Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Thursday 8 January 2026, 7:00pm

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Thursday, 8th January 2026 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

2 Minutes - 4th November 2025

Share this agenda point

Draft CHAC Minutes - Nov 2025

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-01)

Share this agenda point

26-01 Applications

4 Decisions (Paper No. 26-02)

Share this agenda point

26-02 Decisions

5 Future Meeting Dates

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

good time over the Christmas and New Year break and didn't get too drunk or too...

Okay.

Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.

My name is Michael Jubb and I'm chair of the committee.

I will now call the names of the members of the committee.

Please cheque let me ensure that your

your

microphone is on speak to

Confirm your attendance and once you've done so switch your microphone off. Sorry

You've heard me say that lots of times before

Councillor airs

present

Councillor Belton, I don't see

Councillor Owens.

Mark Dodgson, I don't see.

Roger Armstrong, Clapham society.

Roger Armstrong present here.

Welcome.

Francis Radcliffe, Friends of Battersea Park, I don't see.

Andrew Catto, Putney society.

Good evening, Chair.

Yes, Andrew Catto here.

Libby, Edward Potter, R .I .B .A.

Libby Lawson, Tooting History Group.

Good evening.

And Peter, no sorry, Pamela Greenwood,

I don't see from Wonderworth Historical Society.

Peter Faro from Wonderworth Society.

Yes, good evening.

Okay.

Have there been any apologies?

we've noted a number of absences.

The officers present are Lauren Way,

Good evening chair.

Barry Sellers,

Good evening chair.

Victoria Broxup. Good evening, Chair. And as he's already mentioned, our Democratic

Services Officer is Chris Kelly, standing in at the last minute for Callum

Wernham, who is sick of the palsy. Good evening, everyone. Okay, again, can I

remind you, switch on your microphones when you want to speak, otherwise switch

it off.

1 Declarations of Interest

The only other formal item, declarations of interest, are there any declarations that

anyone wants to declare?

2 Minutes - 4th November 2025

If not, let us move on to the minutes of the meeting held on.

I'm reminding myself, the 4th of November, quite a long time ago.

Are they a correct record or does anyone want to amend anything?

No?

Okay, so I'll sign them after the meeting, Chris, if you have the record copy.

Okay?

And I noticed Francis Radcliffe, friends of Battersea Park,

who's arrived as wet as the rest of us when we arrived.

Just for the record.

Okay.

Matters arising from the minutes.

Let me go through.

And at the bottom of the first page of minutes,

page three in your pack,

there were two matters arising last time round,

and it would be nice to hear an update on both of them.

Fersdown Lodge to start with.

No update, I'm afraid, on Fersdown Lodge.

It's still ongoing at a pre -application stage, so we're not able to give any further details,

unfortunately.

Apologies for that.

Okay.

And then the Waterfall House appeal, is there any news on that?

No.

But the last appeal when it came to the hoardings, those the large banners, they've been determined as that's been, that appeals been determined and it's been dismissed.

So I don't believe there's any other appeals outstanding on that site, but I think that was noted in the previous committee that that had just been coming that day that that appeal had been dismissed.

Okay, sorry.

So that might be, it might not have been picked up on the minutes previously, but we can note that.

It wasn't.

I was worried there.

I thought there was another appeal that I wasn't aware of then.

Yes, my memory is clearly faulty too.

But okay, let's move on.

Unless there are any other matters arising.

Anyone?

No matters arising?

Okay, let us then move on to the main business this evening.

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-01)

Item three on the agenda, starting on page nine, the applications.

And I hope everyone has had a chance to see the slides for the presentations that were

circulated this morning.

Okay, right, so we start with Arabella Drive

on the Lenox Estate on the far reaches of the borough.

Who's going to start on this?

Chair, I shall start off with this one.

It's an application we've been discussing for a couple of years now, a pre -application.

The site is Arabala Drive.

It's a 1972 council estate constructed by the GLC, I think it was, at that time.

It's been there for a number of years, obviously.

And the centrepiece, I suppose, of the estate are the towers there,

which rise up between 10 and 13 storeys.

You probably know we've got a fairly close to those,

but certainly that's a feature of the site itself.

It's a bit difficult to navigate around the site because of the way

in which the level changes work within the site itself.

and also the...

You can't really go through in a proper wayfinding way.

So some of them are closed off,

so it's not easy to find your way around when you get in this state,

and you've got steps as well to negotiate.

But we've been working with them, say, a couple of years.

Initially, they had ideas to look at a regeneration scheme,

but that wasn't really something which they could run with,

So what they decided was a new build scheme.

That new build scheme is in the public open space

on the to the north of the estate.

It's not a site allocation in the local plan.

The buildings in the main estate are

located within a mid -rise zone.

It's not a tall building zone.

So that's buildings up to six storeys in height, 18 metres.

But this proposal would be for a building in the centre of the space,

which is up to 13, 14 storeys,

with a six -storey addition to the frontage to Upper Richmond Road.

So, as I say, there's two blocks.

The main block, Block A, is divided into three component parts,

really 13 and 14 and a six -storey addition to the south of that.

So that's quite important from that point of view.

In terms of the location around the site,

you've got to the south of the site,

you've got the Grade 2 prairie,

which is the...

It's been, what, 1850, probably, I think, of that order.

It's a Grade 2 building, which is a significant building,

so it's within the setting...

So the proposals within the setting of that building.

To the north, which is outside the borough,

you've got a number of conservation areas

and local history buildings.

You will see the conservation areas in the screen there,

as you look there, coloured yellow.

So it has impacts on the built environment within Richmond.

And Wonsworth is really to do with the listed priory, which

which is a significant building, as we know.

So we've worked with the applicants

over that two -year period.

And it's been going up and down in terms of the height.

I mean, it was at 15 storeys.

And then that really caused less than substantial harm

to the setting of the priory.

So they did move that down a storey.

And it's also the 13 -storey elements

been up and down a bit as well.

So there's been a lot of configurations in the mix.

It's been through two, sorry, three Design -a -View panels.

The last Design -a -View panel was last year

and they had mixed feelings really

about the pros development.

I mean, at the very beginning, they asked for more information

because they weren't overly and au fait with the actual impact

on the areas around in terms of views.

And so the heritage consultants had to come back

and do further views, which they've done.

And I think we'll probably see some of those in a minute.

This is just showing the existing estate.

As you can see, see the level changes there

within the estate itself.

It's quite difficult.

And the proposal will actually alter some of those level

changes as well, because Ludovic Walk is the road which

runs to the south of the site.

We've got south of the public space.

And that is being altered to improve the accessibility.

Because there would be a ramp running alongside the block

there.

There's steps at the moment.

So there's a ramp.

being put in as part of that.

But you can see the proposals,

you know, see the existing buildings on that site as they are.

Now, we've been working with them quite a lot

and a lot of the impact, of course,

is obviously on the loss of the public open space, of course,

to some extent.

And we've worked with them very closely

to try and minimise that impact.

but obviously it does have an impact as far as the part of Arabara Drive itself is going to be closed off to traffic.

That was one way of buying back effectively some of the bubbly open space which have been otherwise lost.

So there's some gains and losses in terms of that.

I mean, in the landscape reporting, it does actually set out what the numbers square metres which are prone and lost.

So that's been assembled.

Here we're showing the posed building set in within the landscaped area,

the part that's been made, which is 14 storeys and six storey

on the front is there to Uppulston Road.

The six -storey block is partly duplex apartments.

In terms of access, there's a ground floor,

front doors onto the street and lifts as well

to take people up to the other floors.

The open facade is really sort of walkable from each end

to access the units.

On the main block, you've got a...

This is looking from the south, so you've got one single flat on the ground floor.

Otherwise, there's a lot of bin stores and other paraphernalia.

as you guessed from those types of buildings,

which is, you know, bin stores and bikes and so on.

But we're keen to try and at least get a unit,

if not more than one unit, on the ground floor,

just to give that sort of presence

and transparency of use of ground floor.

The building, you know, I think works reasonably well

with twin towers at 13 and 14 storeys,

rather than a single block.

That would be more difficult, I think, to deal with visually.

And here we are in terms of the elevations.

Now, there's a paler brick.

I mean, if you look at the design access statement,

there's a palette of materials, which is shown.

and the proposal for the main A1 block is for a pale brick

and it's much lighter than the existing buildings in the area.

And the block A1, not that it's shown on there,

but it's A1, it's a darker brick,

an earthen brick with a dark grey as well,

and then the black railings and that as well.

So, it's a darker element. It's a contrast.

You've got the lighter brick at each end of that block, of course,

but the main part of the block is the darker -coloured brick.

Here we have some of the views.

Now, if you're very good -sighted,

you might spot the building popping up in the lower photograph there,

but it's not as marked as it was when we were looking at it.

He got to look very hard. It's behind the chimney, basically.

So...

It's the same.

It's the same drawing, surely.

No.

If you look at the play application, you can zoom in a bit closer

so you can see the difference,

but they've worked hard to try and minimise that in terms of...

