Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 4 November 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 4th November 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Could we start, please?
Welcome to this meeting of the consultation advisory committee.
My name's Michael Jubb and I'm chair of the committee.
I will now call your names.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.
And once you've done so, remember to switch it off.
And if you haven't done so already, do something to make sure you don't get a phone call in the middle of the meeting.
Councillor Ayers.
I'm here.
President.
Good evening representing the Clinton Society.
Yes, good evening.
Andrew Catto.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Good evening.
I believe there have been apologies from Councillor Belton, Francis Radcliffe from the Friends
of Battersea Park and Edward Potter from the RIBA.
Are there any other apologies?
None received.
Okay.
Following officers also present Lauren Way.
Good evening chair.
David Andrews.
Good evening.
Steven O 'Feegan is on Teams I believe.
I'm here on Teams, yeah.
Great, welcome and our Democratic Services Officer Callum Wernon.
Good evening. Thank you. Can I remind you to keep your microphones turned off
unless you are speaking and can I ask for any declarations of interest whether
but registrable or non -registrable?
Are there any?
No, okay.
Minutes of the meeting on the 8th of September,
which you've all, well, are in your pack.
Can I sign them as a correct record?
Yes.
Yes, yes.

1 Declarations of Interest

Thank you and are there any matters arising? I'll go through page by page
numbered as in the pack. Page three. Mr Armstrong. First Eln Lodge there was
There's going to be a report back after a visit by the officer.
This way.
Sorry, Mr. Andrews.
Well, we've had the pre -app meeting now.
I met the people on site who were proposing to do something with the building, refurbish it.
We understand that because the building is in Metropolitan Open Land and is owned by the council,
that there might be a holdup in another area of the council.
Obviously, I can't talk about the pre -app because that's confidential, but yeah,
we are waiting to hear back from them.
But the site visit has been done and we're just waiting to hear back and see their progress
in other areas of the council trying to get the building used.
and to take a lease out on it?
I think I speak for the rest of the committee in saying that's very disappointing news.

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-376)

This has been going on for years now, and I really think that the council needs to move
Sorry for the cliche, as a matter of urgency.
And can I ask that you can do whatever you can do to G them up to make sure that it happens PDQ?
Well, I certainly didn't object to the proposal for the building.
So yeah, from our point of view, what they're proposing is absolutely fine.
And we want them to get on with it and do it, but yeah.
Okay, well if a bomb can be put under whoever's,
a metaphorical bomb, let me emphasise,
can be put under whoever's holding things up,
please put that metaphorical bomb there.
Okay, let's move on.
Page four.
Any matters arising?
page 5, Waterfall House, two -thirds of the way down the page. I gather that there is
hot news this way. Yes, that's correct, Chair. So the appeal that was lodged for the freestanding
advertisement banners, the five freestanding advertisement banners that came into the committee
earlier this year that has been dismissed at appeal. It's taken a bit of
time for that appeal to be decided but that is that is the case so the
Inspector agreed with the council on their decision which was obviously
supported by the this committee as well. Thank you very much that's welcome news.
And just as an update there is an application in at the moment that we
out last time for two advertisements at the front of the building, one freestanding, one
mounted on the wall. I have subsequently asked for the freestanding one to be omitted from
the application, which it has been, and they're just proposing the one on the wall, but they're
still proposing it at a wonky angle, so I've got to try and get them to not do that, but
that one is proceeding along the lines as suggested both by myself and by the committee.
Thank you very much for that
Let us move on to page six any matters arising there
Page seven
Page eight
Okay, let us then move on to
the main business of this evening, the applications.
Application 2025 -2256,
Bickley Street, then to the rear of,
who's leading on this?
That would be me.
Thank you, over to you.
And I should emphasise for those listening in
that we have all seen the presentations about all the applications that we're looking at this evening.
So, over to you, Mr Andrews.
Okay, so this one is within the setting of the Grade 1 listed Granada, former Granada Cinema.
And it's been through pre -op, but it's... can you all hear me?
It's hard to talk to everybody and look at the screen at the same time.
But this is a proposed new development on a current rather scruffy car park site of
three terraced dwellings.
Two of them are two bed, one of them is three bed.
It's a little sort of muse type development in a modern style.
Ah, there we go.
So, there you can see with the pin, that's the site, which is right next door to the
listed cinema.
So this site will be, well, when there's a building there, if there's a building there,
will be visible from Mitcham Road.
So, there you go, there's the aerial view of the car park site.
you can see at the top of the photograph there the close proximity of the rear auditorium
part of the cinema.
Now clearly that is going to affect the setting from the front elevation as well, so you need
the frontage building.
I think it's fair to say that the rear part of the cinema is the external elevations are
not of the highest significance.
They're not what gained the building its grade one listing and its high heritage significance.
So bearing that in mind, but it will affect the setting.
So this is the site at present, undeveloped, used as a car park site.
And you can see at the top photograph there on the extreme left, you can see the overhanging
part of the cinema there, which is the walkway around to the back underneath the sort of
auditorium area of the cinema.
So if we can move, there's another contextual photograph.
And then you've got here a CGI of the proposed three units and how they fit into that car
park site.
So you can see the proximity of the cinema and the almost abutting nature of these proposed
houses but they are fairly low. They're certainly lower than the ridges of the traditional terraces
around them and they make full use of that little site. So really it's not going to touch
any part of the cinema and certainly not any part of the cinema that's of the highest significance
But it's really just the setting of the building, and particularly the view from Mitcham Road
itself, which will include the frontage building.
I don't know how you describe it, sort of temple style of the frontage building.
But you can see how they're laid out.
They're two -storey, flat roofed, very modern in style.
And it's really, yeah, I mean, it's kind of self -explanatory, this one.
It's really what you think about the context of building something there in the setting
of the Grade 1 listed building and how, I mean, that's the principle view.
And obviously, if you imagine standing further back from that so that you've got the frontage
building in shot as well. That will be the most it's going to impact on the setting
of the building. So yeah, you can clearly see that it's going to have an impact. What
it will do, which might be a positive, is that those windows are in the kitchen units
of two of the houses.
And currently that is rather an under policed, dark, quite scruffy area.
It might add a bit of surveillance to that area.
So bear that in mind.
But yeah, as I say, it is what it is really.
It's just a new development proposed in a site that isn't currently developed.
to just use the car park and will have an impact on the setting of the Grade 1 listed
building.
But it's to the extent to which you think that that is appropriate or inappropriate.
Okay, thank you.
Are there any factual questions, first of all, that people want to raise about this
proposal?
If not, I will pass over immediately to Libby Lawson, Tooting History Group.
Thank you.
Thank you for bringing this to the committee this evening.
It's always good to have a chat and look at things that are happening in Tooting, particularly
if it is our Grade 1 listed cinema.
I'm not sure if you can see it, but it's not.
My concern first, there were three concerns.
