Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 19 November 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 19th November 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

to the November meeting of the Planning Applications Committee and can I welcome particularly
Councillor Jeffries who joins us for the first time.
Having gone through his rigorous training with Mr Calder during the course of the last
couple of weeks, I hope you find it interesting.
Okay, now I've got the minutes of the last meeting here.
I assume that Councillor Humphries has seen them,
vets them, okay.
So if I just sign that, oops.
If the pen works, of course.
Whatever the date is.
Okay.
I will ask members to introduce themselves when
and if they make any particular comments,
But I should start by introducing the top table here.
My name's Tony Belton.
I'm a Councillor for Battersea Park Ward,
and I'm the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee.
On my left.
Good evening. I'm Nick Calder.
I'm the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
Good evening. My name is Duncan Mors.
I'm the External Legal Advisor.
Good evening, everybody.
Calum 1 and Democratic Services, Clark to the committee.
Okay, thank you.
Are there any apologies?
I don't think there are, are there?
No apologies.
Does any member have an interest
in any of the applications?
I should say, just for clarification,
that I live literally a stone's throw away
from even me today, Stone's Throw,
from one application in Wakehurst Road,
but I don't know the people, they've never approached me,
I don't know the neighbours,
so I don't consider myself compromised,
but just for the record.
Okay, anything else?
If we go through these matters fairly quickly,
it doesn't mean to say we haven't read them all
with due consideration.
Certainly, I know our opposition members do very closely.
It just means that we agree with the officer's
recommendations and there's nothing particularly
contentious to say about them.
If it's okay with everyone, I'd like to take
the enforcement notices first, because there are
good reasons for taking enforcement notices first,
if that's okay.
Good.
In which case, I turn to item number one of the enforcement notices, which is on page
137, and is about an interesting conversion of a single house in Five Many Gates.
Do you wish to say anything about them, Mr. Abold?
I can give you a quick 30 seconds if you like.
Five Managate has been converted into two flats without planning permission.
In a nutshell, it is too small to be converted.
Our policy requirement says it needs to be at least 130 square metres.
For us to even consider a conversion, this is only 90.
The two flats that have been created individually are too small, as are the rooms, and have a poor layout.
There are a few other policy considerations, but in principle it is just not something we would find acceptable.
We have tried to resolve it informally.
To no avail, we are recommending service of an enforcement notice.
Sorry, did you introduce yourself at the beginning?
My apologies, Mr Raybould, Enforcement Manager.
Any comments?
Councillor Humphries.
It's just curiosity and I don't expect Mr Raybould to name names.
I just wondered how we knew about this one, or how it was flagged up to us.
I think Councillor Givindji may have said that.
Did you have your hand on that?
No, okay.
How did we know about it?
Yes, it was reported to be by local residents.
Sorry?
By local residents.
OK, local resident complaints.
OK.
Is the recommendation agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, that one's agreed.
Moving on to the second one,
which is 13 Park Gate Road in Battersea Park Ward,
which is an enforcement notice about returning a,
something being converted from a cafe,
sorry, from residential into the extension of a cafe.
Any comments, Mr. Ebel?
Just to flag up, the permission's already been refused
for this, they did come in with an application
just over a year ago, which was refused permission,
and obviously enforcement followed up and said
you need to convert it back into a residential unit,
which they haven't done, so again, we're recommending
service of an enforcement notice.
Now, any comments about this, Councillor Givindja?
Thank you, Chair, Councillor Givindja,
East Patney Ward Councillor.
I don't have a difficulty with the recommendation,
but in the paper, and I can't immediately locate
the reference, it does say that the existing business
at the cafe can function without, with the loss
of the rear bits of the premises.
I just wondered whether the owner had been asked
to provide evidence that he cannot function.
Because if we don't, then I'm not sure we should
make an assertion that he can function.
Because we need to almost have the evidence
to show that he can or cannot.
Do we have any evidence?
So for us, it's not so much can that cafe
specifically continue to operate.
We have to look at it from a planning point of view.
Could this commercial use be viable?
and a small shop like this of 25 square metres
are viable in other locations in the borough.
I've seen fish and chip shops that are very small like this.
I've seen laundry drop off places,
so it's not uncommon to have small commercial spaces
of this size.