They've disappeared it altogether.

How they've done it, whether they've taken their views

from closer to the building or whatever,

or modify the crown slightly, I'm not quite sure.

But certainly, it has less impact

than we saw at the pre -application proposals,

you know, and it's also the earlier DRPs.

So yeah, hats off to that to do that.

But I say, this is the view from Upper Richmond Road,

and you see the juxtaposition of the six -storey block

and the 13, 14 -storey block onto that road frontage.

Again, looking further down from the other direction,

looking back towards it.

The road marks the boundary between Wandsworth and Richmond,

and on the north side of the road there's Richmond Borough.

We would be consulting, obviously, residents in that borough

as part of the application process.

This is taken from within Richmond, I believe,

and there are impacts on conservation areas there.

I think this might well be one of them, and you'll see...

Sorry, White Hart Lane, yes.

There's one or two views from White Hart Lane,

And you see the block coming up.

It makes quite an appearance in the view here.

So we'll obviously wait to see what people have to say from Richmond Borough

to see how they feel its impacts on their borough itself

in terms of the sensitivities.

Again, showing the up Richmond Road view,

mainly the six -storey block.

And again, going back to Richmond, the impact there

on the two three -storey buildings in the residential area.

And so the 13, 14 storeys does become quite prominent in that view.

River Thames.

There's a number of views from...

Look at the block from River Thames.

This is quite a distance one.

and if you look very carefully, it's pin -pointed in the background.

It is visible from quite a wide area.

Where is it?

This is from the...

Where's the proposed building?

Can you see the curves up here?

See the red outline?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, in the distance, certainly from that view, from Chisholm Harbour.

Yeah, indeed.

Yeah, Lowiston Road, again, the view of the building pops up.

Not quite so marked as in other views,

but it's in the red outline there.

You can see that.

Again, River Thames view.

My glasses, I think.

So this view is actually from within Hounslow Borough,

so this is James Meadow Bandstand looking towards Barnes.

To a degree, I think the fact that you can't see anything is the significance of it,

because the image is to demonstrate that you can't see it.

You mean it's true, not lying?

No, so you should be able to see...

You see where the pointed marker is.

If you just go above it, it's just there.

So it's just above the pointed marker. Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

It's that pointing up above the roof line here.

We can utilise Chris to help on the actual screen to show you.

This is the same red outline behind the car there you can see.

With leaves on the trees you wouldn't necessarily see from that view very much.

Yes, it pops up on the right -hand side.

Oh, yes, yes, got it, got it. Thank you, thank you.

Again, behind the trees, this view.

Are those trees going to stay?

Yes, it is Barnes Common, yes.

That's Barnes Common, that's a problem.

Good, so those trees will stay?

Absolutely, yes.

And the cemetery, again, that's behind the trees there.

Fitzgerald Avenue.

My time again, this is the sort of conservation area again in Richmond.

It does, it's quite visible there, the end of that view down the street.

Westwood Gardens, I don't think Westwood Gardens is not a conservation area, but it's still

very impactful in terms of the view from residential properties.

there.

It's your avenue, pops up above the roof line there.

Barnes pedestrian footbridge view.

You see it pops up between the blocks on the front there on the south side of the Thames.

Is it now again with the red outline at the far end of the view there?

Yeah.

All done.

That was good.

All right.

Thank you.

So this is an image that Mr. Catto has presented to assist with that particular view that we've added in just so that it can be referenced if needed through discussions.

That's a view from Chiswick Bridge. Again, that's a quite significant view from that bridge.

It just pops up above the general level of the residential properties in that area.

Assembly from the centre of the bridge.

Red outline.

Q Bridge, yes.

Again, different angle for Kew Bridge, but it's not really visible at all.

It's by the red outline.

Grove House in Wandsworth, which is a great two -star Mr. Building.

Setting the...

Back to the ultimate show, I think, isn't it?

No longer from Chiswick Bridge, yep, from the south side of it, I think.

First, let me ask, are there any questions arising from the presentation and any other

research that you've done looking through the planning application?

Questions or fact?

Mr. Farrow.

You mentioned the significance of the open space as a component of the scheme.

Somewhere, there's a reference to MUGA.

Could you tell me what that is?

Is it the use of the open space?

It's a multi -use games area.

Thank you kindly.

Yes, right, multi -use games area, which is right in the centre of the open space.

That's due to be proposed and reconfigured as well.

Thank you.

Sorry, I was late in the storm.

I couldn't find anything about archaeology in the bits I searched through, other than

the heading on the bottom of the page.

Mr. Work?

Yes.

I didn't find it either, but I didn't look for it.

No, it hasn't been a significant element in the discussions, but obviously, you know,

there's something which we would need to look at as part of the discussion, especially when

they're doing the excavations.

Yes, I think you will, speaking as the excavator of a site just further east.

Where we found the remains of a very ancient road?

It looks like there's a at least a roman road that precedes the upper Richmond Road

But what quite happens at that point is not clear because nothing's you know Nick is

Niquintes has worked out various possibilities, but I think

We haven't had a chance to to look at at that end

And it could even be two where one goes to Mortlake and one goes to Richmond

But certainly we've had several sections of this gravel with two ditches on one side and there's one Roman coin

and I think the odd bit of pottery

has turned up along the line. So I think it should be something that is written in.

With any plan application like that there will be a condition in that applied so there'd be

the requirement for them to

and look at any excavations and to do a thorough analysis.

Okay, I should have said that that was a question

from Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society.

And it's the husband's research,

so I'm not totally okay with anything he's worked at.

Okay, Councillor Ayers.

Have the local residents kicked up a farce yet?

There have been numerous discussions between the consultants and residents over a period of time.

Yes.

And we've always been very active and persuaded the consultants to carry out those discussions.

And it's both the landscape team as well as the architectural team being on board to look

at all those.

And they fed back during the discussions some of the views of people.

That should be, if we look at the design access statement, you should see all the details

of those views and what the reports were.

Some people say, well, we weren't consulted enough.

Well, you're always going to get that sometimes.

So it depends on when people were away or something like when the consultants' consultations

were going on.

But there's been ample opportunities for people to make their views known.

Thank you.

Related to that, if I may, what I couldn't find in the DAS,

any reference to views, I may have missed it,

on the loss of the Mooga and indeed the net loss of open space.

Has that been an issue?

Well, it is an issue because obviously it's designated public open space,

so any loss at all is an issue,

but that's why the early discussions involved,

how can that be minimised by closing off Arabella Drive,

because they get a buyback of open space,

which otherwise would have been concrete or tarmac.

So that's an improvement from that point of view.

But there's still, there is a calculation,

I haven't found it yet, but there's a calculation

that did mention one of the meetings.

And it's quite minimal from that point of view.

So it has been calculated.

Mr. Catto.

Yes, I wanted to partly answer the question

about the locals commenting yet.

There are quite a lot of objections already on site for this one.

The biggest discussion locally seemed to be about fire safety

and the impracticality of closing off Arabella Drive.

Because if you look at the shape of the road that will result on the plan

and imagine trying to get an ambulance down there when the dustmen are busy collecting,

given that it's only just wide enough.

Back one, back one.

Can we have that picture?

Yes. The shape of the road

with several sudden hefty bends

because Ludovic Walk is now being made into a road.

Yes, we did actually express...

Which is the sole access for fire, refuse, ambulances,

you name it, to many hundreds of dwellings.

Yeah, we did actually express quite late on,

the servicing arrangements were quite late on coming to us.

And we've been working with our in -house transport team as well,

because there's quite a pinch point when you take the curve

at the south -eastern corner part of that,

where you've got pedestrians and vehicles coming two ways

and it changes to one way.

So it's quite a difficult manoeuvre there, but we recognise that they have done the best

they can, I think, really, in the circumstances.

Okay.

Are there any more questions, questions of fact?

Okay.

Views, comments on this proposal?

Mr. Catter.

Thank you, Chair. It may be the far end of the borough to you. It's a ten -minute walk

from home for me. So the Partner's Society have been involved in the various consultations

leading up to this for quite some time. I have here a letter we wrote in March 2024,

for example, after the first consultation scheme. Most of our concerns and most of the

locals concerns are not really conservation matters, so I'm going to find it slightly

difficult to separate the purpose of this committee from a more general comment on the

thing.

But the first point to bear in mind is that the open space that it's proposed to build

on is designated in the local plan as a protected open space.

No ifs, buts or maybes.

And policies LP 20 and 53 and 54 apply to that.

The other point that we've heard many times before on similarly tall schemes is that there

is, and at the time it was freshly adopted local plan, which designates building heights.

The height put for that corner of the borough is six storeys, and even that's only a reflection

of the height of the existing estate.

The lower block of the two we see is proposed to be six.

The higher is 14.

And because of storey height, actually appears to be at least three storeys taller still

than the original buildings on the estate.

And I think that's to bear in mind.

The other point to bear in mind is if when anybody's talking about densification,

it's supposed to happen where public transport is good.

The PTAL for this site is two.

Mr. Farrow.

Thank you.