It's nearness to the setting of the list of building, the build in itself and its usefulness
and its concern for near neighbours, which lots of points have been raised on the planning
portal.
But before any of that is considered, I just would like some thought on the APA that this
Is this on an archeological priority area?
I'm not actually sure about that.
Archaeology is not done in -house.
It's done externally.
I think I'm right in saying that.
So yeah, we don't do our own archeological assessments
ourselves.
So if you do have concerns and representations about that,
obviously write those in and they will be added to the case record.
We have done, because this is a Brownfield site and of course we're not objecting,
and Brownfield site development is perfectly possible, in principle we're not against it,
but certainly we would like greater exploration of that site before anything was built on it.
It's the site of Eldon House in that area and perhaps even an earlier manorial house in that region,
but certainly of Eldon House, which was built in the mid -1700s.
And the site itself, though just a car park, has a rich interest of what remains of remnants of wall,
materials that have been reused, the hints of something really quite exciting if there
could be more than a desktop survey, archaeologically, before this site or if this site was developed.
So that was something we would really like a commitment to before anything was considered
to be built there. That's built by Joseph Salvador. It's really part of Tuting's
I mean, there may well be a cellar submerged in that.
It would have been a grand house.
There were pictures of it.
It faced southward and there were a number of drawings and things of a rather grand house
in that environment on that.
And the map evidence presented shows that too.
So that's one thing we'd like to talk about.
And then the should the tight nature of that satisfy all the requirements that are needed
and satisfy the, or perhaps not satisfy the concerns of those residents and there were
to be a building there, it's really our concern is how that looks in proximity to
the groundwater.
And also some of the reassurances we've got about historic walls being protected and part
of the development.
I mean that wall that is specifically mentioned as a historic wall is maybe a historic boundary,
but it's certainly not historic.
It was demolished in 2017 and I've got photos of it.
It did have an interesting date stone from 1866, which kind of hints at the rich history
there. But the applications rather confused as to what's worth conserving and what perhaps
could go. And so there are walls that it says in pre -app, it was suggested that the building
set back from some boundary walls. And that is maybe a Victorian buttressed wall where
the pillars that support what is the Hall of Mirrors at the back of the building. Those
1930s pillars shape and form around the buttress of an earlier wall. Is it practical, is it
possible for a wall to be built slightly forward at that point, or would it be better for those
walls to fuse, or is there perhaps not a need to preserve that wall? It seems a little bit
And then, mostly, the view from Mitcham Road, we find that the possibility of development
there acceptable, but particularly objectionable are the deep fascia boards on that brick at
the single level and at the upper storey, which seemed maybe the idea is that they sort of
merge in with the concrete horizontals of the Granada.
And we think that best disconnected and visually detached from that and prefer facades that
are just brick to the full height so that there's a similar sort of blocky, brutal
kind of form to them but no kind of connexion between the two buildings. So those are our
most pressing concerns. And also, should the Granada ever return to be – well, concern
about the Granada being a centre of entertainment and the nearness that those residences propose
to be, we would be concerned that any residents there should not be able to complain about
noise, you know, the granada comes first and the residents and then the possibility of
living there, that should be an understood kind of concept, if you like.
And I think those are my comments so far.
Thank you.
Just one comment on that.
I presume that the agent of change principle would apply in relation to noise from whatever
happens to the Granada. The Granada is already there, these buildings are not, therefore
agent of change must apply I presume.
Yeah, I mean that would be taken up by the case officer. It's not really for us to say,
but yeah, in principle you would hope that and that would be something that I would mention.
Okay, so if I'm ready to write, there are concerns about archaeology, the archeological
value of the site and perhaps need for some further investigations of that, and I presume
that could be conditioned.
Yes, yeah.
Yeah, of course, I mean whether it's to the level of a watching brief, then that would
be up to our consultants who do archeological work.
But yeah, they will have looked for it and will make sure that they've been fully consulted.
Okay, any other points that people want to make about this application?
Mr Dodgson.
Sorry, who I should introduce from the Ballum Society.
Sorry, yes.
I'm in favour of the application essentially
because I feel that the view down that alleyway
or driveway, it's not being made any worse than it is.
And I just feel it doesn't, it's not detrimental.
The only thing is we don't really see,
this is so, that's so close in,
it would be nice to sort of get a feel
for what it looks like further back,
If you're more in in Mitcham Road and whether but I doubt whether that would impinge on it because if you're looking at the building on
The right you're not really going to be looking at the bit on the left
Okay any other points that people want to make
In which case I think we're in the position of
commenting on this application with concerns to, as I said earlier, the archeological,
the potential archeological value of the site and for that to be investigated before
any construction starts.
Does that meet the key concerns?
Yes, thank you.
Okay, let's move on as I try and turn my page to 2025 -2348, which is one of two applications
relating to what is called Chivalry Hall in Chivalry Road leading down from Battersea
to ones with common.
Just to, if you haven't checked on this,
it's the rear addition to the former synagogue
on Bolingbroke Grove.
But the only visible sign of it is in Chivalry Road.
You don't see it from Bolingbroke Grove.
Who's in the lead on this, this way?
Thank you, Chair. So as Michael has stated, so Chivalry Hall, a building built in 1927 to the rear of
the locally listed 104 Bolingbroke Grove, which is the former south west London synagogue, which has
since been converted to flats. And as you see here, this is the locally listed former synagogue,
and this was added quite soon after the synagogue was moved to this location.
It was moved into the location of Bolingbroke Grove in 1915,
and then they built this rather grand hall towards the rear
to extend this synagogue towards the west.
So you see here, so it includes the former hall here
and the area of Gardin
area towards the north. The building
has since been converted to two flats. The two
flats are one flat on the top floor, one flat on the bottom floor at present. This is
the building as you see it. So just
behind it here is the locally listed former synagogue. So it's
been converted to flats. The main element
that you can see that allows you to appreciate it as a former synagogue
is there's a Star of David window in the front elevation, which gives that nod to its Jewish
heritage. But in terms of the actual hall that we're looking at here, there's still
quite a lot of remnants in terms of its appearance that alludes to its former hall use, including
the lancet windows and the arch windows on this front elevation. So this is a view from
Chivalry Road, another view that shows the front elevation here. So quite a
fairly imposing building within Chivalry Road in terms of it breaks
that consistent continuous terraced form of development which is further to the
north and then further image of the street view that shows that building and
the side elevation. Because of its location at the junction of Chivalry
Road and I think it's Arundel Road, there are longer views of this building and
you can see not only the front,
but the two side elevations as well.
So it does have more of an imposing appearance
in the street scene.
So this is a view of the side elevation
looking from within the garden.
So you can see where it's been converted to residential use.
So previously it all had Lancet windows
across all of these openings here.
The middle one has been blocked up,
though you still can have that full appreciation
of the two openings there.
and then a kind of regular pattern of small balconies
with those two recess openings been opened up
to form quite large blazed openings.