I don't have a difficulty with that argument.
All I'm saying is that in making an assertion in the paper
that it can function as a business
with the loss of this space,
then we ought to have evidence.
If we don't have evidence,
we should not make that assertion.
As for this size of commercial promises can function,
perfectly right that they do,
and that plenty of them are functioning,
but it's just that presentation argument
rather than principle argument.
I think, take note of that.
Other comments, Councillor Ayers.
Yes, I'm Finna Ayers.
I'm Councillor for East Putney.
I'm surprised myself over this one because normally I'd fight to the death to return
a flat where there has been one.
But it's quite a miserable little flat and it looks like rather a nice cafe.
I'm divided in what to feel about it.
I'm hoping to be persuaded one way or the other because I'm really sitting on the
fence at the moment.
The cafe looks as though it works well with the restaurant as it is, with the kitchen as it is.
I can't see how you could actually have a kitchen and a cafe if you took the flat out.
I can see you might have a sandwich bar or something, but not a cafe.
I think a cafe there is rather good to serve the surrounding area.
So somebody persuade me to flee, because at the moment I'll either abstain or I'll vote against enforcement.
The only thing I would add on that is to say with our planners hat on we just have to look at the planning use, not that specific cafe or that specific business.
Yes, I know that.
The only other thing I would add is the protection of our residential stock.
The residential units is one of our in -principle planning policies and has been for a very long time.
And obviously we have already refused planning permission, so on policy grounds
it's quite difficult for us to now make a U -turn on that and arrive at a different conclusion
when our policies have been consistent.
Councillor Worrall.
Councillor.
Thank you, Councillor Warshawski in Queenstown.
I actually know this premises,
because I remember it used to be a hat shop before Alice,
and a clothing shop,
so it's gone through many iterations as a business.
A large proportion of the population that uses this
are actually the students in the area,
and it's used mainly to pick up sandwiches
and other things and take away,
rather than just sit there.
And in summer, the street pavement,
and just have tables outside this.
I think it functions really well.
And actually, so I don't see a loss of revenue
or business per se if we upheld this notice.
I must say, I must say this is very unusual for me
in the position of chair, but it is my ward
and I know it pretty well.
If you look at the picture on page 149,
You'll see how close the new RCA building,
new, 10 years perhaps,
but new compared with the age of the property,
is so closely against it,
and the road is not really a road anymore,
it's a stub of a cul -de -sac there.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the cafe,
I'm not sure as a residential unit,
I totally respect the Councillor's position
on loss of residential units,
but this is a single, very small residential unit.
It's one of the weakest I can think of.
Councillor Apps.
Councillor App's Chastity in Queenstown Ward.
I'm very interested to hear these reflections
because when I read this proposal,
I felt very sad about it and thought,
well if we have to do it on planning grounds, so be it.
But it did feel like it was probably made
a better larger cafe than it did a flat.
Right.
We've had one, two, three, any other comments,
views, Council of India?
Sympathy is one thing, but policy is another,
and is it not our function to uphold
the policies of this council?
I entirely agree that it's a nice cafe
and I entirely agree that lots of young people use it
and all of those things, but you cannot on one day
decide that this is an inappropriate planning application
and refuse it, and the next day somebody says,
well, so what, I'm just going to carry on.
And then we say, oh, I'm sorry, such a lovely cafe,
let them carry on.
I mean, that is not the way to make planning decisions,
if I may say so.
Absolutely correct and accurate, but I think the circumstances have rather changed with
that building squeezed up against one side of it.
But Councillor Apps, do you want to come back on that?
Sorry, Councillor Ayres, I beg your pardon.
I quite that the quality of mercy is not strange.
Any other views?
Councillor Humphries again.
I'm not going to keep saying it again but I agree it would be foolish however sympathetic
we might be to go against policy on this because it's just creating a rod for our own back
in another case as the issue.
Interesting, I must remember that some of the council policy positions that I can think
of which I think probably both sides have taken the reverse view.
So it's two ways as I know it with planning applications.
Any other comments?
No.
Well the recommendation is to pursue enforcement action.
Can I see those in favour?
Seven.
Great.
Two against.
I take those against?
And three abstentions.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Raybould.
