscan Road with a dedicated

in store and all the facilities you would expect to run a commercial hotel.

I don't understand why there is a direct association with the guests, if that's the assertion,

that the guests would put large sacks of refuse on the public highway or footway and or when

and there's a dedicated refuse store, why the commercial operators would choose to use

the pavement rather than the dedicated waste area.

So I don't really understand that, other than to say that there has been built into the

proposal a dedicated facility to deal with the commercial waste.

Criminal activities, let's try and guide you to a particular section of the report.

It's within the late items as well.

We've actually shared the operational management plan.

The designing out crime officer from the Metropolitan Police did express concerns both with the

residential proposal and this proposal with particular regard to the gate on

Vant Road. There are multiple easements and rights over that land which is why we have a

reasonable endeavours clause to see if we can get a solution to gate that that's amicable to everyone.

In terms of what the Met Police thought about the actual use itself,

they have scrutinised the Operational Management Plan

and found that the measures within the plan were acceptable to them

in terms of providing the necessary controls

for the day -to -day operational function of the facility.

In terms of what the...

I mean, I think, you know, what the accommodation is like,

I thought I described as best I'm able to in terms of the rooms are very basic.

When I say basic, it's minimal.

I mean, they've got Egyptian cotton, you know, laundry.

It's on a really, really high spec mattress and things like that.

The fact that you don't have an easy chair and a kettle and a telly and a small table,

you know, that's superfluous to this business model.

There are areas to put your luggage.

It's all about keeping the area as functional,

but welcoming and controllable for yourself,

because you can control the actual environment through the air conditioning.

There's a mention in this report about, because there's no windows,

you turn the, I mean I've seen this, I witnessed this,

You turn the windows out in a windowless room with a sealed door.

There is absolutely no light permeation whatsoever.

You might wet, you know, you could be in a cave.

But if that disturbs you somewhat,

and you know if you're booking a room without a window,

you know what the spec is, it's on the website.

There is a window, there isn't a window,

there is a mirror that you can programme

to come on, that's in tune with your, I'm going to say this, but with your circadian rhythm.

And they advertise this on the website, but it is something that you can do.

You can leave it on a really, really low dim or you can get it to come on later on.

It's all part of their USP and I'm just repeating this, it's not my idea.

But it certainly seems to work.

The facility at Piccadilly with the 550 plus rooms is running above 90, 95 % occupancy all the time.

It's a complete success.

There's no reason to think that the occupancy rates, there is a lot in the late items on occupancy and demand,

which I won't read out because I think people wouldn't like me very much for doing it.

but occupancy rates are estimated in this particular location between 84 to 85%.

And that's from evidence that the hotel groups that sign up to giving their levels of occupancy,

the bigger ones, you know, over 50, 20 rooms, they all share data.

And that's how this information is gathered.

So, Councillor Tiller.

Thank you chair and thank you very much for the ward councillors for coming today and

making such strong representations on behalf of your constituents.

Yes and I'd like to go back to something that's a point that Councillor Woodlough raised earlier.

Yes as residents have said this does seem like a wasted opportunity to provide new housing

rather than yet another hotel.

It would be nice if we possibly could

to push things in that direction.

It does concern me, it's maybe very fashionable

to have these tiny rooms for hire,

but if you, as has been suggested,

these end up being closed in housing anyway.

We're looking at, you know,

particularly some small dwellings,

unless they then have much more work on them.

So, yes, is there any chance of getting some housing

out of this rather than yet another hotel?

Mr. Grainger or Mr. Cawdell, Mr. Grainger?

As part of the assessment of this application,

there's a particular strand within the policy

for visitor accommodation that has to demonstrate

that the use wouldn't effectively displace

or stymie the delivery of conventional housing.

This exercise has been carried out on page 200.

You can see that this has been through, again,

a rigorous viability testing process

in order to establish the value or whether the residential scheme would be viable or not.

It isn't the independent viability assessment along with colleagues from the Development Viability Team

have scrutinised this information and the proposal is in deficit of over £1 million.

So it's not viable to produce permanent residential accommodation at that location.

And therefore this alternative use that is an acceptable town centre use in a town centre,

so the right use in the right place with commercial opportunities at ground floor,

is a policy -compliant replacement in this regard.

Councillor Colleary.

Thank you, Chair. I had just a couple of little questions.