So the proposals here for this application,
we've got two applications running fairly concurrently.
One's come in subsequent to this application.
This first application came in
and I think the second application,
which I'll go through after this,
has been introduced subsequent to this application coming in
and comments being provided by ourselves
and the planning officer,
that they are not withdrawing this application.
So we're taking both of them to committee.
So this is amalgamating those two units
into one single large six bedroom house with garden area
and they see the proposed and existing ground floor.
Obviously, it's not technically locally listed,
the actual synagogue to Balingbroke Road is,
and there's little we can say
about the internal arrangement,
although worth noting about the fact
that we'll be losing a family unit
in this particular application.
They are proposing a garden room extension
just in this area here, which at the moment
is just sort of a covered area within the garden.
They're now proposing to extend that out
with a rather large glazed extension within this location.
And I'll show you some visuals in a minute.
And then you've looked at quite a large open space
at the top floor, which currently
is a single unit across that whole floor
will be opened up into a large living room area.
So main element of changes are the external changes,
which will affect the conservation area, which
is obviously what the committee needs to consider.
So from the front, this is the main front elevation.
A few changes here.
So they're proposing to slightly rationalise the window
arrangements.
You still have the arched windows,
but at first floor level, they're
reducing the sill heights so that they're much smaller
windows, with four windows across here.
And then this central window, which is the large window here,
will be reduced as well.
These two doors will be changed as well.
So these are currently the separate entrances to the two
probably masonettes actually,
they've got their own entrances.
Side elevation is gonna be changed quite significantly,
particularly at first floor level.
So all of these recessed
bays here will be opened up
and have large windows inserted.
So all of any remnants of those lancet windows
will be removed.
And then you're having two new balconies introduced
than one in the current location of the balcony
and one further towards the rear.
These will be much deeper balconies
and at ground floor level you've got
much larger openings introduced,
albeit the two sets of lancet windows here will be retained.
On the southeast elevation, the only change here really
is that they are reinstating the two lancet windows
in the central bay and they are proposing
photovoltaics along the side,
albeit that's not something necessarily that is for the committee to consider,
because that will be under permitted development rights.
And then this is the proposed street elevation, which shows some of the changes
they're proposing towards the front boundary wall. It is limited.
They're proposing some gates, and then there's another large gate here.
So these are the CGIs of the,
which show the building and those changes proposed. And you see the depth
of those balconies now with those screens and quite a distinctive change at first of
all level with quite large openings, big glazed openings now with none of those lancet windows
will now be visible from the street.
This is the garden room that I mentioned which will be brick with a large glazed opening
towards that looks out into the garden, garden re -landscaped to be the main garden for this
single dwelling.
And there's that garden room proposal towards the rear of the site.
And another visual just to show the side elevation, which is the elevation which offices within
conservation of rates.
The greatest concern over it is these changes to this side elevation and how it will impact
on the appreciation of the building and its former use and from the conservation area,
particularly from Street View.
I think that's the last one, so I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Questions or fact, first of all, anything not clear?
Mr. Dodgson.
I'm slightly unclear from the Chivalry Road side,
the openings on the building.
Were they created later?
They're not original to the building?
The existing openings?
They look quite, yes, that the ones...
The windows, the window.
The actual window, yes, the openings.
If you look at the photograph, the image of the actual building, they...
There. Are those all original openings?
I believe the central one has been altered.
Can you see the remnants of something that could have been bigger at one point?
But these all look to me from when I viewed on site to be original,
but they have got modern windows within them.
Yeah, yeah.
They would have been different.
But there's no indication for these windows here that they have been altered.
There's no sort of scarring.
Right.
So we think they are the original openings.
And I have understood correctly that it's proposed that those will be changed.
That's correct, yes.
So what will happen is these two window openings will be shortened
so that there will be a consistency across these four so they all be the same size.
Right because I asked the question simply because if they are later openings that were made when the
building was converted I just want therefore you know it would be harder to object to them but
yeah okay thank you. Mr Armstrong. Yeah can I just say I know this building very well because I
bought the site next door years and years ago for a housing association I was working for and I've
in this building originally had in those openings it all had coloured glass
latticed leadwork so that all went when the building was converted into flats
okay let's move from questions to comments and I'll take mr. farrow first
At the outset you mentioned there were two applications.
Have we just looked at one of them?
That's correct, yes.
So the next item is another application which doesn't seek to amalgamate the two units
into one.
It retains the two units and there's some slight changes to the fenestration proposals
which I can go through but I will touch on that in the next item.
Thank you, thank you.
And I mean, one of the issues clearly that will have arisen
in pre -op discussions is the reduction in the number
of family size units from two to one.
And I don't know whether that's a knock down argument
against this proposal or not,
but they've clearly got the message that there is a problem
with with this application is that right they have not engaged in pre -op there
hasn't been any pre -op discussion that came in as an application as the
feedback has been provided on this application which has resulted in a
subsequent application coming in okay thank you
counsellor airs I'm glad those two elevations are still up on the screen I
I think the original elevation, the one on the left,
is really quite graceful and interesting,
and I think it's completely wrecked all the proportions
of what they've done to it on the ride.
So I object to that elevation, and that's a sort of street elevation,
which is just awful, what they've done.
So I object to that, sorry.
Okay, I...
The elevations on the side, I think, are less important,
but this one seems to be so important, this public face, to be so gauche now.
I note expressions of support for that view. Councillor Owens.
Yes, I concur with what Councillor Ayers has just said, but also on the side, I mean obviously I know the property quite well,
because I mean it used to be in the Northcote Ward, but obviously with boundary changes, I think it's in Lavender now.
But I do know the property because I spent a huge amount of time on the Shivery Road
playground which is just beside it.
But what strikes me having owned a house not far from it, obviously the garden is facing
sort of it's a southwest facing garden so therefore they want to have as much sun.
So the garden room is facing so the way it's looking towards the sun.
But I feel that the balconies that they are huge and you would see those from the street
And I can see why they've jutted them out like that because of course they're trying to get as much maximise the Sun
Because it's coming from where they got the way the gardens facing is essentially a garden facing
It's a front facing garden really, but it's facing southwest
But yes, I find the marketing is a bit strange, but yeah
Just on a matter of fact. I think it's northwest
yes.
Sorry, is it?
But the garden itself, oops sorry, sorry I'm just trying to make it.
But the garden itself, yes you're right, because the house is facing northwest, but the way
they've done it, because the garden is also, you know, I don't know, the way they've done
the balcony is to maximise them, thanks.
Okay.
Other points, start with Mr. Catto.
Just firstly as a point of fact on the comment
about there being two applications.
Last time we were here we talked about
a scheme to replace six flats with three houses
and it got rejected the other day
on the grounds of loss of dwellings.
So I think this would very much be the case here.
So I think frankly the two into one falls down on that basis.
Either way, however, what we're looking at is that they're turning what is now two flats,
which might have justified a balcony in the upper level, into two houses, which means
that everybody gets access to the garden.