The design review panel at some stage proposed that the scheme with the tower be reconsidered

and that the development be consist of six -storey buildings at the most so that there was indeed

no tower in the development.

Can you explain why that advice was not followed?

Thank you.

Yes, I mean, right from the first design review panel,

right through to even to the final design review panel,

you'll see reference to six -storey blocks.

They did show a scheme of six -storey blocks,

and they rejected that on the basis that it took up too much of the open space.

Simple as that, really.

And so they didn't think they would be able to run with that one.

So hence the tower evolved as part of that in order to maximise the amount of open space

that is left effectively.

Thank you.

And also to, as part of the wider scheme, to improve public spaces throughout the rest

of the state as well, if you look at the landscape report.

Yeah, Andy, thank you.

Where are the need to provide housing, but what determined the amount of housing that

it was thought this site could support?

As I pointed out, it's not a site allocation in the local plan, so it's really something

they've come forward through from the housing department.

They ran with the scheme in terms of the number of units they wanted to put on that site,

And obviously, they employ consultants and then the consultants liaise with us.

And from day one, we've said what the issues are and they have to obviously justify the

scheme.

I think my view, it's a nicely presented scheme and I think the low block has merit.

My view would be that if the planning policy that's been previously outlined

suggested or required a limit of six storeys that that should have been a

governing factor which limited the amount the housing department were

allowed to require or thought feasible on the site. I prefer the planning policy

here to take precedence.

And I think the strength of that argument

is particularly heightened in this case,

because this site was not a site allocation in the local plan.

So, it is not at a very basic level clear to me why the given that there was a site

allocation exercise involved in the local plan, why it was suddenly decided that, sorry,

I can't remember the number of units, how it was expected

that 81 units should be provided on this site.

That is at the core, I think, of what both Mr. Cattel

and Mr. Farrow have said.

Over to you.

That position is unarguable with about what the zone is supposed to be six storeys.

However, it's also not arguable with that 81 affordable units is something to die for.

I mean, if you, I mean, I'm sure you've all read the figures for homeless and temporary housing

and the effect it all has, but I think it's a balance between obeying the laws that we've

all agreed and obeying the other laws of justice for people who don't have homes.

It's a conflict.

I mean, I would go with the, it has to be a very bad scheme to not be worth going for 81 new affordable houses.

And I think there's a lot to like about this scheme.

I like the front doors along on the five -storey block, that very front door to liven up that street.

I like that quite a lot.

And I think the balconies have been well handled on the tower to sort of pierce the corners.

I would have preferred myself a thinner tower, but taller so that the shadow goes past you quicker, if you see what I mean.

But that's a personal view.

Yeah, I just want to add to that, but of course it's not really our role, is it?

I mean, our role is the impact on the conservation area.

And we've had this discussion before with, I think with the gas works, didn't we, you

know, and the impact that that had on the Tonzies.

But this is more than just the impact.

I mean, all those views, I mean, it's extraordinary the height of the tower from so many parts

of London.

But for the residents themselves, I mean, it's, you know, taking away space, all the

issues that have already been mentioned.

And I mean, it's pretty unprecedented given everything and the fact that local plans to

create six storeys.

Okay.

I mean, of course, I recognise the dilemma here that Councillor Ayers has outlined.

And I simply note that if the MPPF, no, not the MPPF, if the accelerating building in

London policies were now in place, there would be an automatic call -in by the mayor to determine

in the application if ones where there's a local planning authority were minded to reject it.

That is not the case at the moment, but it could well be by the middle of this year.

Are there any other points that people want to make, new points that haven't been raised already?

So if I can summarise, the concerns that we have are first the absence of an archeological

investigation, and I think that could be fairly straightforwardly conditioned if the, if the,

if the decision were to go ahead with this scheme to approve it.

Some concern about the loss of open space.

And we can see the dilemmas there

to do with height versus preserving more, using more,

even more of the space.

There are concerns that are not really, I guess,

conservation area issues to do with the accessibility

via the proposed roadway.

And I think having said all of the questions

that when clearly there have been a reasonably successful attempt to protect

the listed building. On the other hand, the towers would be visible from

quite a long distance within and including from conservation areas not in

this borough, but with our neighbours in Richmond.

So I imagine the conservation planning officers

are a bit conflicted here, or could

be a bit conflicted with their dual role covering the two

boroughs.

But that's a by the by.

The question I guess I have to ask is, do we want to accept this proposal in our advisory

role?

We don't have the final say, just to make things clear for people who are listening.

or to advise rejection of the scheme, or to find a middle way in which we comment on the

proposal rather than either recommending approval or recommending rejection.

Now, I haven't got a view at the moment, and I'm not clear from the discussion so far which

of those three options we should go for?

Does anyone want to give me some advice?

I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to.

Mr. Farrar.

Sorry, to beg your pardon.

I wouldn't want the committee to approve the application.

If we, I think I would prefer that we comment

that a less dense scheme would be preferred.

I can't think of how to justify it apart from what we've said previously.

So essentially what you would be recommending is just for argument, say 50 units rather than 81.

I'm sorry that the 50 is blocked out of the air.

I have no idea what I would take to be the desirable amount of housing on the site,

but I think it would be better if there was less.

I think we accept that there is a need for affordable housing.

The need for housing changes, we have an immediate need.

This building will be here for 60, 70 years, in which time needs may well change.

I think we have to balance the immediate need with an unknown future,

and take into account and give in this instance more weight to the effect on the surroundings and the loss of open space.

So I would prefer that we comment that we would prefer to see a lower density scheme.

Okay, can I ask, I mean, there are two separate, linked but separate issues here.

Is the committee of the view that we should comment on the proposal rather than either

recommending approval or recommending rejection, refusal?

Is that a consensus?

Okay, the second question then is

What our comments what form our comments should should take

Like words I

Like views on

whether the key points that Mr. Farrow has made

is one that we would support or not.

The point that we,

one of our, that our major comment

should be that we would prefer a lower density.

Is that, is that, I don't know whether.

Michael, can I just ask an awkward clarification? By lower density, are you really saying we

want fewer storeys on the tower? Yes, that's exactly it.

Well, I suppose it would be more sensible to start by saying that, well, my view is

I think the tower is unacceptable at that height and therefore if to meet the need of

housing then a scheme which was at the planning local plan recommendation of six storeys and

the design review panels guidance of six storeys would be a more acceptable form of development

and that would then, as you say, preclude the construction of a tower.

I mean, incidentally, I also find, I think that the taller buildings, the taller the building is, the less sustainable it is.

And I think that is also a consideration, if not of this committee, then it ought to be a consideration in considering tall buildings.

they are less sustainable to build, to occupy and to demolish.

And I think any scheme which proposes a tall building

should be considered on those grounds as well.

Okay, that's a rather different point from reducing the number of units on the site.

I mean, if you, if the objection is to a tower, would you be prepared to accept 81 units in

six storey blocks, which would take up most of the public open space?

That's a different tradeoff.

Well, that's predicated on the premise that 81 dwellings have to be constructed on this

site and I think that's a false premise.

Okay, so that remains, so that's the point, not that you could build the same number of

units for across the site using the...

So I asked the question again,

do we want to say that we want fewer units to be built?

Sorry, you've made your point.

let's move on to Councillor Ayers.

That's not what we mean, is it though?

I mean, what we mean is, I mean,

what everybody else means other than me,

is you don't like the tower.

So, talking about densities and numbers

is beside the point.

Yeah, you don't like the tower.

So it should be...

Well, if you don't like the tower,

then I don't see how you can achieve

81 units. Can I put this another way, Chair? I think it's clear that everybody around this

table, with perhaps some exceptions, don't want, figure that the tower is inappropriate

in that setting because of its impact on all sorts of conservation and view settings, and

accidental views have become rather more interesting. The tower block showing up

just down the road at the bottom of the ramp site turns out to be dead in line

with the upper Richmond Road as it goes through West Putney. So suddenly we've

got a tower block we didn't even think about because it wasn't anywhere near

our area. But this this one is this this proposal is doing the same as has been

demonstrated by the question about views. For that reason as a conservation and

Heritage body we should be opposing the idea of anything taller than the six storeys that is in the local plan

Adopted by this council as the appropriate height for that site

Okay, is that the general view?

pakay

counsellor airs

Okay, so

our core objection is to the tower. We don't then have to say anything about

reducing the density. That's the...

That's...

Conformity to the local plan and the design review plan.

Okay, so we would prefer a six, the tower to be replaced with a six -storey block.

Okay, the other issues are not, it seems to me, really conservation area issues.

Okay. Does that amount to an objection?

Yes.

Recommending an objection.

Yes.

Okay. So we've changed our view.

When we were originally saying that we would comment, we're now saying we recommend refusal.

Okay, have you got, sorry that was a rather protracted discussion.

Have you got it on?

Okay.

Let us move on to Meadbank, the nursing home on Parkgate Road.

Who's leading on this?

Thank you, Chair.

