Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 20 January 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 20th January 2026 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and maybe a bit late in the year, but happy new year
as we haven't met before this year.
Welcome to the January Planning Applications Committee.
I'm looking at sconce.
It's not the second meeting this year, is it?
I've missed one.
No, no, no.
So happy new year, as I was saying.
I will start by introducing the people on the top here.
Other members will introduce themselves as they goes through as they make contributions. My name is Tony belton
I'm the chair of the planning applications committee, and I'm a counsellor for Battersea Park ward in Battersea
And if I start with mr. Calder good evening, my name is Nick Calder. I'm the head of development management at one's worth
Good evening. My name is Duncan Moore's on the external legal advisor
And the young lady on the right who is here for self -education because she's going to
take over at some points in the future.
Good evening.
Now we have two apologies for this evening.
Councillor Jeffries and Councillor Tiller.
We have two apologies, no others, obviously it's a poor house.

2 Declarations of Interest

Can I ask whether any members wish to declare an interest, financial or pecuniary, or interest in any of the applications?
No interest, good.
Can I sign, have you seen the minutes, Councillor Humphries?

1 Minutes - 18th December 2025

Can I sign the minutes as a correct record?
Okay, thank you.
I'm going to change the order.

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-10)

purely and simply because the people in the public gallery are here
and I suspect we might take a rather long time on one particular item.
So I'm going to take 2 -5
and then go back to the order on the agenda.
But before...
Well, before I do, before I do,
I've been a little bit concerned about one or two reactions from residents that conditions are being ignored
or that informatives of the committee pass have been ignored.
and one informative in particular was very recently about a wall in Orfahling Lane, I think.
And the developer was actually a council department.
And if we can't get an informative acted upon by a council department,
we clearly don't stand much chance with anyone else.
So I'd like Mr. Calder to make a comment about both conditions and informatives.
First, so that people understand where we're coming from, and secondly, I think Mr. Calder
wants to say something else about the agenda.
Mr. Calder.
Thank you very much, Chair.
In terms of the item regarding the informative, that was on the Swaffield Play Park that we
approved a couple of cycles ago.
Members were concerned about the historic wall that was surrounded and as a result we
included an informative to ask the developer as the Council to look at that in the construction
and to retain as much as possible.
And I understand, although I haven't seen the photographs, that they've taken it down
to essentially one or two bricks.
I'm not aware of any feedback between the officers of that department or mine, but I
have written today to the head of design services to ask for an update and why they didn't take
into account that informative.
So hopefully with the future or just in written correspondence I can update you a little bit
more on that.
As you know, an informative is slightly different to a condition and it's not enforceable, but it's there for it to highlight.
Do you want to take Councillor Givindja's note now?
Well, Councillor Givindja was the person who drew it to my attention.
Thank you. It's Councillor Givindja, Member of East Patna.
Chairman, I raised it, which is why we got the informative and I raised it since then.
essentially the re -following the informative what has happened is that the redesign has happened
retaining the bottom two feet of the Victorian wall. The rest of it is to be knocked down and
the Victorian wall is I may say it's like a panels of yellow stock where the red stock
bricks picking it out in terms of both design and so on and it's attractive and it's it in a
sense it's the historicity of that wall because it's part of the old work house which occupied
the site.
It's the last remnant and that's what the local concern was.
And I know it's a challenge to create a children's playground allowing permeability, visual permeability
and yet retaining the wall.
but the solution seems to have been like saying bottom six courses of brick retained,
rest of it not done and felt a bit lazy.
I'm very concerned that especially council departments take note
and if there's a good reason, then maybe to be fair to the case,
the particular case officer that might have got a letter from the acting department
is often leave or ill or something not available to cheque with.
But we need to know the conditions.
Yeah, thanks.
Yes, so I will update if I receive any more because obviously there's structural issues that might be involved with as well.
I guess the other question is about conditions and we've, as a group, seen a lot of emails going back and forth about one case.
And I don't really want to figure on one thing.
but as you know, conditions are there
to make some of the details of an application acceptable
and prevent unacceptable impacts over development.
So we have to take those into account.
There's six tests in the EPPG
and I'm not gonna reference them all now
because I can't remember them all off the top of my head,
but some of them have to be enforceable
and reasonable to the development.
So we'll look at those
and when we get complaints,
they go through to our enforcement team.
Our enforcement team have to look at a way
that firstly, would planning permission have been granted
without compliance with the particular
conditional part of it?
And then there's the, what is the identifiable harm
that's caused by the non -compliance with the conditional
in accordance with the development?
And is it proportional to take enforcement action?
So those are all the sort of considerations we'll take into account.
So I don't want to reference it particularly, but there are many strands to a particular
condition and if one of three or four haven't been undertaken, then we need to look at that
part in isolation about whether that's enforceable.
And if it is enforceable, we'll take some sort of action.
Initially it will be probably negotiations to see if it can be resolved.
If that fails, we might ask for an application
or we could take enforcement actions.
So there's a number of ways we can do it,
but if there's no harm and it's proportional,
then we'll not take action at all
and say it's not expedient.
