Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 18 December 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 18th December 2025 at 7:30pm 

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

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the December meeting of the Planning Applications Committee.

1 Minutes - 19th November 2025

It's the last one of the year, obviously.
So my first announcement is anyone who manages to stay through to the end is welcome to join me in midwinter.
I call them drinks and mince pies next door, across the other side of the corridor, if you stay there that long.
That's the first thing I'm going to say.
Secondly, we've got some apologies from Councillor Coakley and
Councillor Worrell and Councillor Jeffries for lateness.
And I'm rather, oh, he's just here, so not very late.
Councillor Apps has got car problems somewhere in -
Aires.
Aires, sorry, why did I say Aires?
Councillor Aires has got car problems somewhere in Hammersmith and is struggling with the AA.
So best of luck to her.
There's one other thing I'm going to say just in case this applies to rather more people
than just me and Councillor Gavindya and Councillor Humphreys.
But on yesterday, ex -Councillor Martin Johnson died.
I just want to mention him because he was a Councillor for Northcote Ward from 1974
to 2018, 44 years, in one ward, he had been a councillor in another before, and he was
an almost, Councillor Galindo and I discussed it very briefly, almost permanent member of
this committee, that's why I mention him, he was never actually chair, though he was
chair of the senior committee, the one that sits above us for quite a few years, but he
He was a member for years and years and years and years.
So I thought it should just be mentioned.
Now I'm going to introduce people at the top here, straight away,
but ask members to introduce themselves as they make contributions.
My name's Tony Belton, I'm a counsellor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea, and I have with me.
Good evening, I'm Nick Calderon, the head of development management at Wandsworth.
Good evening, my name is Duncan Mors, I'm the external legal advisor.
Good evening, I'm Becky Hickey and I'm Nia Clark for the meeting.
Thank you.
Do any members have any interests, any peculiar, pecuniary or other interests?
I'm obviously having a good day here.
But canary or other interests that they wish to declare.
No declarations of interest.
Councillor Humphries, have you seen the minutes?
Can I sign the minutes as a correct record?
Agreed.
Thank you.
I was having a brief conversation with a member of the public beforehand, and I thought it was worth also clarifying.
It has never ever been the practise of the council to notify neighbours of when applications come to committee in an automatic sense.
it would be virtually impossible to do if you think of a very large application like Battersea Power Station, for instance.
It would mean notifying virtually everyone.
We don't do that.
If you have heard before in advance, it's because you've heard,
you've seen notice of the planning application or because your ward counsellor has notified you.
Or some other reason, we have never ever done it.
and I suspect before the modern age it would be impossible to do so.
In the modern age I suppose it is possible, but we haven't got the software at the moment,
to think about sending notice to every single email address of every single person
who made a comment by email to us so we knew where to send it to.
But we don't at the moment, but it's not for wishing to leave out anyone.
So if anyone feels that they missed out on a particular application this evening, sorry about that. It certainly wasn't intentional.
Now moving on to the applications,
I'm going to deal with

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-449)