So this is a site quite close to an area of quite transitional change. We've had a few

sites come forward, have come to this committee in this location within Battersea. So Meadbank

Nursing Home, it's a building that sits on Park Gate Road and Battersea Bridge Road.

You see the building here in terms of the site boundary.

So the northern part of the site is set back from Park Gate Road, a rather awkward building

arrangement in terms of the Battersea Bridge Road building running at an angle to the street,

which provides this sort of very tight triangular section of land in front of it.

Previously, it was a site of a terrace of buildings with which there is only four left

at this junction between Parkgate Road and Battersea Bridge Road, but previously it did

continue further down Battersea Bridge Road, but were demolished following bomb damage,

I believe. Then we had the Maybank Nursing Home constructed in the location of the previous

Victorian terraces. This shows you an idea more clearly of the arrangement of

the building, the Bilt Foreman, the site. You have a, originally this was the

original part of the building and then it was extended out I believe towards

Battersea Bridge Road, hence why there is this more angular version of this building

here. It's all accessed from Park Gate Road down through the car park so the

The north side of the site is largely taken up by car parks with some buildings of which

some of which are archery preservation orders along Park Gate Road and the main entrance

is down through the site into this block here.

So in terms of designations within and around the site, the building itself is not within

any conservation area but you see here from previous sites in this location that we've

to the committee. It's very close to Westbridge Road conservation area. You have 2 to 4 Westbridge

Road just at that junction. These lovely flint buildings here, some are attached to pair.

There's a further set of locally listed buildings on Battersea Bridge Road. These

two buildings are highlighted as locally listed buildings. The buildings themselves are not

the street names on the side of the buildings, delineating Park Gate Road. Further outside

of the site, you have Battersea Park towards the east and a number of locally listed buildings

going along towards Battersea Park and again further towards the south for the number of

So this is giving you a couple of existing views of the site to show those sort of constraints,

very little landscape to the buildings.

Now the reason behind the proposals coming forward in terms of demolition is that this

building has been highlighted as substandard in terms of the current care facilities. So

the care home that is taking on the management of the site is considered options going forward

in terms of adaptation of the existing buildings. But the main issue is the existing buildings

in terms of the actual size of the units. The rooms are quite small. So they were looking

at that's hence why they were looking at a complete redevelopment of the site but with

the retaining the same use as a as the nursing home. Again you'll see here some of the viewpoints

so this is Battersea Bridge Road here with these sort of rather awkward narrow public

spaces that are quite dead spaces they're not going to utilises utilised for the nursing

facilities. This is the internal courtyard here which is again underutilised. Existing

site plan. I think we've seen this already so you can see that sort of rather awkward

relationship of the existing building. So this shows you existing proposed site plans.

So the building is formed of two sets of, largely two sets of blocks. So you have your

seven storey block along Batterbridge Road which steps down towards the north towards

the terraces and then it wraps around and it steps down with a four storey building

along Park Gate Road. The built form is brought further towards Park Gate Road. This is in

response to initial pre -app engagement with the applicant team. As you'll see in the

design and access statement, it's gone through various pre -application iterations with the

very early iterations looking at distribution of height and massing across the site. The

building itself is just within a tall building zone which extends up northwards towards what

we call Richmond Riverside character area, albeit this is actually within more of a residential

area when we're looking at those character areas within our urban design study. So it's

a transitional area in terms of that character, but it is most of the site is within a tall

building which the maximum heights are seven to eight storeys, but more importantly the

maximum height is 24 metres. In terms of the heights, so it is proposing a Seren storey

building along the Battersea Bridge Road and so this is the southwest elevation where you

can see that Battersea Bridge Road elevation with the highest point towards the southern

part of the site with some stepping down towards the terraces. It is slightly taller than the

maximum building heights within the tall building zone. So this is due to the fact that firstly

the ground floor, floor to ceiling heights have been extended slightly to take account

of the existing context of those buildings towards the north of Battersea Bridge Road.

So this is quite helpful image to show you that relationship here. So within the local

plan you have a standard floor to ceiling heights which is then determined by those

maximum height parameters within those tall building zones. This exceeds it ever so slightly

so just for your benefit. So the maximum height of the building including the plant, bear

in mind the plant is set quite heavily back, is 28 .8 metres so ever so slightly higher

than the tall building's maximum height of 24 metres. So this is up to the point of

the plant, but the actual height up to parapet level is 27 .7 metres. So it only exceeds the

tall building's maximum height by a very small amount. And that is due to the fact,

for a number of reasons, from a design perspective, they've increased the floor to ceiling heights

of the ground floor to allow it to read more successfully with those floor to ceiling heights

that prevail along Battersea Bridge Road. Historically, they are higher. And also because

of the actual use of the building as a care facility, that requires a large amount of

ventilation within the ceilings of those floors. So the actual floor to ceiling heights within

each floor needs to be slightly taller to take account of the additional

ventilation, air conditioning, heating and cooling facilities for the

particular this particular use it's not a residential use it's a care facility.

And as I said it is so obviously slightly taller than the tall building so

any slightly and then you have that step down so these are the this is the

southeast elevations to show that increase in height with the stepping

down towards those terraces and also the stepping down towards Park Gate Road.

This is the Park Gate Road elevation you see here. This is the tour level element and then

it's brought down towards three storeys plus that full storey within the Mansard. So

this was a previously as part of early pre -application discussions we had proposals coming forward

for a much taller block within the site.

That's shown in some of those visuals

and early stage pre -application discussions

within the design and access statement.

Officers obviously had raised concerns about the height

and the fact that it was exceeding the tall building zone.

So we looked at distribution of the site and the massing

with the building being brought further

towards Park Gate Road,

which then provides more of an active frontage

towards Parkgate Road, which at the moment the building is quite set back.

There isn't really any presence to the care facility from that point.

It removes the large area of sort of dead hard standing and car parking towards Parkgate

Road.

What they have sought to do is to retain the tree preservation tree at this corner here.

So that is being retained.

And that was in response to concerns by tree officers towards the end of the pre -application

discussion.

So there have been changes and any other trees that are being removed or proposed to be removed

along the Park Gate Road elevation are being, new trees are being planted within the site

as part of the landscaping plan.

Largely brick elevation, we've got a variation of different bricks, colours to the building

just to delineate those changes in the different heights.

And you'll notice on the part,

the Battersea Bridge Road elevation,

you have the first three storeys

that are sort of addressing the pavement edge,

and then there is a step back

to try to reduce the massing

and the impact of that taller element,

and also to allow a greater relationship

with those terraces further north.

Just a couple of views.

These are just sort of the courtyard views

that just give you an idea of some of the view, the materiality and design of the building.

I'll quickly go through these. And then courtyard views. So there's been a lot of

work done on landscaping for this site. It's gone through two design review panels. A lot

of concerns were raised initially about the design being not very animated and really

looking at landscaping and really there was some discussions about bringing the height

further up but there is the concerns then with exceeding quite considerably exceeding

the tall building zone. So the height hasn't been brought up, it's kept as it has, but

there has been a lot of work in terms of bringing more interest and visual interest to the building

in terms of the architectural treatment and design and as well as the landscaping as well.

So moving on to the visualisations which give you a really good idea of how it will look

within those contests of the heritage assets.

So Battersea Bridge Road, current street view

as you see here and the really awkward relationship

of the current building with that angular plot

and causing, allowing that to have a triangular

piece of land there.

That will be removed and you'll see here

that you have the building brought up

to the pavement edge at those first three storeys

and then stepped back at a change in materiality

to the upper floors, a gradual lightening of the brick as you go up to delineate to

base, middle and top to the building, which was something that the design review panel

raised as a concern. The top and the parapet level has been refined with a detail to allow

it to be more clearly defined. There is a stepping here to these buildings further up

to this point is where we have Westbridge Conservation Area looking towards the sites

So just outside of the conservation area.

And here's Park Gate Road.

The change is here with the current building setback.

Very little kind of relationship with the street scene.

And there's quite an improvement there.

So I'll quickly run through some of the viewpoints.

I can come back to some of these.

But this one's sort of repeating

the previous viewpoint that we showed.

So current proposed and that's the cumulative impact.

Obviously, it's not much cumulative impact there in terms of other schemes coming forward.

You see here this, there's the seeking to try to maintain that sort of continuous height

here, but with a step back of the upper storeys.

This is one which is looking at just outside of the conservation area with the buildings.

Park Gate Road, not a heritage view, but more townscape, looking at that view from Park

Gate Road and the changes to the built form, bringing it closer towards Park Gate Road.

Battersea Bridge South, again, not necessarily a heritage view orbit. I think the, if I remember,

I think this building here is locally listed. Surrey Lane, showing the existing proposed,

So this is just a wire line, so this is the proposals here,

there's very little changes in terms of impact

and visual impact.

Battersea Park, Albert Gate, so we're looking

within Battersea Park Conservation Area now,

looking down towards the site, and you can see

that you start seeing some of the taller blocks

within the background of the view,

but the height of the building will,

the higher point of the building will not be visible

from this view.

You'll start to see the front part

of the Park Gate Road elevation.