So, and then as you'll see at the end of your papers,
there's a large number of enforcement cases that we get
and we deal with in different ways.
So I'm not sure if that's surprising enough information.
Chair?
As far as I'm concerned, that's okay.
But members happy with that as a comment?
Okay.
Thank you.
So I've got another.
Your comment.
Sorry, yes.
So I just wanted to highlight one of the items on tonight, item three, Elko Street.
I wanted to just highlight, in the report, it's been identified, well, it's been misidentified,
Albert Bridge has been misidentified as Chelsea Bridge and a number of you are nodding, so
you're obviously aware of that error.
The reference to the bridge was a result of the heritage and townscape assessment that
the applicants did within the report.
I want to highlight that as part of that assessment, the case officer carried that through incorrectly,
But we did note in paragraph 2 .91 of the report that we identified no harm to that bridge.
So for all intents and purposes, it's referenced incorrectly as a bridge, but the right bridge
was identified and we had no harm on that structure.
So given the bridge itself was assessed, I feel that we can confidently assess that application
this evening.
So I just wanted to highlight that at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Calder.
I said I was going to bring forward papers because of members of the public gallery who
rejected my suggestion that they wanted to stay all evening to see the democratic process,
but how odd of them.
Anyway, so let's look after their interests and go to item 2 which is
application
202442 double 5 and is on page
31 of your agenda and is
Residential development in Balham High Road now
Now, we're not having a presentation on it because I don't think it requires one.
If members want to ask anything about it, it seems to me clear enough, but open to questions.
Councillor Govindia, Councillor Humphries.
My question really relates to fire safety and the possibility or difficulties the fire tenders might experience in trying to get all the way into the site given that it's both landlocked and the excess way is far too narrow for a fire tender.
It's about the availability of a nearby fire hydrant or whether the kind of piping and
tubing that fire tenders carry these days is long enough for access.
So it's that assurance I was seeking from you.
Have you got a similar, Councillor Humphries?
Well, ask yours as well.
Councillor Humphries for Southfields in Putney.
Mine was about the reference to the noise from exhibit and things like that.
So there's a comment in the report about it's adequate cooling if the windows are kept closed.
So the noise mitigation is because of by keeping the windows closed.
I'm just slightly concerned by that, by the fact that we have had a lot of media coverage
in recent times of modern buildings being too hot.
So it goes the opposite way.
So just to make sure we're not solving one problem and causing another one as a result
of them not being able to open the windows because it's noisy and it gets too hot.
Mr Grainger, fire access and heating.
Thank you, Chair.
Nigel Grainger, my name is Nigel Grainger.
I'm the East Area Team Manager.
Thank you for both your points, Councillors.
In terms of fire safety, the principal position, and I appreciate how narrow the access is
to the site.
So it's clearly no vehicle will be able to enter in that that is just a matter of fact. However
The distance is is looked at by our colleagues in building control
If there is a hydrant a separate water hydrant point that needs to be inserted within that that particular
Access way then that is a matter that will be picked up for them. There is no real difference in terms of I
always look at these these backland sites with
with not exactly conventional vehicle access ways
and more pedestrian -based access ways
in the sort of like a flip consideration
because we have tower blocks where those access ways
are extremely similar, they're just vertical.
So there's no real difference between how people
are evacuated and fires dealt with in a tall building
as opposed to a narrow access way.
But there's obviously more chances,
and there, not chances, there is more ability
to evacuate people safely at ground floor level
in a development of this nature.
So it is a matter that will be looked at
closely by building regulations,
but we don't need to insist upon any sort of mitigation
for that in our view right now.
In terms of noise and the, well, let's face it,
this proposal is right next to the exhibit,
especially down the alleyway.
But we've made sure that that formed a big part of the application because our advice from our
environmental health colleagues was very
specific in terms of
the noise generation the the ability to the extent permissions and the ability to implement those permissions at the exhibit for the terrorists and the
other
development so it could intensify but
There's the born from the London plan. We have this whole agent of change principle
So that is about inserting or being able to insert residential occupiers in areas of existing commercial activity
putting in physical technology
So in this case is air cooling
So we had to have those units
To be able to rely on a set of air conditioning and air cooling measures in the summer
When you would expect windows to be open so that they can close windows and control their environments within those those
proposed flats and not rely on opening the windows and then they would be
attenuated from the the activities next door so that's him was an important
physical feature to incorporate in the proposal and that protects the exhibit
they should be able to carry on without the threat or future occupiers saying
it's a noisy nuisance etc etc so we deal with the agent of change principle yeah
Councillor de Vincenzo.
Thanks, Chair. I'm happy with what Mr. Granger said, but I hope that the Building Control will look closely at this year of additional fire hydrant.
I seem to recall that there was a similar situation with an application in Chatham Road many years ago,
where backland development was approved with the additional condition that the fire hydrant be inserted.
I looked at that site when I was reading these papers and I didn't think the distances of
Chatham Road were significantly longer than this.
So hopefully Building Control will look more closely and come to the right decision.