Early night for you.
I hope it goes well tomorrow.
This is just because we're being presented in court tomorrow about some enforcement action
where someone's appealing against.
Mr Abort has a busy day tomorrow.
So going back to the applications, first of all, 3232A, Khartoum Road, page 5.
I don't think we need presentations on these, but a very brief introduction.
Mr. Grainger, perhaps?
Certainly, Chair. This is domestic extensions to a purpose -built set of masonettes,
roof extensions and a small terrace and a single -storey rear extension.
So, yeah, the terrace has a visibility screen surrounding it, and it's recommended for approval.
Any comments?
No, nor me.
So I take it the officers recommendations agreed.
Agreed unanimously. Thank you. Item number two
96 to 104 up at Tooting Road page 21
etc. Again brief intro Mr. Grainger.
Certainly, Chedd. I am Mr Grainger of the East Area team, I should say. This is becoming
a habit and I really apologise. Yeah, so this site is the redevelopment of the existing
parcel of land and the erection of a part four, part five storey building to provide
23 residential units with commercial through a basement and ground floor level with other
associated uses. I think members probably had to spend a lot of time reading the planning
history on this because a lot has gone on over a period of time and there was at one
point in 2019 a resolution to grant from the committee that ultimately didn't survive because
the applicant couldn't conclude the section 106 planning obligation.
But that was a different scheme with a greater number of units that continued further into
Prices Close.
So there are a lot of differences between this application and that which was resolved
to grants.
And ultimately there have been a number of elements around this proposal that have changed
particularly with the 2023 adoption of the local plan that this proposal is now
in a degree of conflict with and to to that end the proposal is recommended for
refusal on a number of grounds.
Councillor Colle.
Thank you chair. Councillor Colle for St. Mary's Ward. This is in terms of the
amount of violations of the local plan.
This is probably the worst application that I've seen
while I'm on the committee.
And I just don't understand how we've got to the point
where it's sort of come up to committee.
Like it's so many violations.
It almost feels like a waste of both officer time
and elected representative time just to talk about this.
Like it's just so, it's not even,
it's not even got the necessary fire safety.
It almost feels like a waste of time talking about it.
I must say, when I first was on this committee,
which is a week or two ago,
I had originally thought of it as being
rather like being a cricket umpire,
deciding on each ball whether it was gonna hit
the wicket or not.
Took me a bit of time, maybe a meeting or two,
that the papers only come through really
if there's got officers recommendations,
otherwise it's only a waste of time.
And officers, I hadn't realised this,
thought it was a defeat if the developer
insisted on it going forward,
even though they would be recommending refusal.
So here's I'm answering for Mr. Granger,
I have no idea whether that's true,
Is it roughly true what happened here?
That you couldn't recommend,
but the developers wanted to go ahead anyway?
Well yes, I mean there were a number of difficulties
with this proposal.
It's been a very difficult experience
in trying to explain to you what I just explained
in terms of the change in the policy picture
from 2019 to 2023, this application came in with pretty much the same technical reports
and the same assessment in 2024, referring to a now expunged development management document.
It just wasn't relevant.
A lot of work had to then be put into play to effectively educate the applicant that,
well, you can't do that.
This has changed, this has changed, this has changed.
Energy emphasis, fire strategy emphasis,
all of these various strands that
have changed significantly from a previous policy regime.
So the whole thing was on the back foot from that position.
And obviously, the tall buildings policies
has come in in the mid -rise zones,
and then the buildings up to four storeys
that are considered low rise.
So the whole policy picture shifted.
and this is a fundamental problem
from the absolute very beginning.
And in that regard, things just kind of like
continually kept on, we had to push back on so many issues
and try and get things resolved
during the life of the application
that the applicants attempts to do that
ultimately have failed.
So in all of these reasons for refusal, normally we would be able to negotiate and obtain the
information in order to make a vast number of these reasons irrelevant.
But we didn't get the information, therefore we have to apply them.
Otherwise our position at appeal isn't safe.
Councillor Worrall.
Just for clarification,
thinking back to a previous meeting,
should we agree with your recommendations and refuse this?
Is it my assumption that it would go to appeal,
and if that appeal was lost,
then we'd be sitting here waiting for another application
to come through from the developers again?