Bassy Park South, so you see this is the cumulative view

and you have the building coming up.

It's not breaking the tree line

unlike some of the other schemes

that we brought to committee.

Wallingbrook Walk, which is right within

Westbridge Conservation Area,

so this is the view looking down with the,

so Westbridge Conservation Area is on this side

of the street and you can see here towards the Brattersea Bridge Road with the building

coming up in the background behind the trees. And Brattersea Bridge Road and Brattersea

Church Road and here you have the Royal College of Art. So a slightly taller building within

this context, actually in the conservation area and the building coming up behind it.

I think that's the last view.

And I think that's it.

So it would be good to hear the committee's views on what they consider there would be

any impacts on those labour and heritage assets.

Thank you.

Any questions, first of all?

Questions of fact?

No?

Yes, the number of rooms, care rooms.

I knew it was somewhere in the...

Yes, 139 care beds and suites, and it includes a dementia suite as well.

So there'll be a significant improvement in the quality of the care facilities here.

OK. If there are no other questions, comments, views, reactions.

Mr. Catto?

I just please leave that map on the view because I think it's important to understand that

the context here seems to be around that traffic junction for very different corners.

I think it's not really affecting the conservation stuff diagonally opposite at all and should

be read in the context of the state behind it.

And funnily enough, across Park Gate Road, the L -shaped building you see is part of the

college and is 11 storeys high. This is a very different context from the one we've

just been discussing, and I'm pleased to see that they've counted the storeys at least within

the number specified in the local plan, which makes a pleasant change, especially since top left

of that map it's a little building known as glass mill

miss Radcliffe

Sorry, I can't quite remember, but the building that was approved in Elko Street, was that 10 storeys?

You mean as part of the Ransom's Wharf development?

It's certainly not small. I can't remember.

It's ten storeys. Don't quote me on that. I'd need to double -cheque that, but I think that sounds quite familiar.

Wearing a Battersea Society hat, I should say that the Society has made a number of comments about the building,

but not so much on conservation issues.

So I'm not going to say any more than that

for this committee.

Councillor Ayers, I see wanting to say something.

I think it's a conservation matter,

but it's to do with this is an enormous role.

It's a big building to be demolished.

Demolition is in essence wasteful.

and I'm concerned about the fact that they say they have looked at improving it.

Is that right?

How thoroughly did they do that?

I can't believe that something could not have been done to keep the building.

It's not a wonderful building to keep, I'm not being conservation conscious like that,

but it's just the notion of looking down a large building.

So just...

I could add that it was a building originally owned by the council.

Is that relevant?

Well, not particularly, but it was a Wandsworth council care home

until a previous regime sold it off.

Do we want to make any...

Do we want...

Let me put it this way, starkly, to start with.

Do we want to support this proposal?

Yes, I think I do. I think it is a well -presented scheme. It seems to conform to what I understand

of the local planning policies. And although I share the concern about the sustainability

issues in terms of its demolition of the existing building, the construction of a new one, I

I think I would prefer to see the new buildings and the old building.

So it's a tricky one, as they nearly always are.

But in terms of conservation, then I think

my view is to support it.

Thank you. I just wanted to come back on the point about the demolition of the building.

So as part of the application, they have submitted a whole life cycle carbon assessment, which

goes through as part of the tall building assessment, they do have to identify elements

like urban heat island issues.

But as part of that, they have identified ways in which they can utilise the existing

fabric of the building and repurpose it within the new building.

So whilst to reduce that CO2 emissions.

And they are seeking to utilise as much of the concrete

within the building as possible.

So it is a demolition of the site,

but they are seeking to try to reduce their carbon offset

as much as possible.

They have worked quite hard to look into that quite carefully.

And I do believe, as far as I am aware,

that a lot of the base and the foundations

are going to be utilised from discussions with pre -application stage

they had raised that. Okay it seems to me that what we're saying here if I've got

it right is that we think this this building will be what clearly the aim is

to provide improved care facilities that's not our concern but it's

important nevertheless

and

We we think that the building proposed will actually be an it an enhancement

to the current street scene both on Battersea Bridge Road and on Park Gate Road given the

given the context in which

The the current building is low and the new building will be located

Is that a reasonable way to put it?

Clearly not

I'm not sure you're not getting a bit far when you say it would enhance

the view from

Bassy Bridge Road, I

Don't think I'd go that far because I'd rather see a low -level building with more greenery

Although it might be an awkward triangular shape

than a mass building, but I don't think we've got any grounds to object to that building.

I just wouldn't say, I wouldn't use the word enhance, I don't think.

Okay, okay, I withdraw it. But I would say that on part 8, well, I think it clearly would be an enhancement.

Okay, let us move on.

Riversdale Primary School, this is a previous friend and you're leading.

Fine, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

This was a scheme that some of you may remember was presented previously in September last year

and in the discussion there was some note that there weren't supporting visuals to allow for further assessment.

The architects have now provided some updated drawings and visuals to allow you to view

the scheme more clearly.

I won't go through information previously presented, but just to briefly recap, the

late Victorian school is grade two listed, but the site is not located within a conservation

area and so the main heritage consideration is the impact of the setting of the listed

building.

Can you just go to the elevation?

Yeah.

Actually, could you just go further?

Keep going, get that one done.

A supporting design document has been submitted

outlining how the design has sought to respond

to the character of the main school building.

The roof is intended to reference the skyline profile.

The recessed panels of brickwork are intended

to reflect the bays of the windows.

The recessed brickwork vertical sections in the gables are intended to reference chimneys

and the verticality of the school architecture.

The entrance is emphasised as a point of arrival and in terms of external materials the building

adopts light toned facing brickwork to avoid competing with the red brick of the main school.

Red clay tiles are proposed to the roof, windows are to be finished in a white powder coated

aluminium system these views show that the building would be set back from

Merton Road which is the image on the right but there would be it would sit in

some closer proximity to coronation gardens to the rear so yes thank you

Questions to start with.

Councillor Ayers.

I'm sorry to keep talking but I don't quite understand.

It says it's a two -storey building to accommodate four classrooms.

I don't understand that because it's only three classrooms on the plan.

What?

Councillor, we saw this theme back in September when it was a two -storey building.

What we've got in front of us today is a completely different scheme,

which stands on the same plot.

I don't know. I haven't thought of it since.

It was a two -storey building with a flat roof.

OK. Can we change the... Yes, OK.

Apologies. The actual... So it's actually the same application,

so the application number has changed,

but the case officer just needs to get... agree a change of description.

So it's only coming quite quickly. It's coming quite relatively late.

So can I just follow up while I've got my button on?

I think the roof pattern is absolutely irrelevant

to what it's trying to imitate.

It bears... I mean, I can see the red line on the diagram

that's trying to explain it,

but to me it's absolutely pretentious archibabble.

I mean, I'm an architect, I'm allowed to say that.

I mean, I think it's archibabble.

I mean, and it's also completely contraindicative of the volumes inside.

You've got three big volumes now.

And four little peaks.

Ridiculous.

So, I mean, I do not like the... I like the brick recesses,

I like the entrance and the fenestration.

But in terms of conserving and respecting the existing building,

I think it's, I'm sorry, I think it's pathetic.

Right, we've clearly moved on from questions to comments.

No, that's okay.

But just before we move on, are there any other questions that people want to raise?

No? Okay, we are fully on to comments then.

I understand this was for the Send pupils, wasn't it?

A single -storey building, I find this a more inviting building for those on a single storey

than having wasted space with stairs.

I don't know if that's wasted space in the roof, in the ceilings, but that is not

conservation issue but a more accommodating building for children's

centre

sorry comments mr. Kato I'm just going to support everything

counsellor has said it's trying far too hard and as a result as a disaster as a

result if this is taking a roof line from a building that was only possible

at the highest, most exuberant bit of the arts and crafts period, and trying to copy it badly.

Councillor Irons.

I was just curious as to how it sits with the other modern building that is beside the school, which is a sort of a...

Yes.

But I mean that... I also happen to know that in a bit like a lot of primary schools in Wandsworth,

a lot of the schools have gone from two form entry to one form entry.

And I can appreciate that this is specifically for

SEND and I understand how it's being done.

But it does strike me that there are quite a few schools in Monsworth at the moment where half,

I was in one in fact yesterday with the offices in Battersea where half the classrooms are not used for classes.

But having said that, because of course they've gone down to one form entry, this is obviously very different with SEND.

But yes, the other building is coming down

And definitely coming down is it?

That's what it says on the plants

Yes, sorry just just one further point to add this

Building would be modular construction

So that is placing certain limits on how flexible they can be in terms of changing the massing in terms of the reforms that they're putting

on there. So they're working quite hard within the modular construction system to try and

present something aesthetically better than what you would get for your average modular

construction.

Mr Armstrong.

Yeah, obviously they've got a large floor plan and they're trying to keep the have a

roof and keep the roof height reasonable, low, so then hence the sawtooth facade.