Western area first because our
main planning officer concerned of that is offline and is it's tuned in somewhere or other and
so the first application is
215 Upper Richmond Road application 2025,
stroke 3036, and to do with a changing conditions
for extended hours.
So it's an application for extended hours
of the use of the gymnasium.
I think members will have all read that,
and it's a fairly simple and straightforward application.
So should I go straight to asking if people
have got questions or any comments they want to make?
Councillor Govinda.
Thank you, it's Councillor Govinda, East Patnae Ward, Councillor.
Reading through the papers, I didn't get, I couldn't pick out how the late night operation would be staffed.
It talks about there'd be a FOB and members would come in and out by a FOB.
I said it's kind of a question in my mind,
is that will the premises be entirely staff free,
and what happens if there are issues
that neighbours want to raise,
particularly given that the neighbours concerns
are about noise and disturbance possibly.
So that's one question.
My second point is that when I used to sit
on the licencing committee,
One of the things that were regularly mentioned was the late night ambient noise levels are
much more perceptible simply because there is no other noise to conflict and therefore
it's sort of the noise that is annoying you tends to travel far further and seems louder.
Has that factor been taken into account in making the assessment of neighbors' objections
based on noise. Have other people got other queries before we introduce the
planner? Councillor Apsley. So Councillor Apsley, Chastry and Queenstown Ward. Yes I wanted to raise
this particular because it relates to Councillor Covindia's point which is it
says that if members drop weights in the gym that that will be monitored and
those members might lose their membership as a result.
But I did want to know how that would work
if there was no staffing.
Thank you.
Councillor Tiller.
Yes, I share the concerns already expressed about noise.
Sorry Matthew, quick intro.
Oh, sorry.
Matthew Tiller, Councillor for Roehampton.
Yeah, I share the concerns already expressed about noise coming from the gym, especially
late at night.
Yeah I wouldn't want to be in the position of the residents directly above the gym.
And also, how would the West Putney Conservation Area relate to this?
Is the conservation area not intended to be residential at night?
Councillor Humphreys.
Thank you, Chair.
Guy Humphreys, Councillor for Southfields in Putney.
I agree with some of those comments we've already had, but my concern was it's stated
that the applicants said that it's going to be very low usage during the nighttime hours,
but that raises the concern with me that, A, why is it worthwhile doing it if it's such
low usage but that's not necessarily our concern as planners but obviously what
might happen is that if that we grant we were to grant the permission of 24 -7 use
and it was to change hands or the business model change you could have a
lot more intensive use and we'd have no control over that at the time having
already granted 24 -7 use and that's the sort of a raises a slight alarm bell in
my hand because we would have no aegis over that once we've already granted it
for 24 -7 use.
Right. Now I see Miss Richards in front of me, which is rather strange, seeing that she's behind me, but I can see her on the screen in front of me.
Hello, Miss Richards, how are you? Introduce yourself, please.
Good evening, Chairman. My name is Ellen Richards. I'm the team leader for the West Area.
It's all rather disconcerting to see myself on a big screen behind you all.
there. But apologies for not being able to attend in person. I will go through all the
questions as they were asked, just because I've made a note of them. Councillor de Vindia's
question and a number of councillors' questions about staffing, the applicants have stated
that it's intended that there wouldn't be any staff on site in the night time and the
reason that they don't require the staff there is that as stated the members of the gym already
have a fob access so they can come and go as they please. The applicants have said that for
an initial period of time just to bed this in that they would actually arrange for staff
to be at the gym, just to monitor and sort of advise those who do want to use the gym
late at night and early morning of the rules and the importance of being considerate of
neighbours in terms of how they use the equipment and to limit any noise impact as much as possible.
This also ties in, I suppose, with the low usage question to a degree.
This is based on Anytime Gym's existing facility that opens at 24 hours, which is in Wandsworth.
And they've monitored this and another one in another location.
and on average it's about 4 % of their membership that use the facility late at night and into
the early hours, so they anticipate that there wouldn't be a problem. Also, coming into the
ambient noise point that was raised, none of the classes that operate during the daytime.
Have you not heard me at all?
Yeah, I've heard most of you.
Ah, there we are.
Something happened there, it's muted.
So where was I?
In terms of there aren't normal classes in the evening, there would be operating, no
music, no kind of personnel leading a class or anything, so there shouldn't be an increase
of noise in that regard like you would normally have.
For clarification as well, the actual heavy weights elements where they do potentially have an impact,
where people drop their weights and so on, that's actually located in the basement, not at the ground.
So there is a whole floor that separates the heavier kind of equipment area and the strength training from any residential above.
And there's also some drop mats that are in 40 millimetre rubber flooring that's been
installed to try and limit any impact in any event.
So our environmental health officer has assessed their acoustic report and the testing that
did in terms of ambience and as well in terms of background noise levels and so on and they're
satisfied that they would barely be audible, there would be any change. So overall they're
comfortable with it going to 24 hours, particularly taking into consideration the layout of the
gym and also the hours and the limited usage at that time of night. A noise management
plan has been recommended and secured through a condition number four that they have to submit
further details to us which are set out in the report as well on page 10 the general kind of
gist of what what they would need to take into account. So that sort of covers all of that.
The conservation area impact I don't think there is any real impact on the conservation area in
in terms of this proposal, this is for the removal of condition associated with an existing use.
And so there isn't any consideration to the heritage asset as part of the assessment.
Mr. Richards, did I get the impression that the operator runs similar establishments,
so satisfies themselves in terms of the market business that counts Humphreys raised,
but also admitted it wasn't a planning issue.
but they have experience, they'll swerve, that kind of thing, yes?
Yes, that's correct. I also wanted to say that this is intended, I suppose, for people who,
I guess there's a demand for it to a degree, albeit quite low, because of people who do work different hours,
you know, who do shifts and so on, and still want to use a facility to, you know, to keep fit and so on.
So it opens up an opportunity in that regard,
and it's located in the town centre.
So it's a suitable location, albeit
that we understand that neighbours are rather
concerned about it.
As this is not something that will last away,
it may do, but it's not like a building, something that you
either put up or don't.
We have an option here which doesn't
apply in all circumstances.
And I'm sure the officers would rather not, but
we could put a condition on for a matter of debate.
18 months, two years to see if it operates successfully without causing
neighbours problems and if it does cause them problems,
well it will be a discipline for them to make sure it works, won't it?