Thank you.
Councillor Humphries.
Sorry, Chair.
Just a quickie.
I note in the late items there is a referral to the change in condition 7 about the gate
on the alleyway as well.
I just wanted to double cheque what the relevance of that was and why it was being flagged up
and what was the concern that needs to be addressed.
Certainly, thank you for spotting that.
I should have brought that to your attention.
The existing gate, there is a gate there.
It is not a thing of beauty in so far as its functionality.
It is extremely fun. It's just to stop people from going into that that basically Brownfield is you've disused parcel of land
it's
It's in two parts as it is and it wouldn't necessarily be easy to visit to facilitate
The the euro bins the larger bins to be able to be presented for waste collection days for this facility
So a much better updated solution both in aesthetic terms and in practical terms with the correct is
It's got a padlock on it. We need these these fobs basically for our colleagues to be able to enter the site
So we we thought we'd best get that detail and make sure that we can secure that into perpetuity
Once we've got the appropriate detail
Okay, it seems like a pleasant small development helpful that out counts
Councillor Worrall.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies for croaking my way through this.
Just a quick introduction.
Sorry, Councillor Worrall, Shaftesbury and Queenstown.
On page 37, in the comments, there's a reference
to Japanese knotweed, which hasn't been dealt with
anywhere else in the paper.
I know from some complaints I've had from residents
in Queenstown Road that building works and works
have actually stimulated the knotweed growing and damaging their buildings.
I'm just wondering in terms of reference to this, was this raised as an issue that there
is knotweed presence and could actually the building work, the new works actually cause
it to grow again or there's a threat of damage from the knotweed?
Was it just a red herring that was just thrown in?
Thank you, Councillor.
There's always, this site, I mean, there's the potential for not waiting to exist on
a site like this and anywhere in the location.
We typically, we have the construction and environment management plan which seeks to
control these matters.
It's condition 17 on page 59.
And to a different but similar extent, we also have an ecological management plan that
looks at species that are going to be replanted as well.
but typically these invasive species can be identified through the construction and environmental
management plan.
I'm just trying to, I can't see immediately where the reference to invasive species is,
but it's normally...
Certainly if it's not picked up within condition 17 or condition, it's unlikely to be in condition
16, we can look at adding that because it should be in there.
Councillor?
The paper seems to suggest that it's picked up.
Yes.
Perhaps, Councillor of India, you can point us to a...
I can't.
Ah, you are right.
Well, perhaps Councillor Worrall will accept that Mr Granger thinks it's in there somewhere
and Councillor of India says he read it.
I must confess, I remember the reference to Knottweed
but I couldn't let you find where it is offhand in this agenda.
Perhaps we'll cheque and if it's not included we'll add it and if it is included we'll go with it.
Okay, it seems like a pleasant small development and a helpful contribution to our overall target in housing.
Is it agreed?
Agreed, thank you.
And then I said I was going to move on to item 5, I think.
Item five which is 2025 stroke 3187 York Road on page 183.
And it's a very small application in many ways.
change of details.
I personally didn't have any objection to it.
Does anyone want to raise any questions
or is everyone happy with it?
Well, now if I had the ability,
if I had the powers to prevent things like that,
I might be interested, but I don't, as you know.
So, but apart from making that interesting comment,
the government might make some money out of it in the future.
I have one which is I mean I looked at the plan carefully.
I couldn't find what the main entrance to the revised flat would be.
Looked like there were two entrances to this flat and therefore I wondered
whether it was actually several flats being knocked into one
or was it eventually going to become two larger flats than four small flats?
It's probably for fire safety.
I had assumed it was two into one, but...
It's three into one.
It's three into one, is it?
Okay.
Well, I'm sure lots of people in the committee might not be too keen, but there it is and
it's not anything we have power or control over.
I don't think there's any reason to refuse it.
The number of habitable units is the same as just – I think the balance of this development
before was overly on the smaller units, so actually it's better balance overall.
Okay. Is that recommendation agreed?
Agreed. So we're back to the beginning, I think.
And item one is on page seven.
and it's 2024 stroke 2152 170 172 Mitcham Road.
Again, I thought perfectly acceptable as it stood.
Questions? Councillor Colle.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Colle for St Mary's Ward.
My one question on this application was just since it involved basically half in the amount
of commercial space, it seems to be done in a sensitive way.
I was just wondering if the current occupants of that commercial space, basically what's
happening with them, are they going to be moving elsewhere or are they able to deal
with having that much less space?
Mr. Grainger?
Thanks, Chair.
Yeah, as far as I know, and as far as the, I mean, the applicant, this proposal has been
put to the council for assessment as effectively a reconfiguration of the residential floor
space, winning some additional floor space from the commercial unit, pretty much as a
speculative development.
So I'm not aware of what the future arrangements for the existing occupier actually are, or
for the, for future occupiers.
So we've not been made aware of that.
We're in a situation where it's quite, in terms of policy objectives and what we can
actually achieve in these locations that are outside of designated town centres, it's very
much a matter for officers doing the best they can in terms of persuading applicants
to retain a natural commercial frontage and an active frontage at ground floor.