I can imagine those valleys filling up with leaves during the autumn and being

a bit of a nuisance, but quite delightful elevation from this, you know, from this

distance better than just a flat roof block. So from my point of view I'm not an architect

but you know I think it's quite fun.

Sir Faro.

Having disagreed with Councillor Ayers earlier about the balance of affordable housing and

I'm more than pleased to agree completely with her in this instance.

Not entirely sure I'd have used the same choice of words, but I think she's entirely right.

And I'm sorry to now have to disagree with Mr. Armstrong, because I think that a flat

roof on this building would be entirely appropriate.

and that I'm sorry that the architects put together a nice scheme,

but I think they have tried too hard and made a big mistake.

Are there any new points that people want to make?

So are we recommending, oh sorry.

Can I just say that that building has a sense of identity

in itself whether you like it or not.

If your child that goes to that wing

and it's a flat roof prefab, we've seen that sort of thing

at other listed building sites which have been

redeveloped subsequently.

So Ensham School and the Francis Barber

People Referral Unit has at last got its own sense

of a school in the site of the playground

has at last got its own sense of identity.

Very different to that one,

but where pupils go to somewhere

that feels like a building rather than an annex.

I just had a comment to it,

because if you look at the floor plan

and you look at the elevations,

there's a bizarre oddity.

I don't know, because we haven't got a section through it

as far as I'm aware.

But if the two rooms on the side have the roofs at either end, which I think they probably

do, you could have a very nice interior, which would meet the requirements of the SEND development,

which would have some kind of interest rather than just a block.

But the asymmetry of the roofs over the central building just makes no sense at all, I don't

think.

and I don't buy the argument that they couldn't make more sense of it because

they're seeking to produce a modular building because if it had four equal

roofs it would be a lot more modular and a lot easier to build and a lot more

balanced.

I just have a question about why the other building is being pulled down and just to

counter, but I agree with everything Libby Lawson was saying about having a standalone

building for children.

But having said that, Wandsworth's most successful primary school in terms of consistently filling

150 places every reception has had a prefab sitting in its playground for 15

years and the children love it. That's why it's not been pulled down.

Belleville Primary School in my ward. If I can add a personal view I'm not

to not root and branch opposed to pitch roofs,

but I do find it bizarre that they've gone for something

that is so asymmetrical and so unrelated to what lies

and what it covers.

If they'd simply gone for modular pitch roofs all the same size, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

Could I suggest that we do, that we simply comment on this application saying that we

accept the case for doing something interesting with the roofs.

We we accept the the detail about the brickwork

and and

Recesses and so on but the asymmetry of the of the rooms

Needs to be addressed

before we well it can it

Some further thoughts needs to be given to whether the asymmetry of the rooms is justified

Councillor Ayers, you're not going to agree with me?

I think asymmetry is not the problem, in my view.

It's the idea of four roofs over three spaces.

I accept that.

If you had a single roof over the biggest room in the middle,

You could still have it pitched and you could achieve symmetry with...

I'm just... I mean, I think symmetry is not the word you use

because they can start arguing about anything that you're doing.

Or doubling yourself.

I mean, it's just...

It's a whole room over three spaces.

Yes, yes. OK. Right.

Are people happy with that?

Could I just come back to that and look at the diagram on the screen?

The old school, the original school, although it is an extraordinary composition,

actually each block relates to a set of classrooms, you're quite right,

that disguises the fact they've got the double height or the alternate height spaces in between

where the stairs and the toilets are.

It's a very clever composition, actually made of specific pieces.

On to Altenburg Gardens, number two. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

This site is a parcel of land to the east of this residential street at its southern end, close to Clapham Common.

occupied by an access drive to a workshop or form of workshop to the rear and a there's a small 20th

century building with a pitched roof formally used as an office. To the north is an attractive

Lake Victorian terrace and to the south are the rear extensions of 122 Clapham Northside,

a large Victorian end of terrace property. The site is located within the Clapham Common

Conservation Area. Whilst the site itself is a fairly neutral feature it provides a visual

break in the building line between the terraces on Ozenberg Gardens and those

facing Clapham Northside. The site also sits within the settings of St.

Barnabas's church and its associated church hall, both of which are separately

listed at grade two. Proposals seek to demolish the small office and

build a four -bedroom house of two storeys with an attic retaining the

ground floor access through to the former garage workshops behind.

To the front, the building adopts a style intended to reflect the adjacent Victorian terraces on Altenburg Gardens,

but to the rear adopts a more contemporary appearance.

In terms of materials, London stock brick and roof slates are proposed to the walls and roof,

with single ply membrane to the flat roofs and zinc cladding to the dormers,

with a mix of timber sash and casement windows. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? Mr Armstrong, questions.

This looks like it's part of a phased redevelopment of a larger site. Can I just cheque whether

that is the case? Because there's a strip of land that runs behind the terrace and there's

also another site on the Lavender Gardens frontage.

I am aware that there have been pre -application discussions

for the wider site, yes.

I can add to that.

There is a planning application in

for the redevelopment of the workshops between,

to the rear of the terraces in Altenburg Gardens and Lavender Gardens.

And one of the aims of this development is to retain access to those workshops,

which is one of the reasons for the slight, without...

Well, it's one of the reasons for slight oddity in my view of the proposal, that it has to

retain access to those workshops.

Mr.

Yeah, can I just flag up that there are some very interesting buildings on the Lambda Gardens

frontage part of the site which are believed to be associated with ancillary buildings to

the 18th century West Lodge that stood on the site prior to this frontage terrace and

the Victorian redevelopment.

And Westlodge did have a very important residence at one time,

a nefarious person called Adam Worth,

who was the inspiration for Conan Doyle's Moriarty

in the Sherlock Holmes storey.

He was known as Napoleon of Crime at the time,

so quite interesting.

So I mean, we'd really like to, when the time comes,

have a good look at that,

the buildings on the Lavender Gardens frontage

to see how much remains of the 18th century coach houses,

stables, et cetera, associated with West Lodge,

which was a very important building and it's got quite a large write -up

in the Survey of London, Volume 50.

Right. Can I raise one other issue?

There's also a new application in for Number 2A, Altenburg Gardens,

where the building next door, the part of number 2A, next to the single -storey office

was remodelled, I think, in the early years of this century,

and a side window was put in,

and an application has been put in to retain that window,

which is clearly going to be rendered inoperable

by the proposed building at number two.

So there's clearly a dispute afoot between numbers two and 2A.

I just passed that on that needs to be taken account of when we look at the

application, this current application. So I'd emphasise that this, that what we're

concerned with, what we collectively are concerned with at the moment, is number

two on Altenburg Gardens and anything relating to West Lodge which remains on

Lavender Gardens would not be affected by this development. Sorry that's all by

way of context. I have other comments to make about this development

wearing my Battersea Society hat, but I will hold fire on that before receiving

comments from other members of the committee, if they have any. Mr. Catto

clearly does. Yes, sorry to be quite so vociferous this evening. I just think it's, you

can see what they're trying to do, you can see that they are aiming to fit in

with a street which is basically fairly robustly built, highly

deco, well, not highly decorated,

but decorated with lots of stucco and lintels and so on.

Detailed, well -detailed Victorian houses.

There are some even more substantial ones further down.

It's just a pity that they haven't had the courage

to be as tall as next door.

I can comment, I can add information on that.

The argument that they present is that they wanted to make a transition between the lower

height of the buildings in number 2A, essentially the back additions to Clapham Common, north

north side. I mean, I have to say I think that's baloney.

Any other comments?

I'm sorry, I'm disappointed as I invariably am to see a scheme that seeks to poorly replicate

the local buildings in attempt to fit in.

I would very much rather see a building that was clearly contemporary

and I think this building fails.

It's not a good match to the existing.

It doesn't try and transit between the existing and the adjacent.

and it lacks the courage of any kind of conviction.

It's just depressing that people feel the need not to frighten the horses.

I wouldn't want to frighten the horses, but I think, well not too much,

but I really do think it is a poor building

and I would like the committee to object to it and to comment that they would rather see something

that was a more a building that looked more like it had been built in 2026.

I forgot what year it was for a minute. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments that people want to make about this?

If not, can I just add, I mean, most of the points I'd want to make have already been

made.

This seems to me to fail on several grounds.

It has the courage of its convictions on both sides of any kind of debate.

It doesn't seek to complete or to add to the terrace to the left in this slide,

nor does it relate at all satisfactorily to the buildings on the right in this slide.

it is neither effective pastiche nor, as Mr. Farrell has said,

does it have the courage of its convictions to say,

we're going to build something contemporary here.

There are too many roof lights.

the way in which the first floor relates most awkwardly to the adjoining terrace.

The rooms, they've tried to make it too big,

given that they've got to provide on the ground floor that access to the workshops behind.

They've tried to do too much and too little at the same time.

It seems to me a deplorable...

I mean, it would be a blot on the landscape, on the street scape.

I'm taking you don't like it.

Anyone else want to make a comment?

Mr. Armstrong.

Well, I can see what they're trying to do.

It's time to be good -mannered and to adopt a sort of transitional look between one and the other,

but it doesn't, it does fail from a point of view of trying to look like a mock Victorian in terrace.