So no problem with that, Mr. Richards?
No, not at all. We've actually approached the applicant on this point and asked them
if that would be something that they would be willing to consider just because we want
to be able to monitor how it goes and how their members behave really in terms of night -time
use. So it's certainly an option that we could consider and then it could be reviewed in
months or two years whichever period you know you you think is appropriate what
do people feel I just said off the top of my head 18 months 18 months okay
cancer cancer Britain Thank You chair Tom Pridham
counsellor for lavender Ward in Battersea and just picking up on the point that
council Humphreys made earlier about you know potentially this could move to a
different operator in future are there any are there any conditions we could
put in place vis -a -vis activity late at night that would limit the extent to
which a future operator could run the site in a way that would perhaps be
noisier say maybe limits on music or limits on classes that kind of thing
just to make sure that it's properly safeguarded alongside the potential sort
of sunset clause condition as well. All the safeguards that are within this
would apply to a building rather than the organisation. But I guess there's a
always management plan, but I wonder could we strengthen that and be more specific about
what kind of activities would and would not be permitted, or is that not possible?
My understanding is that that's already in more detail in the report. We've just highlighted
some of the aspects in that committee report. I think picking up Councillor Aps' point,
there's CCTV cameras, so they monitor remotely after the initial period.
Councillor Humphries.
Forgive me for jumping in on Councillor Pridham's question, but I think the gist of it was that
the operator said they won't be doing what might be noisy, like the classes and stuff
and things like that, with music and aerobic target exercises late at night, but is that
specifically conditioned in that management report, or is it just a wish?
Just to clarify that, it is.
That's my understanding.
But Ms Richards, can you confirm that?
Well, I was going to say that there wouldn't be, I don't think, and I'm going to be relying
on Duncan as well for this, but I don't think there would be anything amiss for us to recommend
a condition that would say that there should not be any live classes or those kind of noisy
activities that you would normally find in the daytime, you know, allowed to
occur at night because they operate in that way because they don't have enough
people coming to the classes to justify having them or anything but I don't
think that there'd be any, we do have standard conditions to limit noise that
that is audible from outside of a building or operation. Mr Moles?
Chairman, I think that would fall squarely within a noise management plan so that
that can be added into that condition to alleviate any concerns that members may have about noises and music being,
sorry, classes operating and music being played, so I think that's perfectly acceptable.
Okay, what?
Councillor Galinde?
Point taken.
Point taken, okay.
In that case, can we agree that two year, two year, 18 months, all right, 18 months.
18 months.
Do you want to see the revised conditions?
You're just happy with it.
Okay, so agreed with 18 months time condition.
Thank you.
Move on to the Huguenot Mansions, 2025 -3297.
It's all in the papers but I wonder whether, Miss Richards, do you want to add anything or not?
Not really, it's sort of a roof extension to the rear of the building, the two units.
Fine, I don't think it needs it particularly. Is that agreed?
Agreed. Thank you. That item is agreed. Now we move on to the third item. Are you off,
Ms Richards?
I am. Merry Christmas, everybody.
Sorry. Sorry you're missing out on the mince pies. See you in the new year.
I have a little one here. Thank you.
Okay.
Move on to 2023, stroke 1993, Hildreth Street.
Do people want an introduction or should we go straight to questions?
I know there are questions.
Okay, straight on to questions.
I was particularly praying for an introduction.
But we've got Councillor Hedges here first to talk, represent her constituents.
Councillor Hedges. You know the rules. Thank you Chair and yes thank you Chair Committee
members. Thank you for giving me time to speak. I'm Councillor Lindsay Hedges on
behalf of Ballum Ward residents. I'm here on behalf of residents of Hildreth Street
News. Some are here tonight. Hildreth Street, Colbrook Mansions and
neighbouring flats on Ballum High Road all in Ballum Ward who are united in
a strong objection to planning application 2023 -1993
concerning 129 Hildreth Street Mews in SW12.
Residents concerns are not just about the scale and impact
of what is proposed, but also about the serious procedure
on ownership issues that go to the credibility
of this application.
The first point is around ownership
and notification concerns.
The application was submitted by the head leaseholder,
Sexton Newridge Ballum Limited.
It had been dissolved at the time of submission
and has a history of compulsory strike -offs.
Although it holds the head lease,
the first tier tribunal has removed its management
and leaseholder responsibilities now exercised
by a court -appointed manager.
More concerning still, the freeholder Langard Investments
has confirmed that it's not aware of this application
until residents themselves brought it to their attention.
This raises a fundamental question for the committee.
Can this application properly proceed when it was submitted by a company that had been dissolved,
no longer holds management or had leaseholder responsibilities,
and has acted without the freeholder's knowledge or consent?
So in addition, the certificate of ownership states that all leaseholders were notified in July 2023.
Residents are clear that this did not happen.
multiple lease holders only became aware of the scheme
through the council's consultation letter.
This discrepancy undermines confidence
in the application process and should give members pause.
The second point is overdevelopment and harm to character.
So turning to the planning points,
Hildreth Street Mews, as many of you know here,
is a tight enclosed mews environment
characterised by modest height
and warehouse style buildings
that relate carefully to their surroundings.
buildings. The proposal to increase the height of blocks A and B rising above adjacent Sainsburys
represents overdevelopment and would fundamentally disrupt the established scale and visual balance
of the area. The design is not sympathetic to the MUSE or historic context. Importantly,
similar schemes have been repeatedly refused, including applications 2010 3054, 2011 0734,
and 2011, 53, 34 on precisely these grounds.
There are no material changes here
that justify a different outcome.
And then the third point is loss of light,
privacy and outlook.
As you can imagine, residents are particularly concerned
about loss of daylight and sunlight.
Many affected rooms are single aspect,
single window spaces, including bedrooms
that also function as work from home areas.
Any small reduction in daylight will have
a significant impact on the habitability.
The additional height would also introduce
direct overlooking into neighbouring bedrooms and bathrooms,
resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy.
For some residents, this proposal would block natural light
to their only outdoor space, including balconies.
The fourth point is noise disturbance and well -being.
the increased height would also trap and amplify noise
within the muse, turning it into an echo chamber.
Homes that are currently unaffected by overhead noise
would experience a clear deterioration in living conditions
and residents also would face at least a year
of construction noise, dust and disruption in the area
which is extremely limited anyway in terms of access.
And this would also affect residents, deliveries,
is emergency access and nearby small businesses with serious consequences for well being.
My final point is around waste and environmental pressures.