So why do they need those enormous balconies, which to my mind are very detrimental to the
appearance of the building?
The other sadness is the loss of any of the last few windows that seem to give you a clue
thought this building used to be. Mr. Farrow. Okay, I very much agree with the
comments about the windows on the Shivery Road elevation. I think it would
be unacceptable to alter them in the way that they have done. I think in the
application the applicant refers to rationalising the elevation. I completely
disagree. I don't know how to describe it. I couldn't understand why they had done
it until I looked at the plans and well they as existing there are stairs behind
this elevation and that middle window I think was giving light to those stairs
and what they've done on the first floor on the bottom left hand side is put in a kitchen.
So what they've done is they've raised the two windows on the right hand side of the elevation
to raise them above the level of the kitchen units and to try and balance it they've raised all the others.
I think it's a question of the tail wagging the dog.
It's an enormous floor plan and there's no reason at all, I think, why they couldn't
put the kitchen further away from the front elevation and possibly have a void in order
to be, in order to retain the windows on the front.
I can't say anymore.
I just think it's extremely bad planning resulting in an extremely bad elevation
secondly
The glazing bars that they put in the windows
Inch have made what they proposed even worse
It sort of it's downhill all the way
On the first well on the ground and first floor you've got
a bit of a nonsense and on the loft or mezzanine
Sorry, it's just wrong
In so many ways
Okay
Any new points that haven't been raised so far?
Mr. Dodgson thinks he has one
Well, it's an extension of an existing one
which is namely the glazing bar issue because I think there's the size of the openings as it's been said and
The choice of the of the glazing buzz
I think it would have been better if they just stuck with plain glass
Not trying to pretend to be something original when clearly what they've put in those is not
Okay, so I think we're saying
Very firm no to this
application that the
changes to the fenestration
on several counts
Particularly on the chivalry road front frontage are simply unacceptable
Both changing the size of them and
the
Proposed clay glazing bars that is simply unacceptable. We also have
some pretty strong reservations about the
change to the
fenestration on the
northwest face onto the garden area and particularly to the, I mean getting rid of the lancets
for example, and particularly to the depth of the balconies even if balconies are
are a good idea anyway on this front.
Is that enough?
Okay, let us move on to
every hall B.
Thank you, Chair.
I won't go into the background to this.
It is all exactly the same as what we've just,
has been raised in the previous application,
so I'll go straight into the proposals.
So this is now for, as you see in the description,
they are no longer amalgamating it into one single unit,
they are just proposing to retain the two separate units,
but what they are proposing is to separate the building out
in slightly different way.
So they're doing, they're splitting basically
the building down the middle, whereas the current situation
is one flat per floor.
So as you see here, existing ground floor,
this was the one single flat.
They're now proposing the party wall
to sit roughly around the middle of the building
with one flat on one side
and another flat on the other side,
one of which will be able to serve the garden room.
This time has a shared driveway
and the garden will be split.
existing and proposed first floor again. So you see that this was one single
unit which will now be proposed will be split over the two with one central
split between the middle off the former hall.
Similar proposals to the chivalry road elevation here, with the exception that
the two sets of doors will be slightly changed, but they are still proposing
to raise and lower some of those still heights.
Slight change to this northwest elevation looking over the garden. So
they are now proposing to retain one of the openings with the two lance it
windows, but they're proposing all of these windows to be opened up and the
two balconies to be introduced,
one again towards the rear and one in the current opening
that already has a balcony, but the same depth
as what is proposed.
Same proposals on this southeast elevation
with the two lancet windows proposed to be reinstated
and PV panels, but again, will be PD rights.
Street elevation to show what will be proposed
in terms of the changes and that shows you the context
of those window changes within the street.
No CGIs in this, obviously it's been submitted
while the current application is in,
so there is no CGIs to support the proposed changes here.
So I'll take straight to comments from committee.
Thank you.
Well, first of all, any questions
without going over ground that we've just covered?
Mr. Catto
Looking at the drawings. Maybe I missed something but it looks as if in this one the
Gateway parking and crossover is getting bigger whereas in the other application. That's not the case
If they could get by with
The old gate in the other in the first application, of course, it was going to be one house, wasn't it?
Now they want two cars. Yes, I could see what's going on, but I think we need to be aware of that point
Okay, thank you.
Comments?
I mean, not, let us not repeat what we've said about what I'll call application A. Are
there any other points that people want to raise?
I mean, I take it that this application is
attempting to bypass the planning objection
about reduction in the number of family sized units.
But otherwise, it seems to me pretty damn much the same.
Is that a reasonable way of putting things?
Councillor Owens.
I just have a question about the reduction
in the number of family size units
because I have people in the ward,
obviously the CSPP part of the North Court ward,
all the time trying to sort of reduce the number of,
you know, buying two flats and a terrace house
and wanting to do it and they just can't do it.
Do we have, I mean, it's not an area
I'm particularly familiar with,
but do we allow it to happen?
Does it happen a lot or not?
Because if you go onto the website, it says you can't do it.
And lots of people try and do it
and end up having to sell a flat.
Obviously this is an area which is largely covered
by our planning colleagues, but what we're to say
is obviously there is a housing need within the borough
that needs to be met, and if you're reducing
that housing need by reducing how many units there are,
then that has to be taken into consideration.
The only time where I can consider there might be an exception to that situation is
there is a list of building which was originally a single dwelling and has been subdivided into flats in a quite negative manner.
And that subdivision in itself has been harmful to the characteristics of that list of building.
And therefore there would be significant heritage benefit to bringing that building into a single dwelling.
But it would be for our planning colleagues to take that into consideration and weighing up all of the planning
considerations and come to a balanced judgement
Okay, I mean I don't I don't think that is an issue for for this committee I mean it's for
For the for the planners and if necessary PAC I think
But is there anything else that we want to say in addition to the objections we've already
made about fenestration, basically?
No?
Okay.
Do you have enough, Mr. Woylam?
So if the comments are predominantly the same, if the changes to fenestration are essentially
the same, then yeah, I'm happy to write that up, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Could I just clarify, the appearance of the two proposed developments is essentially identical
apart from the doors on the ground floor.
Oh yeah, yeah.
So, yeah, so substantially, anything we said on the first application stands and is good
for the second.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Can we move on?
Could I just for a moment answer Councillor Owen's
its policy LP26 in the new local plan.
It will allow you to reunite only if the original house
is under 130 square metres and this is way bigger than that.
So it was used to refuse the application we looked at
I looked at it for docking down a block of flats last time.
So the policy is clear, you can only subdivide
if you end up with a family unit.
And again, there's a size limit.
So basically for big buildings, it's a no.
Okay, let us move on to 2025, 3192.
A building which has been built in the last 10 years
Well, a proposed development which has been in front of this committee before, I hesitate
to I haven't checked the date, but I think a number of us will remember it.