We have the basement area as well, which could provide additional functionality for whatever
was in the shop facing commercial unit.
But we don't know who ultimately is going to take that on or what the arrangements are
for the existing occupiers.
But the main thing here I would stress is that since the changes in the used classes
and encouragement of moving around the use class order through Class C and various other
things.
It's very difficult to control and retain these commercial uses outside of designated
centres.
So the fact that we've actually got something here I think is positive in that regard.
Must say from my perspective, given the way people shop nowadays, either in out of town
supermarkets or online more and more. I think more marginal shopping areas like this, and
I think it is, it's 50 yards away, 100 yards away from bigger elements of Tooting Shopping
Centre, I think it is, the retail area is slightly reduced, I don't think that should
worry us too much. We'll find people to use the smaller areas, would be difficult enough
I guess.
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, I agree. I hope that will work out. My query was a bit of a sideways
one, but it's about the sizing of the bin store. So it references the bin store being
at the front of the premises. And I was trying to look at the joins to work out exactly where
it is. But it was actually sort of related, because I was slightly concerned that the
bin store for the residential might impede the use of the retail premises as a whatever.
Because as you say, we don't know what it's going to be. But the fact that they're going
to the effort of replicating the traditional frontage, presumably it's going to be something
relatively smart, shall we say, and you wouldn't want to go to all that effort and then find
that people are tolling their bins in and out right next door to, if it turned into
a cafe or something, you've got tables and chairs outside.
I just want to make sure, putting the bins to all there might be practical from points
of view of getting the flats in, but is it going to, it's not going to impede overly
on the commercial usage?
Yeah, it's a fair point, Councillor, but we've got a lot of problems in those areas where
there's no immediate access to the rear of the properties that we get waste presented
on the front of the street every evening or when it comes to the actual council's own
residential collections at specified time.
with the prospects of having waste presented on the pavement is probably way more negative
than just presenting an actual sealed container.
So we think that that's a good solution.
Thank you.
That does make sense.
But could you explain where it is on that, there's a drawing on page 13 of the elevation.
Do we know where it is?
The commercial unit is the one on the right.
Is that correct?
Is it next to the camera? Oh, it's to the left. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.
My question is a bit like yours actually. It's to do with the mechanism of the ground floor
and the tiny little shop. And I think the flats themselves are really very well designed. I think
they provide good facilities. I'm very concerned though about the stairs in
relation to turning a corner being right by the entrance door to one of the
ground floor flats which I thought was an absolute no -no in terms of fire
escapes and in my day you couldn't get under a stair unless you had 12 risers.
If you count those stairs, there's only ten before you try and get underneath it to get in it.
So I don't understand, I don't trust the stair arrangement, I don't think it's true.
Ranger.
Well, all I can advise is that it will be scrutinised by building control, because that's their remit.
That's the remit of building control, so they will scrutinise a future building control application.
This is slightly open moused at the Garsnus down here.
Yes, my question is, it depends on the whole, all those nice flats depend on that ground floor corner,
which is highly fraught.
I think leaving it to the building control person
who will not dare to forbid all those upstairs flats
because he wants another riser
before you go try and get underneath the stairs.
I'm not satisfied that the building control
should sort out our design processes
or our company's design process.
Is that a vote against? I think it is, isn't it?
I really like the fact.
So I think I might have to abstain because I'm not convinced by that ground floor arrangement.
Mr. Grainger, have you got anything else? I mean, if you've got nothing else to add, you've said it all.
Right. Well, Councillor HUT, how come India?
Following on from what Councillor Ayers just said, I just had a quick look at the fire safety.
I mean, given her concern is about fire and fire evacuation.
I mean, I note that these are going to have integrated sprinkler system, which in a sense is makes,
probably overcomes some of the risks there may be.
So perhaps Mr. Granger in his discussions with the building control team would make sure
that it's looked at in a holistic way,
whether the inadequacy of the stairs
is overcome by improved fire safety measures and so on.
Thank you.
That's very helpful.
So I just wanted to say a point about the commercial vitality
of that parade.
In fact, if you see, if you go down to Tink Roadway,
it is in fact a lot more vibrant than many other long trailing
bits of a high street.
These are probably the only two or three units there that don't have an active commercial
occupier.
So let's not relegate this site as being because it's off from Tooting Broadway.
It's not core parade.
It isn't core track technically.
I think the EDO would count this bit of Tooting as part of the Tooting Town Centre.
may not be in planning terms, but EDO does, because I certainly know that when there was a bid consultation,
they were all included in that thing. So, it's just worth noting, rather than...
I have a view about that as well, by the way, which I'll come back to in a second. Mr. Calder.
I was just going to highlight that it's not identified within the town centre or any important parade.
It's acknowledged that the town centre extends a little bit further than those boundaries, but you know the previous administrations
Government administrations have brought in permitted development rights for these to move to to residential without planning permission anyway
so the fact that we're retaining that as part of that I think is a benefit I
Guess council given Diaz been as involved in shopping policies as I have for about as long as I have
So I guess we both know what?