Are we in that catch -22 circular process at the moment?
Absolutely, and it's very much in the, you know, the developer has a set of rights and
it's enshrined within the Act.
So if this was refused tonight, then they have a right to appeal within six months.
You would look at the amount of work that has to be done and some of the in -principle
reasons that anybody looking at their chances of success would have to have a long, hard
stare and think is it worth trying to defend all of this or they you know it's
refused they choose not to appeal and they sit down and look at all of the
reasons for refusal and try and resolve them through a reduced built envelope
and literally work through all of the raft of those technical aspects.
Okay, now given all that, Councillor Ayers, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor is, Councillor
Humphreys and...
Me first, sorry.
Go on.
Mr. Mayor.
Councillor Ayers.
Oh, thank you.
Well, it's...
Well...
I think even aside from all the ways that it does not comply, it's a really bad design.
There are so many things which are poor in the design.
I don't even get interested in your compliance issues.
There are three flats with single aspects facing north.
that the bike provision is so hopeless,
I mean, it would never be used,
and so the bikes would end up all over the place
causing a nuisance.
The street scene has been completely stripped of its life
by having one function all along that long frontage.
I mean, when you look at the photographs
of how the street was,
with all those funny little shops doing different things,
and it's so lively and interesting,
and to have just one long restaurant window is killer to the street.
So there are many things wrong with the design, the product,
let alone the process of how it got here.
So I'm very much in favour of refusing it.
Councillor Humphreys, is anyone going to speak in favour of it by the way?
So just let me point that out.
I think I did a Mr Grainger, I don't think I said who I was either.
It's a bit late now isn't it?
counts that Guy Humphries from Southfield's in Putney better
late than ever.
Actually, well, am I going to speak in favour?
I might.
It's interesting, isn't it?
I read this, first of all, and I thought, crikey,
we've chucked everything in this one.
Yes, it's true.
It's a flawed scheme.
But there are lots of flawed schemes
across the borough that have been approved over the years
for various elements.
So I think as Mr. Grainger sort of alluded to,
I think the frustration on this one is there's
a lot of things that could be remedied
to make it acceptable that aren't necessarily
that massive in essence.
And that's the frustration I can see we've had here
comes through the report.
But in essence, granted, as Mr. Grainger's told us,
the policy framework has moved a long way since 2019.
scheme, but in essence it's the similar schemes that were sought acceptable last time around,
the front part of it anyway.
And it's very frustrating that we can't get to a place where it could be approved, because
we do want more housing in the borough, and it's not as out of place as a lot of other
things that we've approved on this committee in the last few months.
And I'm slightly perhaps frustrated on it, that in lots of cases where there's been a
good case made for why we shouldn't approve things.
And they have gone on to be approved.
And this is, yes, I'm thinking of sites like gas holders
where that was a medium -height scheme,
and we got 29 storeys on it, and that was sort of OK.
So we do go against policy when there's a justification
and reasons for it.
So it's a bit sort of, not simplistic,
but it's a bit simplistic to say it's against policy,
so it's wrong.
We often do go against our policies
there's good enough reasons to do it.
So it's a bigger picture than that.
And I do hope whatever happens tonight
that the applicant can come back with a scheme
that is acceptable because what is there isn't wonderful.
It is well overdue for redevelopment
and we want something that's decent there,
but we do need the housing.
So I'm a little frustrated on this one.
That's all I'll say at the moment.
Councillor Pridham, I think you had your hand.
Is that right?
I was just going to sort of clarify or ask for clarification on what sort of changes
would need to be made or what kind of application on that site would have a greater chance of
approval because I guess my concern is, I share Councillor Humphries concern that the
existing building is not exactly particularly pretty or contributing much to the local area
And secondly, that going around the houses on this just means that we don't build housing
that is most certainly needed in the area.
So again, quite keen to get to a point where the site can be developed, just wondering
exactly – obviously you can't say for certain, but what sort of changes would need
to be made and how easy are they to make.
And also in your comments earlier, Mr. Gregor, you alluded to essentially the applicant not
being receptive and not really engaging with the process of trying to make changes to the
application that would make it possible to recommend it for approval.
I wonder if you could elaborate on that.