Finally, as many of you will know this, residents have already experienced significant waste management and
problems with vermin issues as well for many years in this confined space.
adding further residential units would intensify
these problems and place unacceptable pressure
on already inadequate arrangements.
Chair, in summary, this application raises
unresolved ownership and notification concerns,
represents overdevelopment harmful
to the character of the muse,
causes unacceptable loss of light, privacy, and outlook,
exacerbates noise, waste, and access problems,
and repeats issues identified
in previously refused applications.
For these reasons, residents respectfully ask the committee
to refuse the application.
Thank you.
It's now our opportunity to ask Councillor Hedges
of what she knows about the application.
She is not a qualified planner.
It's not our job to ask her or her views about that.
it's anything she knows about the application that she thinks that could expand on it.
But then we move on to discussing with the officers the actual practical application.
Can I start with a simple question?
I'm not sure how much you're aware of this, Councillor Hedges.
You have every right not to be aware of it because you're not a member of the committee.
But do you know that any of us could put in an application to build Buckingham Palace if we like?
There's nothing in the planning system that prevents that.
So when you talked about the credibility and viability of the process, it may be a very
strange occurrence, but actually anyone can do it whether they've got title or ownership
or not.
And I'll give you a specific example that applied in this borough, and that is in 20
years ago, maybe slightly, but I know I've got confirmation from colleagues with my length of time on the council.
There were people applying to do all sorts of funny things to Battersea Power Station,
who didn't own it and had no title to it, but just wanted to make a point and see if they could get planning permission.
So you don't have to own it or have any title whatsoever.
Are you aware of that and do you think the objectors, I mean it may seem very strange,
but do you think the objectors are aware of that?
No.
I understand that.
I mean there's no, it's not publicly announced, but I just thought it might clarify the fact
that your first elements of credibility of the planning system doesn't, that's the way
it is I'm afraid.
Other questions?
Councillor Kilminder.
Not a question of Councillor Hedges.
Oh, okay. Any questions of Councillor Hedges?
Any expansion on anything they want to ask?
No.
Just to be clear, that was one out of five points.
Oh, of course. I just didn't want to waste too much time on one that wasn't actually relevant,
but we can hear the officer's view of that, if you like, in a moment.
Okay. Thank you for that very explicit, considered comment.
Right, questions. Councillor Vindhyaya.
Thank you, Chair. I got two questions really.
It is in fact about first of Councillor Hedges's point.
And it isn't about the application being made by a non -landowner,
but it is about the duty to give notices.
And the duty to give notices does not require you to be a landowner,
but a non -landowner has the same duty to give notices.
So that's the question and I think Councillor Hedges was making the point that the residents
had not been notified and the freeholder had not been notified.
So there are land interests and the land interests should have a notification.
So perhaps Mr Mors can clarify the situation about the notices and whether that invalidates
any of the processes.
And my second question, and that's perhaps to Mr. Calder, which is that there are three
previous refusals, and I read that broadly speaking, they're all required building a
mansard on top of the existing structure and doing more or less what this application is
supposedly doing, less, more flats, less flats, slightly lower, slightly higher, slightly
why there's whatever, but how substantively different is this application from those three
refusals, one after the other, that this becomes acceptable and those three were not?
That's pretty critical, but Mr. Moore's first.
I'll start with the first part and then pass on to Mr. Calder if I may, because he's got
the application form before him.
The Catholic Community is correct that there is a duty to notify landowners under the 2015
procedural regulations.
And it doesn't automatically mean if the challenge is made under that article that there's automatically
it's struck down.
You have to look at whether there's any prejudice to any person who wasn't served with notice.
The whole point obviously is to make people aware of the application and to enable them
to make representation to local planning authority.
That has happened here, but in terms of the actual notice
given, I'll pass on to Mr. Calderon for me.
So in double checking, the initial application
was submitted in May 2023.
They incorrectly filled out the application form.
That was corrected in July 2023 when they served notice
according to their document that they've submitted
to all the properties within Hildreth Street News.
So I've got the list in front of me.
So that should serve as notice,
and for our purposes, we have to take a signed document
as that, as proof of the undertaking.
So if you're happy with that response,
then I'll pass you on to Mr. Grainger for the second part.
Yeah, go on.
Follow up, perhaps some more can help us.
So I appreciate Mr. Calder saying you take the applicant's word as stated.
I have given notice and we don't inquire behind it.
If it is found that he didn't, what recourse do the objectors have or this council has?
Well, a landowner that has not been given notice of an application and has not had the
opportunity to make representations could challenge the grant of planning permission.
They would have to satisfy a court that there's been a procedural breach of the regulations,
but also that they've suffered prejudice as a result of that.
I'm not sure whether any of these residents can actually get over that second hurdle,
even if there was a technical breach of the regulations.
As Mr. Corder said, the authority isn't required
to go behind each of these certificates given
because that would be a very time -consuming endeavour.
And the fact that there are a number of residents here
have made representations against this application
and presumably to the previous ones,
give me comfort that people who are affected
or potentially affected by this application
have had advanced notice of it
and have had the opportunity to make representations.
The issue about the head lease holder company no longer or had been struck off the company's house.
I don't think that's something that would negate the ability of this committee to make a decision on this application.
Mr. Grainger, the second part of this question was what's the difference between this one and the other rejected applications?
The substantive difference.
Thank you, Chair. My name is Nigel Granger and I'm the East Area Team Manager.
I was hoping that these differences would have come out by the papers in terms of the comparisons that we've made at the beginning of the report from the previous refusals.
but in essence, and I think it's always good to be able
to explain or describe the differences.
I do recall the succession of those applications
coming before PAC on a number of instances and refusals.
And the main difference is that they were very much
rectilinear forms that just repeated the footprint
of the blocks themselves below with vertical elevations
and flat roofs, they really overemphasised the,
they effectively turned a three storey structure
into a four storey structure in a highly
unsubtle and blunt way.
So the difference with these applications,
or this proposal I should say,
is the fact that it is of a Mansard style,
not a true Mansard, but a Mansard style insofar as that the structure is designed or has been
designed to read more structurally lightweight and set back from the elevations and importantly
the slopes of the roofs are sloped in a Mansard style.
Notably or typically what we ask for in our design guidance is at 70 degrees.