A year or so ago?
It was 2022.
Oh, goodness.
Okay.
But this is a new, rather different application.
Yes.
Over to you.
This is me.
So yeah, scarily, this was 2022, the previous refused application for two houses.
I think it feels more recent because it went to appeal where the council successfully defended
the refusal, the appeal was dismissed.
Now you'll have seen the, you're familiar with the previously refused scheme and you've
this one, but I'm not sure whether you've seen the appeal decision for the refused application.
I just wanted to briefly read out some of the pertinent points of the appeal.
The inspector agreed with us that this site does fall within the local plan definition
of an open space, and that I'm going to read out this whole paragraph because I think it
just encapsulates what this is.
So this is point 15 on the appeal decision.
The proposed development,
talking about the refused scheme for two houses,
the proposed development would therefore fill a green space
with a prominently sited building.
This would reduce the ability to appreciate
the presence of Fairlawn Park from Victoria Drive
and reduce the overall feeling
of entering a tranquil green space from that entry point.
When experienced within Fairlawn Park,
the restored waterfall would appear
as a domestic garden feature within the gardens of two highly prominent modern dwellings which
would have a dominating effect on the wider Fairlawn Park.
So that was in response to the previous refused scheme.
So obviously keep that in mind when you come to look at this one and see whether you think
that this one does anything differently, more acceptably.
It also pointed out that views of the previously proposed development from within Fairlawn
part would be wide ranging.
And clearly the Inspector found harm and dismissed the appeal.
We were promised the restoration of some features.
They were taken into consideration, but ultimately he felt that the harm caused would be not
outweighed by those restorations if they could be actually gained at all.
So with that in mind, let's move on to the proposed scheme.
So it's in exactly the same location as the previous scheme.
So there you can see the historic map.
Clearly this is part of the grade two listed former Fairlawn early -ish Victorian house.
Part of the pleasure gardens at the bottom of the garden where there is the
pull -a -mite water feature which used to disperse into the lake that you saw there.
The lake is obviously still there. The site has been subdivided twice.
The main part of the park to the west is now the garden of Fairlawn,
which has now been divided into flats.
Part of it is owned by, most of the garden is owned by the council,
including the lake, which is now a publicly accessible park,
which is locally listed.
The local listing includes the part which was formerly owned
by the NHS centre and was sold a few years ago to the current applicants.
And on the bottom left there, that's the remains of the Pullomite water feature, which is still
largely, I mean, it looks a bit scruffy there, but it's still largely still there, perfectly
capable of being restored back to its former glory.
And in the, that's before the hoarding was put around the site for security.
The applicants did remove all of those trees without permission.
There are now hoardings around the site.
And this is the site now on the bottom right, looking a bit scruffy.
The polymite water feature would be the centre point of the private garden of the now proposed
single house.
There's just one house that's being proposed and there it is.
So yeah, at the moment we have an open space, a locally listed park.
I mean, yeah, there's not much more I can really, I mean, that's the proposal.
Coming from two modern dwellings to a pretty large, it must be said, house, thatched house,
with a PV panel between the two chimneys.
I'm not quite sure how a PV panel works.
I think you said PV panel, did it?
Yeah, I may be wrong. I got the impression that was...
Yeah, I was really questioning whether that was actually intended.
So here we've got some nice watercolours of how this would appear from within the park.
And yeah, having gone through the reasons why the inspector dismissed the previous appeal,
It's really for yourselves to come to the conclusion as to whether this mitigates any
of the reasons for previous dismissal.
There's a lower ground floor and then two above ground storeys, a large open light well
– sorry, two large open light wells adjacent to a large terrace at the back of this house.
So you can see there where the water feature is.
Again, it's now a private feature in a private garden, not part of the park.
This is now, yes, visible from the park, but hived off from it,
with an entrance from the street in front.
Very much, you know, sort of an island site.
it's on three sides, it's publicly accessible land with landscaping at the back, but in
very close proximity to the public park.
Yeah, I mean, it really is self -explanatory.
And yeah, I don't want to lead you any further.
Okay.
Any questions?
And that is a PV panel roof light. Yes, it's both roof light and TV panel. So yeah
Okay questions first of all if there are any mr. Dodgson
So have the applicants given a reason for the the property being thatched
In all honesty I haven't justified I haven't gone through all the all the design details
prior to this, prior to the committee,
I took one look at it and thought,
okay, let's see what you think.
I think it's in relation to the appeal decision
in which the inspector refers to the modern style building,
so they've taken that literally as something to address
in this proposal by going much more traditional
with a thatched cottage.
I mean, I can't more traditional.
I mean, I can't.
Probably there are people around the table
who know Kew Gardens better than I do.
Are there some thatched cottages in Kew Gardens?
There are some cottages there.
Yeah, so, yeah, okay, thank you.
Okay, questions.
Let me, Mr. Catto.
Sorry, it's not quite a question,
but it's the answer to Mr. Dodgson,
is there a thatched cottage on the corner
of Roslyn Park Rugby Football Ground,
Upper Richmond Road meets Roehampton Lane.
It is, as far as I'm aware, Southwest London,
built up Southwest London's only thatched house
because there are considerations of part B
of the building regulations and fire resistance
to be borne in mind here.
Okay, comments on this.
And I think I must start with Mr Catto since this is his patch, as it were.
Well, not quite, because there's always a little bit of dispute over whose patch this
is because this bit of Southfields, come butly, seems to fall outside the remit of any area.
So I suppose I'd better pick this one up because it's quite close to us.
The question, to my mind, is should anything be built on that patch of land, particularly
since they seem to be adapting the historic Pullamite feature as part of the terrace of
the house with presumably its own, is this a genuine spring or is it a pumped something?
Do we know?
Yes, it's pumped.
it yeah they refer on the lower ground floor or basement plan to a Paxton pump
so I just drew from that that it was pumped I don't think it's a natural
spring agreed but on that that is the level ground quite close to part of
Wimbledon common and if you actually were to go to the common within about
300 metres at this site you would find a natural pond it's the name the nature of
ground in that area so that's the point.
So we are questioning whether anything should be built on on this site.
Councillor Ayers. I'm not sure if this is a heritage issue but it's the the thatch
the design of it shows a complete ignorance of thatching.
And so to me it's just a sop to Cerberus.
The walls are thatched.
Yes, the walls are thatched.
No, surely not.
Yes, parts of them are, yeah.
Miss Greenwood.
I went past earlier today in the bus in that area and just thought of it.
It just doesn't match anything. It looks like something like a piece of...
Implanting a piece of a chocolate box lid of a very strange sport.
And it's also getting rid of more of the trees and things that we, I thought, were part of the borough planning of trying to retain.
such things but it's just looks the thought of it just looks so odd okay mr.