Yeah, they picked up the gables nicely, but really the roof, the whole height of the thing and the... yeah.

Councillor Irons.

Just comparing what Mr. Jubb was saying, particularly because as you rightly pointed out, it's not

just those stucco Victorian houses, it's extraordinary streets.

As you go down Altenburg Gardens, you've got the Catholic Church, but the houses become

completely different and they're very different to other houses even in Battersea, you know,

sort of the very round four -storey,

a lot of them are in flats now,

but they are big houses of a particular style,

and they're just down from those.

So you'd have, it's not just that it's different

to the one on the left, it's completely different

to the main houses on Altenburg Gardens,

which are big with huge round base.

Just emphasises the point that you could build

something entirely different there and it wouldn't matter it would still fit in.

Yeah those those big houses are earlier but the Hiscox and Williams development

the 1860s. Yeah but there are some in Sisters Avenue which are very similar built later 1880.

I just looked at Street View and there at the far end of the building exactly the same

place as this one is, is a not sure I like it, I just had a look on Street View, but

a building that is very contemporary at the other end of the road. So, yeah.

Do I have agreement that we recommend that we put in a pretty forceful objection to this

application?

And

We and we leave it to the planners to sort out issues around related applications

That leads us on to our final application 89 Thirli Road a very different kind of

building that we're looking at.

Who is leading on this again?

Yes, me again.

The site of this application is a detached, unlisted,

late 19th, early 20th century property

located to the north of Thirlley Road.

The site is located within the Nightingale Lane

Conservation Area where it makes a positive contribution

via its architectural style, traditional pallet materials,

and position as part of a group.

In terms of surroundings, one of the plots to the east

has been redeveloped with flats, but this section

of the street otherwise largely retains original detached

and semi -detached Victorian and Edwardian properties,

many of which have been heavily extended.

The properties are located within generous plots

with verdant front gardens.

To the east is the Grade II Star St. Luke's Church,

and the church tower is a local landmark, widely visible.

Proposals here seek a range of alterations,

but the principal thing that we are seeking comments on is the front extension at the first floor with a flat roof with the

loss of the

small outshot feature there

Other proposals are concentrated to the rear of the property or relate to a basement extension

Details on materials are a little light for the first floor front extension, but images indicate brick

Replaced garage door at the ground floor includes timbered louvres over glazing.

The extension to the rear is powder coated aluminium pladding and red dental brickwork.

Yes, thank you.

Sorry, have you finished your...

Questions. I have one question to start with.

You can see from both the elevation, the front elevations there,

that the existing garage is not part of the original house

and I have been unable to find any planning application for that garage being built.

It's clearly a modern garage, and without it, the first floor extension would not be possible.

It would have to be a two -storey extension,

and it would clearly have to relate a bit more closely.

It doesn't even follow the line of the gable end

of the house to the left.

So it's a monstrosity to start with

and should never have been built.

But is there any record of a planning application for it?

Not that we're aware of, I'm afraid,

but it will probably be now lawful under the...

Yeah.

So being in situ for more than five years,

that's increased now, but the time limit's being built.

Okay, any other questions that people want to ask?

Mr Armstrong.

There's a sort of glazed thing appearing above the roof.

What is it?

Should it in fact be on both drawings?

I believe they're reducing the size of it and that's why it's not showing up on the proposed elevation

because they are replacing it with one that does not protrude as high.

Any other questions before we move on to comments?

No? I will hold back again.

Councillor Ayers wants to get in.

I don't know whether you've all had a chance to read the purposes

of all these rooms that we're looking at.

It is an extraordinary development.

I mean, forget, I mean,

whether it's a conservation area or not,

it's a most bizarre, it's a two bedroom house

with about 10 bathrooms, and then gyms and cinemas

and what have you, and then three, four reception rooms.

It is the most extraordinary development.

And I wonder if, this is a sort of planning question

rather than conservation, whether it's intended to be used as a club or something.

Although, you know, I mean, it seems like the headquarters of a club, you know, rather

than a house, but that's – my colleagues in planning keep telling me you can't stop

people doing stupid things with their houses.

But I mean, how do you wonder the purpose of it just strikes me as bizarre?

And in in toto, it's a massive extension of that.

Yes, yes.

Any other comments?

Mr Armstrong.

Yeah, comment. I mean, I don't like the front extension, I think.

You know, if you can possibly do without this additional little bit of space,

it would really help the front elevation of the building.

Because it's taking away a bit of gable

and a lot of architectural modelling from front elevation.

Any other comments?

Yes, please. I'd like to talk about the garage door being replaced with glass with louvres over it.

The garage door, as was rightly pointed out, will by now be lawful because the garage has been there long enough.

But we are being asked to approve that change in material.

Why can't they just, if they want a window into the room that was the garage,

although presumably the people who can afford all of those rooms also will have half a dozen cars parked outside,

why can't we have something a little less unusual as part of what is otherwise a relatively coherent elevation,

disregarding what's going on in glass windows at the back.

Are there any other comments before I try and sum up?

There's obviously lots of implications

about this development and the scale of it,

But if I understood correctly from the introduction, whether we were being directed or not,

of concern to us is the removal of a existing cloakroom on the first floor

and its expansion into be a bigger cloakroom.

Is that the gist of what you think is pertinent for us as a committee to consider?

not with sounding all the extensions underneath and at the back and stuff?

That was the principle element of the much wider scheme, yes.

Does this moving forward of the bit of roof on the top left of these diagrams,

how does that impact the left hand elevation?

Because I don't think we've seen one.

No, unfortunately we don't seem to have that elevation.

I think that's going to have to remain a question and a question of concern.

The question of concern for the officers might perhaps ask the applicant because that doesn't

seemed okay we do I know we don't have the full set here but there doesn't seem

to be a left -hand elevation and somehow that piece of roof is moving forward

without the ridge moving without the so either there's a new piece of flat roof

roof at the top and a strange gable or something, but it doesn't add up. So that's a question

rather than a comment, but it's a comment that perhaps...

Oh, it is a flat roof. Sorry, it's on the proposed roof.

Ah. Right, so it's not going to look anything like the elevation implies. It's introducing

a flat roof element at the front of the house that wasn't there before.

And as such, it's going to be a parapet edge rather like the garage.

So I think the drawings are, can I put it politely, misleading?

And it's ugly.

Let me try and sum up in the, sorry,

Council Owens, you did signal.

Yes, a lot of what I was going to say has been said and I concur with that.

I was just going to point out that it's actually in my ward, age 930 Road.

And just back to sort of Councilor's point about the size of it and all the rooms, etc.

We see an awful lot of this at the moment.

In fact, there's one that's similar going on in Toaster Act,

which is not in my ward,

but so many of them at the moment, where we have this at the back, as you know.

But obviously, this is in reference to the front of the building

and the cloakroom and changing that.

Can I...?

Yeah, I just want to... Just a historical note.

This is part of a development of 1885 to 7 by C .E. Smith.

And there were a series of these houses.

So they were symmetrical.

And with that alteration, they won't be any longer.

Let me try and sum up.

And I think we must focus, as has been said,

on the extension to the left side of the front elevation.

And it seems to me that what we're saying is that it is objectionable first in completely

and damagingly altering the overall design of the house, that it involves changes to

to the roof plan that haven't been properly articulated

in those elevations,

that the change to the garage door

seems completely out of keeping

with the rest of the design,

that we're not going to comment on the extent

of the changes underground and at the back

and the weird pattern of rooms in the house,

but presumably if it did turn into a club, that would be a change of use.

Have you got enough?

That's OK. Right.

Let us, in that case, move on.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 26-02)

So we've come to the end of the applications.

We have to note the decisions made on applications

which we have considered in recent times.

some of them a bit long -lived actually.

And can I point to one omission from this list

that the second application for Chivalry Hall

on Chivalry Road was approved by the city of London

by officers. I am not joking. It was decided sometime over Christmas, over the Christmas

break. So they rejected the case that we made that the slightly lesser of the changes that

We discussed last time, but if you remember there were two applications

One just slightly less objectionable than the other but we nevertheless

Did not recommended

refusal that it has been

Accepted and I I

Was slightly puzzled by that I have to say it's a map the officers report actually amounts to an outright

rejection of the comments that we made.

Can we register our disappointment?

I'm in your hands.

Well, I would very much like that the committee could minute

that we were extraordinary disappointed that the application,

either of the applications was approved.

Yes, it was the second application, number 3241.

Both applications altered the front elevation in the same way, and we considered that to be entirely wrong.

Okay.

Yeah.

Does anyone want to comment on any of the other decisions that were made?

You will note that...

Which one is... Sorry, where, what...

Which page are we on?

Page 16.

Page 16. Thank you.

Yes.

Page 16.

in 2025 3306, that's 110 to 112 Partney High Street,

otherwise known as Lloyd's Bank, and the building immediately

to its left, which has been part of the bank for a long time.

I think the question here is divided into two.