So that is one of the principal material factors that have allowed officers to be able to look
at the proposals, especially in the light of the dismissed appeal, which even though
it was quite some time ago, we still have to have regard to because it effectively sets
It's a little mini site brief for the proposal and all the elements that the Inspector found
acceptable in that particular decision.
We obviously have to have regard to that and the points where it failed was mainly on the
very again, as I said, the verticality and this additional storey that just read us as
continuing the block skywards.
So therein lies the main key difference.
Chair, may I say it's so much easier to understand Mr. Grainger's verbal presentation compared to the written words.
So thank you very much for that clarity.
Was I not right in saying, Mr. Grainger, that there's a graphic that I can't actually now find it,
but I seem to remember seeing it,
is the graphic of the pseudo -Mansard.
On page 32.
Yes, I thought there was an indication in the paper
of the main difference in a visual sense.
Thank you, yes, on page 32.
Where the, as opposed to, you can see it in outline,
especially in, well, you can see them all of them,
the dotted lines marking what the other ones were like.
graphically, Councillor Abbs and then Councillor Humphreys.
Thank you very much. My main issue with this application was actually the loss of light
to some of the adjacent blocks. We often have, so some of them fall below the BRE guidelines,
a couple of them quite significantly.
And we often have this.
I do find it odd that we have minimum standards
and it's then we can deviate a bit from minimum standards.
But usually we're reassured that these affect bedrooms
or bathrooms, which seems much less important.
But in this case, it mainly affects,
well, it often affects living rooms and kitchens.
And I have some concerns and a lot of sympathy
for the residents that losing reasonably significant amounts of light in your main area of living
is a significant issue.
And it does seem on a scale that I haven't seen before.
So I do have concerns about that.
One comment.
I know there are others on similar lines.
Councillor Humphries.
Thanks, Chair.
A quick technical question, if I may.
In the report, it refers to the only bits, as Mr. Granger was saying, we've got the
70 -degree mansard over most of the elevations, which is the big difference.
But it does refer to the report that the stairwells have still got vertical components.
And I was just saying, looking at that drawing on page 32, I know it's just a drawing rather
than a plan, but could you just indicate on where those vertical elevations are for the
– do they sit proud of the mansard part in any area?
I can go quickly with Councillor Humphrey's question.
If you look at the bottom images on page 32, blocks A, blocks B, the elements that aren't
either side of the dormer style windows, there's just a white block.
So they're quite small.
So, yeah.
In terms of daylight, again, I think being cognizant of what's gone before and the
Inspector not having significant issues with the larger, more vertical proposal, this proposal
was delayed significantly due to officers requiring updated daylight and sunlight information.
So we have explained the situation in detail because it's a backland site and that's what's
required given the number of existing occupiers that would potentially look onto this new
obstacle and the impacts that it would have.
So there are reductions in daylight.
that has been reported as a matter of fact
for all the affected occupiers.
There is a big important element to this
where the BRE guidance does allow a calculation
to take place when there are existing balconies
and windows under existing balconies
and an additional calculation.
So there's always two stages.
You always calculate the value
of the initial loss of daylight,
but it specifically says within the BRE guidance
that it is permissible to then remove the obstacle
and recalculate what the received daylight
would be to those rooms
were the alkali not actually having an impact on it.
So that is within PARA 3 .2 .11
3 .2, 11 of the BRE guidance and that calculation
has been done and the daylight situations
from the initially reported for each building
for each blocks that are indicated under each heading
dramatically improves.
For instance, 42 windows were assessed,
36 of these windows would meet BRE guidance
in para 4 .23.
And then there are some, obviously there are six windows that wouldn't meet guidance from
4 .23, but with the no balcony scenario, that all improves, as we can see within paras 4 .26
and 4 .27.
This is a theme throughout the calculations and what can be done when you take this, this
additional calculation to take the obstacle away.
So that goes through 139 Bannam High Road, 141 Bannam High Road, 143, and it's a familiar
storey.
So within the planning balance, there were a number of reductions that we've recognised
as areas of noncompliance on page 57 in para 11 .8.
and these are numbers 139, 141 and 143 Ballum High Road.
But we've taken the view that due to the significant number,
I mean, we're talking 40, 50, 60 plus windows,
where there are a small number of infringements
that given the size of this background,
given the proposal has been reduced in significant terms
and was found to be acceptable in that regard previously,
that to officers, that particular reduction
is considered tolerable and doesn't justify refusal
in our view.
So with all these backland sites, it's very difficult,
but we've had the best information available to us
in order to be able to assess all these individual
properties and we've arrived at our conclusion that it's acceptable.
Councillor Hedges also mentioned noise.
One other thing she mentioned that I can recall at least.
Noise.
Any comments on noise, friend?
Well they would only, we don't have a policy for echoing or creating an additional opportunity
for some acoustic scenario, but there are roof terraces, but they're enclosed for privacy
purposes by 1 .7 metre screens.
So they would provide a degree.
Obviously they do, their primary function is to not result in direct overlooking of
neighbouring occupiers, but I'm sure that there is a degree of noise attenuation that could
be achieved from those, again, those enclosing obstacles.
But we don't, we can't require an applicant to do a calculation for predicting what may
result in a different sort of echoey acoustic scenario.
And the 1 .7 metre height is standard across the boroughs, isn't it?
It's the figure we use everywhere.
Councilman Pridham.
Thank you chair and just very quickly just to provide a bit of context in terms of the
immediate surroundings am I correct in thinking that there are other buildings very nearby
that are that have more storeys than is being proposed here?
That again has come out we there was a common principle that's that you achieve a degree
of subservience to dominant buildings fronting main roads,
but that formed actually a ground of refusal
from the previous assessments,
but the inspector did not agree with us in that regard.
The inspector thought that this was,
although it formed a site that was to the rear
of four -storey buildings,
that it could certainly tolerate an additional storey
because of it being such an urban and you know tight -knit location and
Oh council Humphrey's
Which a last minute?
Just a quick one. We've talked about noise as far as to the increase the other residents, but council head is also referred to
Obviously, it's quite a difficult site to work on so during construction and the construction management
I have a CMP on this one was getting a very big site, but that was going to be my other point
Yes, it maybe seems strange again for public gallery, but we can't take account of on its own of construction noise itself, just like that.
That would put a stopper on almost any application anywhere in the country.
So that has to be, it's got to be a bit broader than that.
But -
Page 59, condition 6, so we have a construction management plan.
It's essential due to the access points and it just makes a lot of sense.
One final one, if I may.
So I'm looking at the drawings on page 32 again, Mr. Granger.