Dodgson and then mr. Faro I'm slightly the actual garden is not in any way
listed there is always it there's only do we know much about the of the pond I
mean other than it being associated with the property on Parkside we don't really
there's no other sort of design and accent statement and heritage statement
and to my mind they've shot themselves in the foot by establishing how fine the
landscape of the garden behind Fairlawn was and supporting the planning
inspectors statement on appeal about the significance of maintaining the opening
the open land.
So courtesy of the applicant,
we do know an awful lot about the garden.
Thank you, so therefore I think,
I do not believe we should be probably building on that land
but even if we were, I can't see justification
for property of that nature
because either you do a country cottage with a thatch
which is wholly inappropriate
or you do a sort of 18th century gentry
having a lovely little thatched elegant gothic cottage in the grounds which that
isn't either so it doesn't really tick any of the boxes as far as I can see
what I'm hearing is no one has anything good to say about this hey okay mr.
Farrah well I think it's the wrong building in a place where a building
should not be, but I do think that if it was somewhere else, it's quite a quirky, admirable
in many ways. As I say, somewhere else I think it would be nice, and I do think I would make
a passing compliment to the design of it, except that I think it's just fundamentally
wrong and I also have an aversion to buildings that justify themselves by
excavating a basement in this instance which again means that I think the
volume of the building on the site is wrong as it were as well as the building
itself is wrong I don't want the applicants doing this is the third time
they submitted an application and I hope it's going to be the third time that an
application is refused. It beggars belief as to why this bit of land was sold.
Somewhere in the application documents I think I read it was auctioned and
auctioned by the NHS. Yeah and next door is a GP surgery I believe it is which I
think in one of the comments I read I don't know how valid it is the surgery
which is seeking to expand.
We're not saying they should expand onto this site,
but, sorry, it's wrong.
Okay, so I think what we're saying is
we have strong reservations about, to put it mildly,
about whether anything should be built on this site,
but a building of this scale and of this design
is completely inappropriate.
Do we need to add to that?
Could I just ask us to endorse the objection from Wandsworth tree wardens who reckon that
excavating that basement has all sorts of potential, it is dire consequences, including
for what they call it a spring, and I quite accept it may well be a spring at the end
of this lake that the Victorians found and adapted when they built the grand house on
Parkside.
Okay.
Do we have enough there?
Thank you.
Let us move on then to 2025 and 1986, Putney Methodist Church on the Upper Richmond Road.
Who's leading on this way?
Thank you chair. So as the committee is aware because this is an active church it does not
require listed building consent for the works that are proposed here it's just for planning
permission because it has its own faculty process so that's just so you're aware that there is no
internal alterations proposed as part of this application because that does not need planning
it will go through their own faculty processes. This is just for the external alterations.
So as you see here, there's a number of proposals put forward for the church, the
main one being the new accessible entrance ramp and steps to the side entrance doors
to allow for level access into the church. I'll go through the applications as we go
along. So the church itself is grade two listed, quite a grand Victorian Gothic church at the
junction of Gwendolyn Avenue and the Upper Richmond Road, built in around about the 1870s
with a Sunday school attached towards the south. Quite an imposing building, particularly
on that Upper Richmond Road, but also there are views towards the site from the Gwendolyn
and a very attractive tree -lined avenue with largely detached houses.
Within the West Putney Conservation Area, which is largely derived from those large
detached houses, including Gwendolyn Avenue.
So this is the building here looking from the street view from Gwendolyn Avenue with
The building here, the side elevation of the building with the attached Sunday school here,
and the low brick wall all the way along.
So the site, there's a number of proposals to surround the sites, but to note is the
side pitch of the roof here and then this area here which is the subject of the change.
This is the front, not the front, so side elevation, the main entrance to the church
here which will be the main subject to change along with this brick wall here and the entrance.
And a close -up view just here which is where the proposed ramp will be introduced in this location
and this brick pier to be moved ever so slightly to allow to accommodate that ramp.
This is the view from the upper Richmond Road with the large
grand spire here, which is quite visible in long range views
down Richmond Road. So moving to the to the proposed plans you'll see here.
So in terms of the actual changes here, the main area is this location with the
main entrance here. So what they're looking to achieve is you've got quite
shallow steps in this location at the moment that they're proposing to take
down those steps and move the steps out much further to allow for a platform, much wider
step to allow for users of wheelchair users or even users of prams. They will be able
to go up this ramp which will be introduced here onto the platform and then will allow
a level access into the church itself. The doors will be replaced as well and this area
will all be repaved. This is the existing west elevation. The existing doors, main doors
to the church are modern as you see from the previous photos and they're proposing to
change them to timber but glass doors. So at the moment they've got, we have got glass
and timber doors but they're much more visible with just single panes coming through. So
Here you'll see you've got the extended front entrance
with the steps and the railings running down.
And just behind this wall here,
you'll have the ramp running along
with a new opening within the existing wall.
And that will involve taking out some of the railings out
of that opening so people with wheelchairs and prams
will be able to go up the ramp and then into the building.
This is the existing north elevation and then the existing south elevation.
So only minimal changes to the proposed north elevation in terms of the signage.
This could be a new notice board here.
In terms of the south elevation, they want to seek to introduce photovoltaic panels along
the vast majority of this south elevation at the south roof slope,
which will be visible from Gwendolyn Avenue.
And as I said, then this is largely the only change
on this upper Richmond Road elevation,
which will be just a new notice board
posed in the same location as the existing notice board,
as far as I am aware.
I think it might be a slightly different location.
No, it's gonna be slightly further along.
So these are some of the views
looking of the main proposed changes.
So view A looking here from upper Richmond Road towards the site with the building and
the main entrance here with the new extended step and the ramp that leads up to it. Proposed
view B which is looking almost launched at the main entrance with the changes proposed
again here. View C looking from Gwendolyn Avenue which you'll see here is the view
which allows you to appreciate those photovoltaic tiles
along with the UD.
I think that's the main image.
So it'd be helpful to understand what,
if the committee have any concerns about this.
I think I note that there was something,
was there something included as part of the presentation?
There may have been something circulated to Michael
from the Reverend in relation to this application.
The key issue, I think, for the church from the letter that I've seen is they do not want
to see any curtailment of the extent of the photovoltaic cells on the south roof.
So that when there have been discussions about the extent to which they could be cut back
to make them less visible from Gwendolyn Avenue than they would be if they were to extend over the whole of the roof.
They want to do this for obviously environmental reasons.
I don't think there's much more to say about the letter than that.
Any questions, first of all?
Questions of fact?
If not, I'm going to pass to Mr. Catto, because this certainly is within part of it.
It certainly does.
If I've got a question, it is, how come we are seeing this now?
Because if you look on the application online,
you will discover that rarely this one has got no objections
and four letters of support, one of which
I wrote in July on behalf of the Parni Society
after we'd been invited by the Church
to have a good look at the proposal,
meet them, discuss with them,
and I would, we are thoroughly supportive
of their proposals on this,
including, if I may comment,
the drawings kindly show the trees,
the very substantial trees on Gremlin Avenue
as a skinny black line.