What the panel were looking at last,

this committee were looking at last time,

was the conservation elements.

And I think we thought that it was reasonably done.

But what we didn't comment on is the fact that in doing so,

the development was going to be built almost full height

to almost the back of the plot and relied

on a deep, narrow light well, probably three storeys deep

and the size of this, and no wider in places

than this table, to light several of the rooms.

and I think officers have rightly picked that up and rejected on that basis.

Though I do find the decision about the Mansard roof put in the decision slightly bizarre

because this panel did take a look and thought that what had been proposed was the right

answer.

I mean, what I noted was that we were pretty positive about the front elevation.

And the officers who refused the application speak of the proposal by reason of scale design

amassing would be an inappropriate addition that would be out of keeping

with the existing building and approvals and so on so it wasn't only the light

what the light well and and so on well I think it amounts to that because the

building go would have gone a long way back so it would have stuck out taking

daylight from buildings either side of it. Okay any other decisions I note on

page 17 and 18 we objected to one of the waterfall house applications where they

Permission was granted

But that that

It was explained to us at the last meeting that that was modified so it was only single signage. So that's

Okay, any others that people want to comment on

Okay, I

I have one other item of business under which I'd like.

Actually, there isn't an AOB under on the agenda, but could I just raise the issue of the appeal that has been submitted?

I think with a day to spare for the glass mill, which I said we should not discuss until now.

The Inspectorate has appointed an Inspector.

The inquiry will take place for over eight,

well, eight days have been allowed from the 17th of March.

I have to say I have read the statement of appeal

and find it somewhat bizarre

because it doesn't really amount to a clear statement

of the grounds on which they're appealing rather oddly.

I can say that the Battersea Society is very seriously considering seeking Rule 6 status

at the appeal.

The final decision hasn't been taken and I welcome any comments or advice that people

might have to offer on that, which might influence our decision.

My understanding is that we have to submit an application fairly soon.

It's the 20th of January, but this way thinks that it might have been extended to the 26th.

That's correct.

I'll need to cheque that and I will confirm back through Democratic Services who can confirm

what the day deadline would be.

Thank you.

I know that the Chelsea Society is interested also in seeking Rule 6 status, and I've arranged

a telephone call with the chair of the Chelsea Society to see whether we might, you know,

join forces.

Obviously, if other societies would want to join, I've spoken to Mr. Catto and Mr. Farrow

if others wanted to join.

I think that would add strength to any, well, as I said, we haven't made a decision yet,

But if I knew that others supported us, that would weigh in our decision making.

But any other comments, advice, I'd be very happy to receive.

I have one question. Have you, sorry, the planners, prepared a statement of case? The

last time I looked it wasn't on the appeal website or the planning website.

It's currently being produced by the local authority so we are looking, I think our deadline

is next week for a statement of case so it is being worked through with officers. So

it will be once it has been produced it will be on the website.

The statement of case that the appellant has put forward as Michael said is it seems to

be lacking in any substance. They are just saying we're appealing this and we'll let

you know what we're going to do at the inquiry. Is that acceptable?

A lot of the bulk of the justification will come in the proof of evidences of the expert

witnesses that are being put forward by the appellants and equally then the council bring

forward expert witnesses themselves. So the statement of cases effectively a statement

provides a summary of why they are appealing the application and then much

further detail comes with the proof of evidences. The deadline for proof of

evidence is mid -February. And when they submit theirs, their proofs

of evidence, will there be sufficient time for us or to comment whether or to

comment as Rule 6 objectors or simply to comment? Because I think anyone can

make a comment can't they on the appeal that's correct yes I'd need to cheque the

deadlines on that I believe that proof of evidences for any rule six parties

council appellant is mid -february I think it's around about the 15th of

February is the deadline and then you I'd need to cheque if you can comment on

those proof of evidences I've we've got public inquiry next week and then

another one previously. It depends because we were not able to comment on the public

inquiry I'm attending next week and I think Barry's doing one the following week. Were

you able to give comment on those? I don't think so.

I'm doing comments on the, to my barrister, I don't know whether that will transpire into

a rebuttal or not yet.

All of us are keen to maintain our objections to the scheme. At the present I've spoken

not entirely sure whether there is merit in us growing together to be a sort of corporate

rule six objector or merit in each society submitting and sort of standing on its own.

we don't want to clog the system up, but we do want to maintain an opportunity to comment

on site of the proof of evidence. And if that isn't possible because of the timetabling,

then to do so at the inquiry.

So you can comment on, you can provide comment on the appeal. The difference between becoming

a Rule 6 party is that opens you up to cross -examination and examination in chief. So you can still

make a statement at the appeal. You can make a statement, but that's the only difference

is that if you're not a Rule 6 party, it's my understanding from the public inquiries

we've done, is that that's the difference is that if you're a Rule 6 party, you're

subject to that cross -examination.

Thank you.

I mean, I'm not suggesting that the committee want to change their comments because I think

we probably stand by what we said before and there really isn't anything else to add.

But I thought that was the end of it unless you put in for a Rule 6, in which case you

could be represented at the inquiry and you'd hear and be able to respond to anything that

the appellants said and the only way to be able to respond to what the appellants said

was to ask for a Rule 6 participation. Is that right? Have I misunderstood that?

I apologise for conferring with my colleagues.

We want to give you clarity on exactly what it is that it entails.

As far as we know, if you're Rule 6 party, the main difference is that you are represented

at the public inquiry with a KC who then is given the opportunity to cross -examine the

and any other expert witnesses, but you as whoever is representing that the

society. So if you're going for a number of societies as a collective you have to

introduce one single person who provides the evidence on behalf of everybody. That

person is a subject across examination themselves by the councils KC, the

appellants KC, any other rules six party KCs as well. So it gives the

opportunity for you to test the other evidences come forward in that guise,

which is not necessarily possible if you're just giving a statement to

support the council decision, for example, that statement will just be

read out at the appeal and will be considered by the inspector. But you're

not given the opportunity to scrutinise the appellant's proof of evidence and

evidence in chief at the public inquiry itself.

Can I just seek one more clarification? And that is when you say we can make a statement,

I don't see that in this letter that we've all received. So it would just be on what

basis can we make a statement?

As part of the appeal you can make a statement to support the council's decision or add to that.

So it becomes part of the evidence base in the appeal.

I think as far as I'm concerned, because I did a public inquiry last year, and I have one next week,

people can request to speak at the public inquiry.

They're just not cross -examined, so they're representing a society.

I think that is related to if you would like to change your comments from the applications.

If you want to modify them, so change what you've originally said, and if you want to

represent yourself, you want to come forward as a six party.

That's the one that seems to be required by the 27th of January.

Yeah.

Which is very close.

The whole deadline for the public inquiry is quite tight.

So it's a very tight deadline, all of the – so we have – we're working through

statement of common ground at the moment, the deadline which is next week and statement

of case for the council is due I think I believe the next week or the week after. It is a very

tight deadline and those are deadlines that are prescribed by the inspector, not the council

or the appellant. So we have to go by those deadlines unfortunately. We can't negotiate

changes, they're quite strict and they're set by the inspector.

There should be some sort of timetable now when you look into it.

If there isn't, I will cheque and see if there is a timetable.

But Michael, the general point that I think is that would the Commission want to

I think it would be a better way to proceed, not using this committee, which is partly

a creature of the Council anyway, even though I'm an independent chair.

I think the question we have to decide on as individual societies is how we want to

proceed and whether we want to proceed collectively to seek Rule 6 status.

We have to bear in mind that the inspector is given all the appeal documents including

all the comments and council papers that were prepared for the application. There's a sort

of a natural anxiety that you just want to make sure and bang home to make sure the inspector

clearly understands that you feel passionately about it, which is sometimes misplaced because

what you don't want to do is waste their time, clog up the system and, well, hopefully you

wouldn't annoy them, they'd be independent. But that aside, because of the tightness of

the timetable, it's difficult to know whether or not the documents that are bid by the appellant

will be something that you wish to question. And the only way that I think that you can

do that is to request and be accepted as a Rule 6, had Rule 6 status. I think that is

what we, the societies that have commented, are thinking of doing. Whether or not we do

it collectively or do it separately, I don't know what the best option is. But we hopefully

will decide in the next few days.

Okay, are there any other points that people want to make?

Clearly there need to be a number of offline discussions

between individual societies,

but I don't think it would be appropriate

for a collective chat,

participation in any way in the appeal.

That is my personal view.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, if there's no other business, can I declare the meeting closed?

And I'm sorry, I must apologise for

for keeping you beyond 9 o 'clock, long beyond 9 o 'clock.

5 Future Meeting Dates

Note the future that we meet next on the 10th of March.

We will not meet in May.

Okay? Thank you.

and as I say...

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Thursday 8 January 2026, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory CommitteeThursday, 8th January 2026 at 7:00pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

1 Declarations of Interest

2 Minutes - 4th November 2025

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-01)

4 Decisions (Paper No. 26-02)

5 Future Meeting Dates

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Thursday, 8th January 2026 at 7:00pm