So just for clarity, because it's key to this, I think the impact of the bulk and mass.
And I know we're talking about the stealth.
So on that page 32 illustrations, the north and south elevations, those white boxes on
either side of the Mansard, are those the roof terraces or are those the lift shafts
or sorry, stairwell shafts?
Well, the ones that I pointed out to you earlier, the white boxes in the centres on the two
lower image they are stairwells yeah and the other ones so the other ears they're
the roof terraces so they would they would be translucent laid screens on the
on the sides okay and council give India again I just make a point about the
construction management plan indeed it's um it I mean I'm familiar with the site
because the entrance to the MUSE is halfway along what is Hildreth Street Market.
And the market, whilst it doesn't operate seven days a week, it does operate on a few days a week,
in which case the construction traffic would have to go through the market, disrupt the market,
and as it turns and so on, at quite a tight entrance.
So how are we going to ensure that the market's
commercial viability is not damaged
whilst this is undertaken?
And what sort of engagement will you have,
or will we expect them to have had with the market traders
so that it isn't like bulldozers coming along.
The stores better get out of the way.
Good point.
Mr. Tiddley.
Thank you, Chair.
David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy. I think it's probably fair to say, you know,
that this development, as you rightly say, it's a tight site.
It could be quite problematic to build. Unfortunately, we can't make development silent or invisible,
which is what we clearly like to do.
But it's not unusual for developments to occur in such tight sites
and to be successfully built.
And in fact, there were probably other developments in the MUSE
that have occurred over the years.
In this particular case, I think the key point is the plan would require
details of the timing of deliveries and the duration of the deliveries.
And we can therefore make sure that when the plan comes in,
any delivery of materials and then end and removal of materials could take place at the
appropriate times which didn't impact upon the market. In the same way for example as we have
construction management plans that aren't allowed to have operations at school arrival
and departure times near schools things like that so it's not unusual to have something like this.
Okay, I'll just make a point. I mean, it's slightly more complicated than school arrival times.
I mean, the market, the Hildreth Street itself is narrow. The entrance into the Mews is narrow.
Most of the market is kind of Balham High Road heavy. The Bedford Hill entrance is less busy in market terms.
So, but yet, the entrance to the MUSE is towards the Balam high road end.
So it's about disruption to not so much their deliveries,
it's to their commercial operation really.
It's not, and that will last every day while the stalls are up there.
So it's just a question of how will they be engaged with
and how their needs be accommodated in the construction management plan.
It's all very well to say it will work very well for the developer,
but it's got to work very well for the traders who are not these flat owners,
who are not the people to whom notices were required,
but they are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of a lot of the construction traffic.
Obviously, an incredibly difficult problem.
Mr. Titley, however, has just said that we will,
in effect, that a way will be found,
and that we're used to these kind of difficulties,
this being a particularly difficult one.
I would, like you, agree it's a bit more
than a school leaving at arriving times.
But Mr. Titley, that's essentially it, isn't it?
Yes, absolutely.
When we receive the construction management plan
for approval if we don't think it would satisfactorily protect the neighbouring activities then we
wouldn't approve it until we thought it did. Now obviously that does mean sometimes you
know you get these signs saying your market's still open or whatever and some of those rather
unfortunate ways at which sometimes these things are managed but nevertheless we won't
approve a construction management plan unless we think the neighbouring site can retain its
operational ability.
Well, I think it's a genuinely fairly difficult application.
Nonetheless, I think we've covered most of the grounds.
But if people are going to, OK, no one's
got any further questions.
Well, in that case, the recommendation is to approve.
So I'm supposed with that recommendation
to approve this application.
Those in favour?
Are those against?
So that's approved by 5 -2.
Moving on to Samaj Hall, rear of 26B Tooting High Street, which struck me as another slightly
difficult one in terms of construction, but move on to this one.
Any queries, comments people want to got with it?
Councillor Gavinder again.
Thank you.
I mean I read through a lot of the objection letters and I just want to in a sense make the point.
A lot of the concern the neighbours, particularly the Bateman
and MUSE developed next door, related to the operation of the existing community facilities
and how it operates.
Not about its existence, but how it functions and how it's managed.
The proposal is not for its demise.
and in a sense we would actually not accept a development which scrubbed out the continuation
of community facilities.
So I just want to be absolutely clear from Mr. Grainger that a substantive number of
substantial objection based on the way the hall is managed are not a planning consideration
or not a significant planning consideration.
Mr Granger.
Thank you, Chair.
We totally agree with you, Councillor.
The length of time that it took in order to get tangible and facets of the noise impact
assessment that we got as part of this application that we can actually capture is something
that was born out of all of the objections that we received and concerns, along with
colleagues in Environmental Health and Noise Team, and we were careful and made sure that
we got the design out, crime met police officers' view on how potentially that would work, the
noise impact assessment and the management plan, in order to be able to ensure that in
the updated and modern facility that everything is in place
in terms of controls and promises made
that have been captured through conditions
will actually come into fruition upon the first use
and be monitored basically when there are larger events.
I think that one of the interesting things
about this proposal is that the majority
of the community space is subterranean.
So that's actually really quite a good result in terms of noise breakout and things like
that.
There's an arrival space at ground floor, but having looked at the floor plans, the
majority of those activities would be at basement level, but there would be peak times during
arrival and leaving larger events.
So, yes, this was a big feature of the proposal and we definitely are content in terms of
colleagues that know much more about noise measurements and things like that.
But certainly, it's something that we've got and it's conditioned to operate as such.
Councillor Humphries.
Thanks, Chair.
On a similar vein, I actually think this is quite a clever scheme and it works quite well
in the context of quite a difficult site again, as we often say, on a hard site, tricky site,
sometimes you get a better development because you have to work harder at it, and I think
it does the work successfully with the courtyard elements and all the rest of it.
But my only one concern was, as Councillor Rees alluded to, the use of the commercial
space.
And as you just said, Mr Grainger, one of the pinch points, if you like, is arrival
and leaving times.
It's quite a tight space there at the entrance.
So I notice on 7 -13 on page 89 it talks about the noise management plan limiting hours of
opening hours from 11 a .m. to 2300 hours all week, Mondays through Sundays.
And I was just wondering, I don't know what colleagues think about this, that's quite
late on a Sunday for people to be, so I was wondering if we could knock it back a bit