Okay, right, so we've got helpful remark about sprinklers concern that Councillor Ayers has about building regs requirements.
And I'm sure Mr. Grainger would note that or get one of his team to note it in talking to building regs.
But with those caveats, is the application approved?
Agreed.
I'm with one abstention. Moving on to Elko Street, application 2025 -0799 on page 61.
I think Mr. Grainger, you've got a short presentation? Including on this screen?
I will move on the screen.
Yep, just give me a second.
Strange things happened to me.
What tonight?
But unfortunately I can't.
You're so close.
Just before the meeting, you go in,
locks himself out, and he's locked up.
So he's not here.
I'm just going to have to do it manually.
Okay, well, this is more of a contextual overview
to make sure for those who maybe haven't had an opportunity
to visit the site to identify a few of the key buildings
that have been assessed as part of the overall proposal.
So we hopefully are aware of this scheme.
It's the Vivian Westwood Studios
and effectively, as I'll begin to describe later on,
there's a retention of a large,
well, a significant enough amount
of the existing built envelope and the additional 4700 odd square metres of floor area is achieved
through extensions, so we've got the direction of a part 4 and part 8 sewer extension to
the central and north part of the building.
New basements provide additional floor space, so this has all been regarded as within a
use class EGII, which is Research and Development of Products and Processes.
So just to make sure we all know where the application site is, you can see it's in the
red line here.
If you look to the very sort of northwest of that red rectangle, there's a small little
line towards the top.
That was a disused site that has been existing there for a number of years.
it did actually end up receiving a permission ten odd years ago for a taller element of
the building, but the majority of that site is where the Vivian Westbridge Studios resides.
So sorry, this is the image of the existing building. You can see it's ground first, second,
And third, and there's a setback, top floor.
So that's five storeys.
And the red brick building that you
see going down Elko Street towards Albion,
Riverside, is the remaining sort of warehouse structure.
But it's been converted and added on to,
or converted internally, I should say,
to accommodate the floor space for the applicant.
This is the.
Well, I've got, yep, it is, that's Radstock House to the left of the slide.
And this is, it's not moving between, this is Radstock House itself.
So this is its ground. My mouse is all over the place. So it's ground first, second and third
and the setback top floor. So again that mirrors the built envelope of the existing Harry Street
frontage of Westwood being five storeys. And then to the rear, if you look to the left of the slide,
You can see the, it's got a, it's two buildings.
There's a five and six storey building
comprising Radstock House and there's a gap,
a development gap in between to create,
to create enough distances to preserve those flats
that look over each other at the time
to give them enough separation distance
to prevent overlooking.
This is the, this is looking back down towards the south of Elko Street.
So that's that warehouse building that tracks along Elko Street.
Yes, yes, well spotted, Councillor Haverthrees.
So that's the site that's been boarded up for ages.
There was a residential scheme that was, you know, just a couple of flats that went up into the sky there.
So it was a bit unique.
But that's been acquired as part of the development site.
So these are aerial views and you can see to the top of this slide is the Ransom's.
I'm going to go back one slide.
In relation to Redstock's northern block, am I right that that's the one on just behind
the yellow brick?
Yes, so that's all…
And there are no windows…
Correct.
…on that elevation other than presumably that long bit of glass, and is that…
No, that's the building.
That's a different building.
Oh, okay.
returns down down opposite the Redstock Street Hester Hester roads Hester Road
sorry so that blank flank elevation there is the blank flank elevation of
Redstock house the taller yep the taller element here and you can obviously see
the Royal College of Art building at the back and then it's got the it's it's
other wing, that France Park Gate Road. So back to these aerials, so that just gives
you a little bit more context with the heights and what fronts, you know, where the Albion
Riverside is and the development site at Ransom Stock that has an extant planning commission
that's commenced and is soon, there are mechanisms in place to soon deliver the permission on
that site. This is the other, literally just 180 of that view, so you can see the Vivian
Westwood building, that obviously distinctive red warehouse building, and then again that
big blank flank elevation for Redstock House and the completed RCA building on the left.
And just to be sure.
So the right is to the north, to the river,
and the left -hand side is towards Tooting.
Well, we were extolling the virtues
of the commercial activities of two cities.
Yeah, this is just an outline of the curtilage of the site.
So just a small amount of policy context because it's all contained within the papers, but
the application site is located within the heart of this area.
And this is a tall building zone where the existing prevailing heights are three to 18
storeys, the 18 storeys is a bit of an anomaly because the Montreux -Vetreux building towards
the bottom left is obviously the tallest building around there with the Albion Riverside being
11 storeys.
But the appropriate height, actually when you are within the tall building zone, which
is TB B2004, is between 7 and 12 storeys.
And that's been translated through into the policy for the focal points in the Riverside,
the PM9, which is the Riverside policy.
So this is a more of a, I wouldn't necessarily call it, it's quite a basic CGI, but it was
nearly 10 years ago.
This is 2015.
Well, you could say 10 years ago.
And this was the approved scheme at Westwood.