Firstly, I think from the concept drawings on page 191,

I think that the front of the building looks fine,

but I think on the back, the Franciscan road frontage,

it just looks quite dark and uninspired,

and I know that a lot of this is sort of a reconfiguration

of the inside of the property,

so I don't know how much scope there is for change,

but I'm not sure that maybe even just the addition of some greenery or something,

because it's quite tall and dark colours and this is sort of backed out a bit.

And I was wondering if there was any scope for that or asking for that.

So that was my first question.

And then the second one was about how in condition, I think, 42,

where the applicant is to investigate if there can be further improvements to the installation

of the building.

And I was just checking because it didn't seem completely clear.

Does that mean that if it's found that they can do more improvements, are they compelled

to do them?

Or is it just a suggestion?

I don't know as much of your questions.

So to a degree of rarity we're talking about a proposal that is going to reuse and not

knock down a building.

So I think that is a significant element of this proposal, retaining the built fabric

and modifying it and retaining the embedded carbon within.

So the existing Franciscan road frontage is effectively a curtain wall and the accommodation,

there's a void and then the accommodation is behind it.

The proposal is to modify that and then apply, you know, colourised vinyls to enliven it.

If it does look a bit bland, then we've got the opportunity to look further at that through

the submission of details condition.

So that's something that we could note

and take forward if this proposal is proposed.

Condition 42 was recommended by our independent

climate integrated solutions consultants

and the opportunity to look at,

it was a particular number of facets of the proposal

that looked as though they were missing an opportunity

to actually get further reductions

or further benefits on site.

So if they are identified, so we have a baseline,

we have the report that actually captures

all of this baseline information.

If through this condition we can exceed that baseline

through looking at a number of points and digging deeper,

then we can capture that and exceed that baseline.

If not, then we still have the baseline,

which is a significant carbon saving.

Councillor Apps.

I'll put on record now that I'm against the changes

to affordability that have been announced.

However, if they were in place

when this viability was done,

would that have changed the assessment of the housing deficit?

It's a hypothetical, I know, it is a hypothetical, and I will ask, I will respond hypothetically,

but this went through the viability tested route anyway, so, and it wasn't below, it wasn't 35,

so in this particular instance, it wouldn't, the changes wouldn't have mattered.

Now it is quite clear, a lot of members are sceptical,

but the sceptical housing,

we haven't got an applicant for that in the first place,

but housing is said to be not viable in various tests.

There's been a lot of assurance, a lot of assurance

that this application could not be changed

into the kind of hotel that could be used

for purposes that we're all aware of.

There's protection to a certain extent

of commercial frontage.

Mr. Granger's talked about his understanding

that there are advanced discussions

with some commercial units.

And it's an interesting application.

I think we've probably gone through it enough.

So can I test the members?

do they accept the recommendation of the officers?

Those in favour?

Those against?

Two.

Right, that application is approved.

Thank you very much, thank you for Council

and all this for your presentation.

We move on to the enforcement's paper.

and can I, enforcement number one,

about three and five of Hobbs Walk.

Mr. Raybould, no introduction at all, just, no.

People accept this, agreed.

Application number two, same again, agreed.

Application number three, you'll have to indulge me

for a moment to say that Harry Lauder, who lived there,

was a truly great, he wasn't a casual performer,

but a great star of the early 20th century.

And if anyone hesitates and thinks he was,

and go and listen to Harry Lauder on YouTube.

and Harry is brilliant and one of his greatest songs about keeping him right

onto the end of the road. He wrote in grief a few months after his son's death

in 1917. I can't remember which battle but it doesn't matter but he wrote and

then listen to him on YouTube if you get a chance they're really great.

So Tooting boasted, if that's the right word,

were proud to host where he lived.

And there was a ballroom there,

which I'm afraid I never visited.

I've thought about it a couple of times,

where he entertained London society

of the early 20th century.

And it's all been demolished and knocked about

and everyone's seen Mr. Raybould's enforcement.

I assume we're going to agree with enforcement,

strongly agree with it, agreed.

So that's agreed to.

Move on to the last papers, which are

the decisions paper, paper 25, 360.

Is that agreed?

The closure of investigation files 361 noted and closed appeals 362 noted.

Thank you very much.

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.

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 23 October 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 23rd October 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 7:30pm