It's not that they didn't, they just didn't appreciate that the policy, they couldn't,
they couldn't, they couldn't understand, in layman's terms, they couldn't understand
what the position was between then and now,
which is a really human and honest,
kind of like in past it's fine,
but having tried to explain to this change
a number of times, it just wasn't working.
We couldn't get this policy change over to them,
which resulted in nothing being modified,
nothing being improved.
So obviously, you know, if there's a tall buildings policy where five is mid -rise and
it's outside of that zone, then obviously a four -storey building would alleviate that
policy failure.
And you can work through the design reasons for refusal, which obviously always there
is a small degree of subjectivity.
But in terms of the tall building elements, that is something that should possess less
objectivity, especially when we've got the Grade 2 listed public house in close proximity
to the site and the previous proposal was able to demonstrate public benefits, but this
simply can't do that anymore because there's no affordable housing.
So there isn't anything in the NPPF that specifically talks about heritage, that if you once did
something but you can't anymore, then we'll forget about it or you're well done.
It's very straightforward in terms of what you do to deal with harm through public benefits.
So all of these things, I mean, you start to get through to the technical matters in
terms of the lack of wheelchair accessible units, children's play space, all of these
things, redesigning the access to the cycle storage, fire safety.
I mean these are technical elements that can be worked through, through a careful and considered
approach, but it would cost, it would result in a reduction of units, which is something
that the applicant ultimately has obviously found objectionable.
So this is where we are.
Councillor Galindo.
Thanks, Chair.
There are several issues here, I think.
Previous approval included land at the back,
a series of muse houses, and it's not in this application.
So I just want to know what's the future
of those muse houses, or that bit of the site.
I also note that the previous application, 2019 one,
I'm assuming it's the same applicant,
it's not a different applicant.
But the 2019 application was also for five storeys,
and all that's changed in the interim
is the policy framework around heights.
I'm just wondering where do we stand
in terms of previously five was okay,
and does policy change on its own justify
now insisting that five is not okay?
In a sense, I just want to understand that better.
The question that sticks in my mind is that
the recent Merrill and Secretary of State announcements
about unlocking growth talked about less stress
to be placed on single aspect units.
It also talked about bike parking standards.
Now, where do we stand in this situation?
in placing our refusal around those aspects
where the policy framework has changed
since this application was made.
So I just want to understand how that
recent announcements impact on applications
currently in the pipeline like this one
and how confident are we that we can
refuse on grounds such as single aspect
and the quality and level of bike provision.
In ending, can I also say that I felt particularly egregious
that the applicant had made no attempt
to think through how a disabled person
might park the car at the back
and then access the units from the front.
I just thought it was an almost tick box.
I need to have one of those without thinking through
how the person might actually manoeuvre themselves
from the back to the front.
And finally, sorry, the communal amenity
on the fourth floor in your future negotiations,
I hope some stress can be placed on the requirement
that these spaces have to be easily accessible to people.
I mean, taking your child up to the fourth floor to play
whilst you are in the middle of cooking
is not a very easy thing to do, I suspect.
And I just hope that there's some thought given
to the usability of communal play space.
Didn't you ever used to cook when you had a youngster around?
I used to cook.
That's, wow.
You asked a number of very interesting questions.
One that always puzzles me to a certain extent.
and that is when a developer or potential developer
has spent a lot of money planning and so on,
and then finds that the plans have changed under his feet,
which is interesting and what allowances we should make.
I think Mr. Cawdon wants to say something
about that kind of issue.
I think you've made a very good point, Councillor Gavindya,
about the change in policy and the ministerial statement
and what it's bringing forward.
I think I've had further discussions with GLA and CLG, I'll call them for sure.
At the moment there is no change.
There's going to be four further consultations, two undertaken by CLG regarding SIL regulations
and changes to the mayoral system, and then two undertaken by the GLA, which will be local
plan of supplementary guidance which will cover things like the single aspect units,
bicycle storage, number of units on the course and things like that.
So that's further information that's going to come out, be subject to consultation and
then be adopted further down the line.
So at the moment we're at a rather interim stage where it will probably happen but we've
got to go through consultation.
So for the purposes of this we don't know where we'll be when the appeal comes in.