Actually, you can barely see that side of the church.
I would also comment if we're talking about
solar panels on listed buildings that there are quite a lot of them directly above our heads, but nobody seems to notice or care.
The aim is that they will be completely self
They will generate enough electricity that they can get with their gas boiler
Which is an amazing thing for a very large Victorian church.
We are thoroughly in support.
Councillor Ayers.
I commend this whole thing.
I think it's fantastic.
I'm really impressed with it.
And I used to work for St. James's Piccadilly.
We were the first church listed building
to put solar panels on our roofs.
I just have to show off that bit.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Mr. Armstrong.
Can I just say that the solar panels
will need to have some kind of screening around the base of them to prevent colonisation by
pigeons which would be horrendous on this site.
Yes, it's pleasing to see an application to provide access for wheelchairs, prams and the
like.
When I saw it, I was impressed.
There's a book called Designing for the Disabled by Selwyn Goldsmith.
It's an old book.
And a lot of it's a very interesting book, about the size
of a small family Bible, appropriately for a church application.
And in the preface, what he talks about is the provision of a ramp
to a church, and one of the congregants was a little disappointed
that there was going to be a ramp.
But the reason that I reached for it was that one of the things
that he draws our attention to is the fact that sensitivity
about the words used about disabled,
but I can't do anything more than refer to it as that
at the moment, is that access should not be secondary.
It shouldn't be by the back door.
and I think that's an admirable aspiration.
And it's only sort of a slight criticism
that I wondered whether or not this sort of looks
a bit sideways, the ramp, whether there was a possibility
of having a less distinctive ramp approach
coming around from the other side
where the entrance to the car park is.
So that instead of feeling as though
you've got your own separate entrance, it's integrated into the general entrance.
As I say, that was what caused me a degree of concern.
It's possible, I don't know the background to it, that it was considered
and was dismissed as impractical.
But I think for a public building that it would be disappointing
if that had not been considered. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms Greenwood.
Just going to say I thought there was a ramp round the side.
The only problem being each time, like voting or going to a baptism,
and my husband was in a wheelchair, the door was locked.
So I think there was something done round by the car park.
But we couldn't use it.
The point was that the ramp that is proposed has the sort of a feeling of something that's
been put there to give you disabled access, whereas where it's possible in sort of buildings
which seek to integrate the ramp, that you don't have it sort of separate, here are the
steps, here's your ramp.
You try and make them one and the same, but of a whole.
And when I looked at the drawing it seemed to me that there should have been an opportunity to put the ramp
to the
Top left -hand side of the entrance or to the north of the entrance
to allow the ramp to have been better integrated into the entrance rather than
Put on the side
Also from the car park
very prominent.
That one.
That's not...
I'm...
Sorry.
I...
That would be very long and prominent, and this one is actually tucked behind a wall
that's already there, which in turn provides the protection to the side of it, which you
would otherwise need as a separate railing.
So actually, they did go describe in some detail these considerations, and I very much
think this is the best answer.
Okay.
I think what I'm hearing is that we are supporting this application.
Perhaps we could ask for further discussion with the applicant about the design of the
ramp, but I think notwithstanding that, we would strongly support this application.
Will that do? Thank you. Let us move on to our final application then, 2035 -3306,
110 to 112 Putney High Street, a rather distinctive building in the middle of the shops.
Who's leading on this?
Thank you, that'll be me.
So this is 110 and 112 Putney High Street.
The proposals are for rear extensions
and a front mansard extension,
along with the change of use of the upper floors
to residential, but commercial would be retained
at the ground floor.
So it says extension, but essentially it would be
demolition of the rear elevations,
and then the addition of a new block of flats
and the mansards.
So from the aerial view, we can see that this directly
backs onto Putney Exchange.
just behind it is an alleyway.
And this site consists of two properties.
Number 110 is the locally listed building,
so a non -designated heritage asset.
Well, number 112 forms part of the adjacent terrace.
There's no other heritage assets to consider.
You can see here the map is actually incorrect.
I have requested that to be amended.
You can see it basically forms the centre of this group here.
So pre -op advice was provided, but essentially it didn't include
elevational drawings, so it was basically the principle of it. There were some
floor plans which were included and from that we had some regards about the
siting and scale of the mansard's, how those would impact the townscape. It
would result in kind of a similar building height as you can see in this
existing street view, the number 112 is the red brick
building which forms part of the group that goes
all the way to number 118.
And you can see this kind of a purposeful step
in the building height there, even though a man's site
is existing at number 118.
So of primary significance is the facade
of the local assisted building, its relationship to the pair,
and then the pair's relationship to that wider group.
The rear elevation is less significant,
but it's still illustrative of the historic development.
And then despite its ad hoc extension,
you can still see a consistency in the scale,
in the materiality.
Also, you can see there are the surviving London
or butterfly roofs,
although you can also see that there are a number
of mansards extending some nearby properties.
So the principal change here is the ManStart Extension with a slightly different design
to the locally listed building and the justification for that is the different window arrangement
between the former bank and the terrace.
If we look at the roof proposal slide,
we can see that there is a very slight setback
proposed to the Mansard of the local listed building,
but it's not indicating that the butterfly roof
would be retained.
So you can also get a sense of the building
and its approach to kind of squaring off
and creating a block to the rear,
which differs from kind of the ad hoc articulated extensions
that exist at present.
The X hatched X there you can see is a light well.
And basically the roof of each level
would be the amenity space,
which includes a communal terrace and private balconies.
The proposed rear elevation.
So basically they're going to combine the two buildings
into a single residential block, which would be four storeys.
And the rear block, which is squared off,
is kind of separate from the front mansard
by the light well in the communal garden.
You can see they're proposing quite a mix of materials.
So the ground floor would be brickwork,
which hides the balconies of the first floor.
The second storey is then slightly set back,
and it's finished in render.
and the attention of that is to reflect light into the area.
And then the upper floor is vertical terracotta tiling
in a light grey blue.
And then surrounding the plant and the communal terrace,
there would be an obscure glass balustrade.
And just the last slide,
you can see the existing sections
is kind of that hatched red lines.
You can see the box form that they're proposing
and then how much deeper those proposals would extend into the plot.
That is basically the scheme.
Okay, thank you.
Are there any questions, first of all, anything that's not clear about this application?
Mr. Dodgson.
I'm not sure whether I can ask this or not, but I'll ask it.
Is it conceivable that basically they're just going to leave the front facade and everything
will just be rebuilt?
Is that really what probably is going to happen?
Yeah, from my understanding, so this is a full application that's come in now, and yeah,
the floor plates, the floor heights are different.
They are similar to the front half of the building so that they will align with the
existing floor plates so it won't interfere with that large window to the front of the
bank, but essentially, yes, the insides and the rear extensions will be demolished and
replaced with a new building.
Okay.
Again, we're in the middle of Putney, so I'm turning to Mr. Catto.