on the Sunday.
I don't know if colleagues think that's worthwhile doing.
Because if it closes at 11, by the time
you've got everybody in and out, it's
going to be nearer to 11, 13, 12.
And it's quite late on a Sunday night
for people who've got to get up and go to work the next day.
So I just should give the residents the best benefit
they've got on that, whether we should pull it back, perhaps,
on the Sunday.
Thank you, Chair.
It's slightly a health counsellor.
It's not an interest.
I don't have an interest, but I do know it
against the activities that take place.
Sorry, sorry.
I think so.
So I thought I'd help Councillor Humphreys with this point.
I don't have an interest, I have no connexion with the hall, but I am familiar with the
hall and some of the events.
And the thing is that if particular festivals fall on a Sunday, it's a bit difficult not
to celebrate them on a Sunday.
The chances are that not every Sunday will be a party time, but it will be that there
will be an occasion when the festival falls on a Sunday and therefore the event has to
happen on a Sunday.
Okay.
I thought there were general nods of approval about this application.
I thought it was…
The same point about the construction management plan.
Again, the same difficulties clearly.
And I noticed the angled windows in there, quite nice touches about it.
So do I take it this is approved, this application agreed.
We move on to 270, sorry I hit no, 270 Lavender Hill,
which nothing to do with the application of course,
but be quite sad if we lose the party shop,
but that's another matter.
For those of us that like it, I'll put it.
Yes.
I did have a rather nice Auburn wig once, a few years ago that was, but there we go.
Any comments about this particular application, which we have to take seriously, application
for a pizza unit at 270 Lavender Hill.
Council Pridham.
Thank you, Chair.
I should mention that this falls within my ward.
And I noticed that one of the things that was mentioned
in the papers was some concern about tables and chairs
being put on the pavement and the pavement being
too narrow to accommodate that.
I would just note that there are tables and chairs,
as I seem to recall, opposite outside Arden and Hobbs
and that seems to work okay.
And I think that the pavement's actually slightly
narrower there, narrower there.
And then also there are tables and chairs
further up the road as well,
and it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.
So whilst I do note the objections,
I personally don't see too much of an issue with this.
Well can I ask Mr. Tiddley, because I think I do.
I'm not as agile as I used to be,
and we certainly have had those pavements broadened,
especially to make room for pedestrians
in the last 20 years, 10, 15.
That's a topic matter.
That's true.
No, well, good God, the pump's much wider
on one side, isn't it?
The pavement's much wider, and that was deliberately
to make space for the pedestrians to what was at the time.
And I think that some of the seating outside is extremely dubious.
There are places in the Northgate Road where it's actually on the, although it is public
pavement, it's the ownership of the actual entitled ownership, I think.
Does this apply on this corner?
I'd be rather surprised myself.
I'll seek confirmation from Mr Grainger, but I'm sure it does.
There's a small ribbon of private forecourt, and it is very small,
but the applicant has said that they would only occupy that very small ribbon,
which I think probably would be permitted in the event of it being a restaurant anyway,
so they wouldn't even need to have that permission.
If they did encroach beyond that space onto the public highway,
then the tables and chairs licence would be needed separately.
So that's the current position.
900 mm wide.
900 mm wide.
So there.
That's...
Councillor Aps.
Thanks very much.
I don't have any objections to this, but I do share some of the concerns raised by Clapham Junction
bid. My chief problem with it is from experience of cycling down there. So I often
cycle past Clapham Junction station and then up Lavender Hill to get home.
And the junction there is quite busy and there's lots of kind of drivers kind of moving around.
and often once I reach Lavender Hill,
there are often vehicles parked quite close to the corner,
illegally, but just dropping off.
Normally I think it's like small lorries,
kind of having deliveries and things like that.
And it is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres that I do,
is just after the junction,
having to pull out and come around,
which I do with extreme care,
but I share their concern about lots of delivery scooters,
bikes could cause an obstruction in that area.
So I think it will take some managing by the council in terms of making sure that that
traffic hazard is monitored and managed.
Otherwise, I think there could be an accident in the future.
Well, in fact, I'm sure there have been accidents there before, but, or collisions, as I should
more properly say, according to cyclist friends.
But I do think it's an important thing in terms of just considering the future of the site
and how we make sure that remains safe for pedestrians, for cyclists or other two -wheeled vehicles and drivers as well.
Do we happen to know how much of this organization's business is take away or deliver type of stuff?
No, I don't have that.
I mean, they've got enough seating in the basement area.
From what I've gathered by the number of covers,
I made it something like 96.
Yeah, and potentially 12 outside.
I really do think that they're focused
on the experiential, like go and sit down
and eat at the location.
But I did note in power 5 .5 on page 116,
it does talk about the servicing and deliveries
currently take place from Lavender Hill.
I don't know if there is a delivery bay,
Mr. Tiddly might spot one,
but deliveries continue to be made after 10 a .m.
according with the existing restrictions.
But they do seem to consolidate,
want to consolidate the number of deliveries to the site
using a single supplier but I think if there are on you know on street bays
it's just one of those things where it's always difficult to manage the the
vitality of the commercial entities and and road traffic safety in one of the
you know the busiest town centres that we've got. Yes indeed. Okay some concerns
but I get generally...
Oh, Councillor Givens.
I mean, it's kind of a general point, really,
because I think virtually every restaurant now,
however smart it might be,
has a very substantial delivery clientele.
It's the way the business model is now.
And so it's impossible to say that this pizza place
will be more towards come and eat here
rather than have it sent home.
I almost guarantee that they will have an active delivery model in their business plan.
And whilst it's not a planning matter, I wonder whether the licencing folk who will be involved,
I suppose at some point in the licencing side of it, could be liaising with them to say,
well, some sort of condition about how the delivery bikes are managed.
It's close to a junction. There are lots of issues about road safety and all of that.
The pavement is not wide enough for the bikes to stop or mount and be there.
There is no back entrance.
The Mossbury -Lamond Hill Junction further up is a bit too far away perhaps for bikes to come.
So it's quite a management issue there about how these are managed.
And just for, um, a chair for you really, I suppose, the Clapham Society, what's it doing getting involved in this location?
That very good point. I think you'd better get Phil Burrows onto that.
And for those who didn't know, Phil Burrows jointly with me, he did most of the work I must confess,
set up an organisation to try and get, indeed, great achievement was having Clapham Junction,
the heart of Battersea put on the railway station.
So we've been...
This is the bonafide Clapham Society that functions more like Clapham Common.
The small village on the other side of the common, yes, that's right.
Okay. Well, with that serious objection, is it nonetheless approved?
Right. Move on to Inglewood Road application. Pretty standard application, I think. So is that agreed?