So we need to put those as reasons for refusal.
If it comes and they're changed, then the Inspector might say,
we'll dismiss on these grounds, but we won't sustain on those.
So it'll be a value judgement for the Inspector if we get that far,
or if they decide we've set out a framework for the refusals,
they can come back at a pre -app and look at this afresh,
and then they've got those reasons,
and we will then make a further line in the sand on policy
when we've got that further information.
Mr. Calder is as much a prisoner of the situation
as we all are, but he does show you
that while the planning system is broken
and everyone tells us that it is broken,
but those who are trying to fix it
carry on breaking it even further.
So we are in a very peculiar limbo.
Everyone thinks that they can build
with our single aspect, but no, they can't.
and then we might refuse and they would go to appeal
and the inspector might say,
oh, you should have taken account of emerging guidance.
Not a very satisfactory situation,
but we are all in the same boat there.
No, we're not.
I don't believe the planning system's broken at all.
I think the planning system in this,
I think the planning system in this country,
compared with something sometimes I see elsewhere,
is rather good.
it is clearly the case that whenever it changes,
and it changes all the time,
especially in these days of climate change,
then there is an issue where it's out of date
and being modernised and what's,
I mean that's not a consequence
of the planning system being wrong,
it's a question of the planning system being changed
and the fact that there's change in movement all the time.
So I don't agree with the view that it's broken.
It's being adapted and modernised as it always is.
Interesting discussion.
You did ask other questions too, Mr. Grainger.
You've got a handle on those.
I apologise if you have.
I've cancelled the video.
I've just got your notes on communal spaces.
as a note to make it easily accessible,
and then the single aspect storage
which Mr. Calder covered,
and then whether it's when it was okay or not okay,
which I think Mr. Calder touched on
in terms of when policy evolves and is adopted,
that is when we apply those policies.
In a sense, we established a precedent
that this site can take five storeys in 2019,
and then our policies changed.
and would that stand the test of an appeal?
We believe so because this application has been made
as a standalone application which is tested
against a very young plan.
So it's not as though it's technical
because it was a resolution to grants,
it was never a permission as well.
I can't remember the position I took in 2019.
Councillor Humphries was presumably chairing it,
I'm not quite sure.
But looking at it, the building now,
and reading it now,
and knowing my tooting reasonably well,
and the relationship to the rather grand pub next door,
I would definitely go for the officer's recommendation
of refusing it.
I don't think it fits at all.
So those in favour of the officer's recommendation.
Sorry, that's six, six.
Well, in that case you'll be voting for it.
Those in favour of the officer's recommendation.
Seven.
Those against?
Three abstentions, yep.
Okay, move on to the next item, which is, ah, the next item is behind Theatre Street,
what's the formal address, Theatre Street or the one at the bottom, Theatre Street,
application number three, page 85.
Mr Grainger?
This is a proposal for two single storey dwellings squeezed in between some former commercial
buildings that are now being converted to residential under the prior approval regime
and recommended for approval.
Comments?
Councillor Apps.
Thank you.
I think it's very up a sight that Mr. Grainger
used the word squeezed in,
because that would be my sense of this application.
It is very squeezed in, and I looked at the objection
letters that came from residents,
and certainly they felt, I mean I should say it's my ward,
so I have a particular interest, but not,
obviously I remain open to being persuaded,
but I do think that there are real concerns about
It's a sort of back garden style development.
It's very tight in the spaces.
It's quite ingenious, but I don't think that will
lessen the sense of being overlooked
and the sense of being kind of overshadowed
by this development.
There is some points at which it says about it
being 0 .5 metres, that's half a metre higher
than the existing boundary wall.
These are very small gardens.
I mean, this bit of Battersea, you rarely get a big garden.
And so to have half a metre higher over your garden
is a significant loss.
I was looking particularly, so 179A, Latchmere Road,
the owner there made some representations.
And actually, and I was interested in the legalities
of this.
It may be that it becomes a party wall dispute,
and that's dealt with separately.
but I'm interested to know.
The development actually is, unlike the previous ones,
which were stepped back from that boundary,
the latest proposals actually build over the boundary wall,
which according to that resident,
is entirely within his property area.
It's not actually a party wall
that is owned by the other party.