If I'm right, this is the bank building, former bank building, was designed by
Edward Morf, the famous church architect, who obviously worked for Mammon as well as for the church.
Indeed, indeed, Chair. Edward Morf is the designer of the bank building, which is 110.
And 112 is part of a slightly longer terrace, as you can see.
And by the way, the extra storey on 114 predates the bank.
It's Edwardian.
It's got a date on the top.
So extending upwards on the high street is not new.
But they didn't do quite as much of it in those days.
We've looked at this stepping.
the Mansard is actually I think a good idea
because it gives each building its own Mansard roof
when seen from the street.
In context, when you looked at the aerial view from behind,
there was some scaffolding behind,
that was most of the buildings the opposite,
getting Mansard roofs.
Pretty much the whole of Putney High Street
either has or is about to have,
or we're wondering why they're the last few left out.
and it doesn't harm the High Street whatsoever.
Pesner describes the bank as one of only two buildings
worth even a glance on Putney High Street, about which he's
otherwise very scathing.
I would agree with him, although it suffered terribly
since Lloyd's Bank first expanded next door
and then took down all their signage when they closed.
So it's in a very poor condition, actually,
at the moment.
I'm pleased to see that the proposal takes the former bank glass door and reopens it
as the door to the flats, because at the moment it just sealed shut.
But I'm concerned about how the floor plates, which come all the way to the front, are going
to deal with that double -height window.
And I think that's a detail that perhaps should be requested for detailed approval on this
one.
But, and yes, it's going to be quite dense, but I mean, isn't everything when you're getting
it developed these days.
Other comments on this?
Council Ayres.
Does anybody else have this sort of strange feeling that this is not a pair of buildings?
It is so far from being a pair that I just wonder why.
I mean, the fact that internally it's been treated as the same.
You look at the plans, the upper levels of the plans,
you'd think that the elevations were exactly the same.
I mean, I find it a bit uncomfortable.
I'm sure it's not a reason for refusing it or anything,
and I accept that it does no harm to the high street,
but it's so strange to do, call it a pair.
Sorry.
Well I think Pevsner is right actually. Mr. Dodgson.
I'm just, if I can understand putting Mansard on the red brick building. I probably,
looking at the group, I would imagine that the Lloyd, what was the Lloyd's Bank was actually,
was red brick and part of the group of five properties. It was this, I don't know, maybe
I'm wrong but it looks, because this is the same height
and everything, one wonders whether perhaps
that's what they did.
But I just feel a bit uneasy that this is such a striking
stone fronted building.
Would the architect have put a mansard on it?
You know, I think we're used to seeing them
on Victorian red bricks but I feel a little uneasy
about shoving a mansard on that.
But I equally, I'm trying to look on street views
to whether actually how visible it would actually be
and I suspect not particularly visible.
Yeah, thank you.
I have to say my first reaction when I saw this in the drawings was to worry, as Mr Dodgson has just expressed,
about a mansard on top of a very distinctive building.
But having looked at it again, it does seem pretty clear to me that you won't see it.
It's set far back enough for it not to matter.
I do, though, want to echo Mr. Catto's concerns about how they are going to support
that floor in the middle of a very large window.
What is the point how you're going to get the flat above to come tight up against the window
and fire stop and safely deal with the gap.
Are we generally in support of this application
with that minor caveat?
Okay, thank you.
Let us then move on to
Paper number 25377.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-377)

The report on recent decisions in cases where this committee has made recommendations.
And I think this is the first report of this kind ever that I've seen,
of which our recommendations to refuse have been supported either by committee or by officers.
So I think three cheers for that.
Unless anyone has any other points they want to make on this.
Can we just note it with approval?
And I think that brings us to the end of the meeting.
Unless there is any other business.

5 Future Meeting Dates

Q. Chair, just to mention on the date of the next meeting, members will be aware, just
from the note on the front sheet about the May 2026 meeting, just because of how close
it is to the borough elections and the May 2026 PAC is already going to be cancelled
for that same reason, it seems a bit silly to have this meeting when there won't be
meeting of the PAC to report to anyway and obviously there's a difficulty about
members stepping down, members getting reelected etc etc so and I think the
suggestion is that we cancel it if if the committee don't want to cancel it it
would be a case of probably looking to push it back and having to find a date
like much later in May or June but by that point it's gonna press up against
the what's likely to be the sort of early July 2026 meeting.
Point taken.
Mr. Farrow, do you?
Sorry, a little bit of nonsense.
Two statements this evening that find contenders
for understatement of the year.
Mr. Andrews referred to the backside of the grade one
of building as being poor or something.
I mean, it's just absolutely nondescript beyond measure,
the Tooting cinema.
And you referred to the facade of the Lloyd's Bank
as distinctive.
It's just absolutely amazing.
We have lots of applications that come in
where words like in keeping are considered
to be complementary and people making an effort sort of not to frighten the horses.
When that, I don't know whether it was applied to the front
of the existing building or the front of it was knocked down,
but as Mr. Dodgson said, it was clearly a part of a five -bay terrace
and it was just amazing when it was put there.
I just think it's an indication of having the courage of your convictions and appreciating
dramatic and new things when they come up, which I have been on occasion disappointed
in the attitude of both ourselves and the planners.
Sorry, Amir aside, thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Lord.
Thank you.
I'm having the courage of my convictions.
The rear and the side elevations of the Granada, I would say, are not –
I can't remember what dismissive term you used, but they're not.
That is a perfect bit of planning for purpose,
where there's a grand façade that is illuminated and built in faience,
and it's done to budget.
It's worked for since 1931 and the money was invested to make this grand palace of entertainment
with its front facade on the high street all important and functional and purposeful and
brutal and modest and yet, well huge, but no detailing.
Everything concentrated at the front.
Absolutely.
I didn't say, but I'm not convinced by the two windows from the kitchenettes that might light that way.
There's obviously a problem with the Granada Street that it is not used and it's ill -served, it's gated,
it's got a number of delivery drivers that sit at the front and there's an issue there.
But in the past, that was Granada Street and that was the entrance by which
Pedestrians would come from the car park and line up to use that so it can't function as it was meant to
And that's a problem for our time, but not necessarily
always and maybe resolved in the future so um
You know it's great one listed for a reason and it's a great design
It works inside and out and from every elevation as far as I'm concerned. I apologise if I've caused offence
I remain of the view that the back of the building is not distinctive.
So we note that we meet next on the 8th of Jan.
We will then meet on the 10th of March, but we will not meet on the 12th of May.
That's correct.
And meetings indeed beyond March have still to be determined.
I hope to be able to, well I'll definitely bring the schedule for next year to the January
committee, if not I'm hoping to be able to circulate them by email before just to
give you all as much notice as possible but they'll definitely be in the January agenda.
Thank you very much.
OK, I'm closing the meeting, safe journey home, and good night.
And thank you all our hard working officers.
Thank you.