So, Radstock House was in place at the time.
And this, if you can just about see, I'm really trying here, but you can see my cursor there.
That's that, you know, the yellow hoarding, that's the little gap, and that's now part of the application site.
So, this was a total of eight storeys and six storeys at the front with the lower middle section.
but you can see Radstock House at the back here with these setbacks here, which is a
feature of the application site of the current application.
This is more of a visual of what is proposed in the context of what this area hopefully
is going to transform to be and look like in the near future.
So we've got the Ransom stock scheme, that's a maximum of 10 storeys where the Albion Riverside
is 11.
This is all approved and extant.
This will be delivered.
And then you've got the smaller domestic scale that tracks along Elko Street and these are
the series of extensions.
It's longer in that regard because of it taking up that, occupying the sites adjacent to it.
And obviously just to be sure we always have to include some true elevations just to give you an idea.
You can see the little red line hatch. That was the tall building, the skinny tall building that was approved.
But the essence here is that the extensions to the Harry Street facing elements are similar,
if not the same height as the highest part of the Royal College of Art building.
Whereas the tallest elements here are certainly no higher than the Albion Riverside.
And this is a face -on elevation which, if I'd show you my cursor, that would be the
street -facing element of the proposal because that matches the RCA opposite and then you've
the uplift here which I apologise for that which mirrors the scale of the the Ransomstock
development.
That's the S that's right.
And this is a true elevation from if you're looking at the building from Radstock House
If you're looking through that development gap I talked about and you're looking at the
elevations that effectively Radstock House would present.
So you've got no, there are no opportunities, limited opportunities to do anything in terms
of additional glazing for this area here because of obviously you've got Radstock House in
the red outline and then we obviously don't want to create any additional overlooking
opportunities going further from the site and you can see the outline here as well.
This area here, there are functions within the proposed
space that do require a degree of natural daylight,
but all of these areas have been proposed to be
either screened through obscure glazed balconies
or screened through the application of translucent glazing.
And this is just an idea, a CGI mockup of what that could actually look like incorporating
the green walls.
And that's obviously Radstock House to the left and Radstock House to the right and that
development gap I've been talking about.
The last slide, just to complete the context, is just something that's obviously, it's in
the paper here, but I think if you look, if you view that in the context of the RCA, the
red brick building to the left, then the heights are intended to be similar, but certainly
the reuse, the opportunities to reuse the existing built form but then add to it has
produced this built form with a lot of articulation and a lot of glazing due to the functions
that are going to take place within the space if approved.
So in that respect, the proposal is recommended for approval
subject to conditions and the Section 106
planning obligation and a stage two referral
to the Greater London Authority.
So while the chair is getting back into position,
can I just highlight, there was one late letter of objection
that we were unaware of because it went to the case officers now left. It was sent over
to us from Democratic Services today. We have reviewed that letter. Unfortunately, we came
after the late items and all the matters included in that letter have already been taken to
account and set out in the report. So it raises no new issues.
Thank you Mr. Granger. There it is. Comments, questions? Councillor Ayers.
I think there are lots of things to like about this building. As Mr. Granger has described,
it responds, I think, very well to its neighbours in terms of bulk.
I do feel for some overlooking and shading that will occur,
but it is an inner city area.
I mean, you may not think it's inner city, but Battersea is.
And it's definitely a creative use in a creative area of Battersea.
So although I think there are some neighbouring problems, and I do think that the provision of greenery,
which has been shown on the drawing, strains credulity a bit, it's done its best.
And I really like the fact that it's reused almost all of that warehouse,
and the existing structure of Vivienne Westwood's headquarters there.
And internally, I like the double atria.
There's I think three of them, which makes for very interesting lighting and ventilation opportunities.
So I commend this to my colleagues. Thank you.
Okay, Councillor Bindir.
So I share some of the concerns that Councillor has commented.
It's the relationship with the Red Stock House which is the critical relationship in my view.
Although on the eastern side of the Red Stock House, they've got blank walls and so that's not a problem.
but it's the in between, between the north and south block of Red Stock House.
It deliberately was done like that in order to provide air and light to the face,
the flats that face that central courtyard east surface area.
And that's all now going to be framed.
They're going to have no eastern light coming through because of the proposed building
and of course consequently overlooking.
Now, I've read through the two significant consultation documents that were supplied
by Kennedys and then their lighting assessor, Lumina, I think it was.
So the claim in there was that 24 windows of Redstock House would be affected, of the
24 windows Red Stock House has on this boundary, 12 would be affected and at least two of those
would be losing light under BRE guidelines by as much as 40%.
That's the kind of thing that's significant.
So perhaps somebody could comment on whether that is, that finding by the residents'
consultants is borne out or supported by our assessment of it.
And the second point that perhaps more can help us on
is the whole series of what Kennedy's called legal
arguments against this, which was things
like misrepresentation, unlawful drawings,
and unlawful descriptions, and stuff like that.
Which it's important that we are satisfied
that the charges of unlawfulness have been addressed and they are either not proven or
at least we feel are not sustainable.
And my final point is perhaps a cheeky one.