And that actually there's an amenity
which is a shed that's built into that as well.
And that really concerned me that this,
even the sort of, the ownership of this
doesn't seem to have been sorted out.
And yet we're talking about approving a plan
which builds over something which somebody asserts
and has, states they have reasonable evidence,
belongs to them.
So I am concerned about it.
I am generally concerned about these.
I just remember the Balun plan,
which was later reduced in scale.
I do think before this is approved,
I'd want to know whether or not things like
lowering the ground level for that development.
So it didn't overshadow to such an extent
had been explored fully because it may be
that that hasn't been as explored as fully as it could be.
Thank you very much.
Any other comments? Any other questions?
Councillor Humphries, thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I actually thought this was quite clever.
Obviously it's continuing on what we've already got and filling in the gap in between the ones that are already there.
But I often think with these really tight, constrained sites you can get some cleverer developments.
And I think they're actually quite good little units.
And yes, they're single aspects, and yes, they're small
and all the rest of it.
But it is just the kind of stuff that we
need to have to fill in those gaps
to get the density of accommodation
that we need in the borough.
So I think it's actually quite a good scheme.
They've obviously thought about that.
Counts Raps's point about the back walls.
And they haven't encroached, I think,
except for one across the whole of the back space.
They've kept it to a minimum.
So I was thinking, why it's 1 .3 metres across,
and there's 3 .8 metres that are still free.
So they have tried to do their best, I think, to be labelled in that sense,
to respect the neighbour's space and still make it a viable unit.
So in my opinion, I think they're quite good units.
There's always a compromise in such a tight environment,
but I think it's worth it for the units that we're going to get out of it,
and I'll be supporting that for index.
Councillor Toole.
Yes, I'd echo what Councillor Apps says.
Yes, this is very very squashed. I mean have I
Never had to zoom in so much on Google Maps to to view
something that's been applied for
so
Yeah, that was quite a shock and
Yes, I mean it the
it's basically an alleyway as far as I can see and it's already got
some houses crammed into it.
I wonder what effect it would have
on the nearby new houses that's already in that space.
And also,
since the Latchmere Road houses are very close together,
where it's very tight, there's no sort of alleyways
or anything to escape to the front onto Latchmere Road
in the event of a fire,
if the front door isn't available.
I do wonder about fire safety for Latchmere Road houses
and are we taking away the means for people
in Latchmere Road to escape via the garden,
the rear entrance?
Mr. Grainger, a couple of questions, I think.
I have alternatives like lowering,
excavating a couple of half a yard down,
being looked at, and would that make any difference
in your view, is one question.
Councillor Tiller's view about far safety
in terms of pit residents in Latchmere Road.
A couple of questions.
Okay, thank you everyone.
I'd just like to quickly point out
just on daylight and sunlight impacts,
it's very clear and possibly unsurprising
that these single storey structures
have no impacts whatsoever on the vertical sky component
and the no skyline because they're single storey
behind existing boundary treatments
that flank this linear parcel of land.
So it's been demonstrated there is no impact in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts
to existing residential occupiers.
I think Councillor Humphreys was alluding to power 4 .10, where house one would project
37 centimetres higher than the existing boundary wall.
However, it would only be 1 .1 metres wide and due to the difference in levels, the north
section of the building, 1 .5 wide would project for 0 .37.
I mean, it goes on in terms of this between 35
and 40 centimetres in the linear format.
It's not linear actually,
because there's a very pronounced change
in the level of the land around there.
But all the boundary treatments all respond
as it falls away.
But it's for a very short period
where this additional height is because that's where the biggest, it's actually saddles the
most significant drop in the land which would require about possibly about eight or nine steps
I recall seeing on a on a landscaping plan. So in terms of its impact this possibly is one of the
least impactful schemes I've seen and when compared to backland sites that have recently been resolved
to be approved at committee in terms of two -storey structures or one -storey structures and how
they relate to their existing boundary treatments.
So they're very – it's been well thought out in terms of responding to those changes
in levels.
And certainly there's no requirement in officers' view to see that these would be
sunk further into the ground in order to have an acceptable impact when we think that the
impacts is acceptable in any case.