4 Enforcement (Paper No. 25-450)

Now move on to one of the most exciting enforcement orders I can recall.
And we have an expert if any questions about it.
Any questions or does everyone pretty clear gut about it?
I thought we were going to get a PowerPoint or something.
It is fairly dramatic, isn't it?
I mean, the picture will do quite well.
So here I am joking through it.
It's very serious infringement of our planning standards.
So is it agreed the enforcement orders on 2028,
And slightly more reasonable, what about Broadway Lofts?
Agreed?
Agreed as well.
Okay.
Tree Preservation Order.

5 Tree Preservation Orders (Paper No. 25-451)

Now, one day someone's gonna vote against this,
but I doubt whether they're starting now.
Those in favour of the...
I can load this thing.
Pop it, Sainsbury's, and pass by.
And yes, there are some branches
they need attending to.
I mean, it's almost, I mean, are we really afraid that Sainsbury's are going to get rid
of all the trees?
I mean, is that the motive behind this TPO?
Now is anyone briefed to tell us why we've got this in front of us?
We tend to get TPOs after we get an application to remove and the tree team come to us and
say we need TPOs. I can't guarantee that and I can cheque that back for you, but that's
often the case. But Mr Sainsbury's might be removing this so you can see his lovely
shop a bit clearer.
So there you are. So Sainsbury's leading a tack on the arboricultural heritage of the
Right, these agreed, these preservation orders, yes, agreed, and paper for decisions noted,

6 Decisions (Paper No. 25-452)

and closure of investigation files noted, and closed appeals noted.

7 Closure of Investigation Files (Paper No. 25-453)

You want to raise up something?

8 Closed Appeals (Paper No. 25-454)

Yes, there are actually.
I would say that the inspector are becoming a lot looser, particularly in conservation
areas with sort of what they're allowing.
A lot of those allowed were impact on conservation areas that they didn't see the harm.
It is quite notable as you come, you get them, yes.
Yes, it is quite notable.
Why are we trying to find it?
If I can just use that as a jump in for,
we've got a public inquiry coming up in January
for a site, Mount Clare in Roehampton,
but of much more interest to this committee
because we had over 3 ,000 objections,
which we're busy trying to put onto a new system.
The Glass Mills Appeal has now come in,
and we'll be going out to tell everybody about that soon,
but the date is already fixed for the public inquiry,
which is going to be in March.
So it's a very quick turnaround for that.
And Mr. Grainger might be as bald as me by the end of it,
because he's leading it all over.
Go to the party shop and tell your friends.
Yes, they might be selling off stock.
Don't get the.
OK.
Well, thank you for that interesting piece
of information.
Yeah, I saw that in the note today, thank you.
Okay, thank you and I'll see you across the corridor
in a few moments.
.
.