In the applicant's submission, they talk about how this application is going to help them.
I think I'm using their words if I find them.
Strengthen the existing local business community
and education networks and grow them.
I know that that's their claim.
I wish that I would hope that we could
agree an informative, back to the famous thing,
reminding the applicant that that's their ambition.
and we would like to see some evidence of it in place,
although that's not necessarily a condition.
But if they want to claim that and sort of soften the application,
then I think we should hold them to account and say,
well, right, put your money where your mouth is.
I must say I did think that the comments about misrepresentation
and illegality really should be backed up with a little bit more evidence.
This is kind of rash, but I'm interested in the comments either from Mr. Grainger
or Mr. Calder or indeed our legal representative.
But perhaps...
I think you said...sorry.
Kennedy has got some unlawful design and access statement.
Now, that seemed to me to, in a sense, their assessment of the submitted design and access
statement not complying with the policy requirement.
That's what I assumed to be.
Mr. Mors.
Chairman, thank you.
Well, I read those Kennedy representations summarised in pages 77 and 78, and they didn't
really cause me any undue concern.
I think they were trying to persuade members to take a different view in relation to various
matters, particularly things like daylight, sunlight, overlooking, and the shadowing aspect.
but I didn't think there was anything there that caused me any concern to think that the documents I submitted were not in accordance with our
Verification scheme all would mean that the council isn't able to determine the application as it stands. I think all the concerns
The material concerns have been very well dealt with in the report. So Jim
I'm not concerned that there are any issues raised in that letter that would
Mean that this would need to be taken away and looked at again and brought to the committee a separate meeting
No, okay, thank you.
Sorry, the only additional point I was going to be that we actually undertook additional
consultation with them to make sure they were aware because the whole of the design and
access statement wasn't initially set up.
So when we put that back up online, we made sure that they were reconsulted to highlight
that point and that gave the 21 days and as long as it takes to come to committee, which
has obviously been some time.
A very minor point that I noted, very minor point on page 155 in terms of condition 12
about dust management plan, I know what it means when you say that this will be vetted,
wrong word, checked with Merton Council, but I suspect that lots of people won't know what
that means.
When we refer Merton Council people who might not know, contractually do this work for us.
And so it's, they have a relationship with us on this particular area, not unlike our
relationship with Richmond in other areas.
So I'm...
It is, isn't it?
Yes, exactly.
I thank you, Mike, for making my...
That's the point I'm long winded in getting around to.
This really should say regulation services.
It should say regulatory services, but yes, for people watching, there's a Tri -Borough agreement between Merton, Richmond and Wandsworth on this.
It's slightly different to the better service partnership, of which myself and Mr Grainger employed,
and the committee members will, because we work across Richmond and Wandsworth.
The public get confused sometimes, because the email addresses are Merton email addresses,
and people don't understand, they think they're writing to the wrong people, so that's where they're...
It's either Merton or Richard,
Michelin with everything, it's not ours.
Councillor Aps.
Councillor Aps, Chastering Queenstown Ward, Battersea.
Yeah, I like this scheme.
I like the idea of Vivian Westwood's headquarters
staying within Battersea.
I think that's a really good economic development.
I also, like Councillor Ayres,
like the fact that they were using
much of the existing building for sustainability reasons. I think that's really good and it's
also historic. I do have some sympathy with the residents who live nearby because I do
realise, as I've raised before, the points about your light within homes is incredibly
important and any loss of that is to be hugely regretted for residents and is a major issue.
But I wanted to bring up a few different sustainability points.
So there's obviously the significant use of glass and
just making sure that there's sufficient cooling in place for that to work.
Because we are finding that modern buildings as temperatures are rising are getting hotter and hotter.
And I can see how important it is for design purposes and for the use of the building.
But at the same time, we need to be sure that that's been mitigated.
And then the other point was about,
I don't know if this occurred to anybody else,
but the risk of flooding is reasonably high in this area.
And they did talk about putting the Vivian Westwood archive
in the basement.
And I just had this terrible fear of these important,
you know, historical items being lost.
Better, of course, than people being lost.
And they've got some very good plans
for saving people from flooding.
But I did wonder if they'd thought about
how they were going to save these archives from flooding
if the risk increased. Interesting point Mr Grainger any comment on that one?
I imagine you hadn't possibly gone. Well at the moment I mean it's
unfortunately it's looked at in in very technical way with the fact that there
might be something of interest to a section of the community in terms of you
know some documents from the Vivian Westwood it's it's just literally it's
flood risk is focused around damage to buildings and the ability for commerce
and human beings to be able to actually exist or escape from those buildings so
it's the same use the same categorization for this is less
vulnerable so residential is considered vulnerable this is considered less
vulnerable adding more to it in that same use class it's not a matter of
As long as you can escape from it and have a plan to escape, then there's – we simply
can't preempt that there might be something of interest or a lot of interest to some people
down there.
But having said that, the Thames Wall is – the flood defences just to the north are robust
and will be modified to meet the Thames Estuary 2050 threshold, and that's an ongoing project
by the Environment Agency.