The fire safety matter, I mean, each parcel of land,
each site that has been historically constructed
over the years, they wouldn't.
It's a discussion whether they would
meet the current building regulations
and haven't done for decades.
So the fact that this parcel of land
and has to deal with its own fire safety impacts,
and there would be a boundary treatment
in between those properties on Latchmere Road
and Theatre Street that people would have to scale
and wouldn't be able to on the Latchmere side
because there would be these buildings
that literally back on to that boundary treatment
that are all windowless, so they can't overlook them,
then fire safety is not a matter
for this applicant to consider.
Thank you. Any other Councillors? Councillor Colle. Councillor Abbs wants to come back again.
So that's Councillor Ayers, Councillor Colle.
Thank you, yes thank you Chair. I think we've seen a lot of these backland sites
and this looks initially to be the most difficult, the narrowest, it's got a huge change of level
half way along.
And yet I think it's one of the best we've seen
in terms of respect for the neighbours.
It doesn't have a, it's not dug any basements
to make some wretched basement rooms
with so -called light wells.
It's not got a second storey to try and block off thing
and squeeze one more bedroom in.
I think it's modest, it's not greedy.
There are only two bedroom houses.
And I think if you have a look at the before and after revised drawings, I must present
a bouquet to the officers because the improvement on the revised drawings, even on a simple
little plan, they are much better, the revised plans.
So I would say well done everybody for this and I hope we can get it through.
Councillor Colby?
I completely agree with Councillor Ayres.
It's basically just two single storey buildings.
I don't see...
Basically I feel like if this is rejected I don't think anything would ever get developed
on there because it's just two single storey buildings.
It's not built up too much, it's not got a basement.
and it's quite respectful to the area.
I feel like, yeah, I feel like if it's rejected
then I feel like nothing will ever get built there
and there'll just sort of just be this space that's unused.
So I feel like it's as good as we can probably hope for
for a space that small.
Can you answer that?
Yeah, I think what's often missed
with some of these areas like in Battersea is that unlike some of the other areas in
the borough that have much more kind of garden space around them, these are tiny, tiny garden
spaces that are very precious to residents.
And quite frankly, protecting those amenities of those properties is an important feature
of their lives and of quality of life
and it should be respected.
And I think unfortunately some areas
are not suitable for development.
Perhaps it might be that there needs to be
a different approach taken to it altogether.
But as clever as it might be,
I do think it would have an impact on those neighbours
which I think is disproportionate.
I rather suspect, well I think I know which way it's going.
I think most people have had their say.
So I put the officer's recommendation to the committee.
Those in favour?
Seven?
Seven.
I had my hand up.
Well, kind of.
Seven.
I add those against.
was there not abstention? No. Okay. 8 -2. Right. Thank you and move on to Wakehurst Road, item
four. Mr. Grainger.
A series of extensions to an existing dwelling house.
I think of notes, there's a ridge raise of 250 millimetres,
but there's an extension to the basement area
and rear extensions and a hip scable roof extension as well.
Interesting house, not terribly dissimilar from mine.
Very close.
What's in the basement?
And a swimming pool next.
It's an interesting development.
Any comments?
Is the recommendation agreed?
Oh sorry, Councillor Di Vindia.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't have a real difficulty with this application,
except for the hip to gable.
Except for what, sorry?
The hip to gable change.
In fact, paragraph 1 .3 and page 126 says in effect that there has already been a creeping
loss of hip to gable.
And I just wonder what do we do to actually arrest that creeping loss of that distinctive
bit of...
Every justification to allow one to fall means that the creep carries on.
and I just don't think we're being firm enough
in resisting that effectively filling in
that bit of the sky.
Well, as a general point, then, this application,
but it's one that's...
I mean, that extension, that style extension,
is getting on for universal in the particular area, which I obviously know quite well.
I don't see how... It seems to me difficult to stop now, Mr Korda.
Many of them were permitted development anyway, so they didn't even need consent.
So that's our starting point, there's so many.
So, given that recommendation agreed?
Agreed.
That's agreed.
Thank you.
And we have the papers to acknowledge, accept, comment on if one's interested.
The decisions paper, agreed, noted.
Closure investigation files, noted.
And closed appeals, noted.
And thank you and good evening.
Thank you.