But in terms of overheating, and I'll probably get back to your point, Councillor Caminha,
about daylight and sunlight, but overheating's dealt with on page 132, paragraphs.
Paragraph 8 .19 is where it starts, and it's obviously, it's important that these buildings
perform not only well, thermally, in winter and don't need a lot of energy to actually
make sure that they're warm enough to be able to survive during the summer months as well.
Can I just say in reference to Councillor Govindia's point, as a relatively local person,
the RCA is making quite an attempt to involve local communities.
Quite a few exhibitions, I see another relatively local Councillor, Councillor Worrell nodding there.
There are exhibitions and I've been involved with a joint exercise with residents of the Ethelberger estate to try and do a demonstration event.
So they are making quite an effort. They could possibly do more but they're doing more than most...
My question was about breastwits.
Sorry?
My comment was about breastwits. They're not RTA.
Well I thought you said okay fine okay in which case I might say
one of because what I was going to say if anyone from Vivian Westwood's here in
there what I imagine is going to be their fairly grand entrance
presentational area they might just devote a small area small element to
what was preceded them because it's been a big employment area for many many
years, though a completely different type of employment, metal bashing and all sorts
of things in that area.
Count Samphries.
Thank you, Chair.
A couple of things.
One staying with the sustainability stuff, it's disappointing we can't get the BRIAM
outstanding when we're getting such a high profile building on this sort of thing.
I saw there was a comment page, 132 .8 .17, about there might be a way to somehow squiggle
that across the line at a later stage.
I just wanted to see if we can possibly encourage that.
It would be good when we get to the stage of a high -profile car, high -profile building,
all the rest of it.
It would be nice for those kind of people to demonstrate going above and beyond to get
to where we were supposed to be getting to with a lot of other developments in the borough.
And there's always lots of reasons why we can't, which is a little bit frustrating for
on the committee when we have an outstanding, if there's a chance to get to it, it would
be good to get there.
I don't expect an answer to that, but I just hope we can pursue that suggestion in the
report.
And the other thing I was going to say, and it's going back to what Councillor Guindy
and others have said earlier, obviously the main impact of the negative side of this is
on the Razzdock House residents, and I can see that the applicant has done what they
can to try to ameliorate those impacts on that development.
And I was quite interested in that courtyard area and the bit in between, as Councillor
Brienne says, on the eastern side.
And the green wall is where I'm coming to.
The green wall – and Councillor Ayres again alluded to this.
And in the past on this committee, there was a vogue at some point a few years ago for
green walls, and they all sort of fizzled out into nothing.
And Mr Calder, I think, on occasion has told us it's a fire risk and such like.
And we know they often sound very good on paper, but the reality is they wither and
and there's not much left.
So I was quite interested to see this being brought back,
as it were, as a sort of more sustainable option now.
And I just wondered, A, has the technology of that kind
of thing improved that we have got a chance of it being
sustainable for a longer period of time?
And what have we put in place as safeguards
to make sure that if it doesn't thrive,
what are we going to do in place?
I think that will help to some extent, visually at least,
alleviate what's going to happen to those residents
at the Lazzdock House looking onto that otherwise blank wall.
Anything to say about new fashions in green walls, Mr Grainger?
Well, I draw a distinction between green walls in residential schemes and commercial schemes.
I think there is a distinction to be made in terms of what colleagues in building control
are looking for in terms of fire safety.
But certainly, again, I think there's more of an opportunity to,
when you've got one owner, you've got one applicant, one essentially,
one occupier, and it's the headquarters of one entity.
I think there's more reputational will to ensure the success and
really make a very good go of maintaining a green wall.
So I think in this scenario, I have a high degree of confidence in the success of a green
wall in that location.
I appreciate your optimism on that one, Mr Degrader.
The back of their sites, the people coming to the posh entrance at the front that Councillor
Belden is referring to, won't see that because it'll be on the other side of the wall, so
it's only going to be visible from the other side of the building.
Yes, it's true, it's one own and all the rest of it, but are we confident in the technology
that it is going to be sustainable?
Certainly, I'm just going through the conditions to actually, I've read a strategy plan in
order to capture that.
So, you know, have a plan in place if it doesn't succeed.
But the idea of having the green wall on the side fronting Rudstock House is to enliven
that bank elevation and give them something to look at.
but the architecture facing Elko Street,
and all of that really stark linear,
and it's space to mirror cheque, isn't it?
Let's face it.
That is enough to enliven
and provide the architectural interest
and enrich the spatial character
of that part of Elko Street.
But I think I'm probably missing your point
that you're trying to make.
And here again.
Two things.
I'm not comfortable with Mr. Granger's suggestions.
Just because it's a high profile occupiers headquarters,
the green wall would survive.
Our job is to give permission to buildings, not to the occupiers.
And so I'm not really very sort of comforted
by that being the reason why the green wall will survive
at that point having been made.
One of the things I think is of concern to Red Stock residents is that where the, I think it's the sixth floor terrace area which is to be shielded by additional height.
It's not the full two metres that one would hope, but I think the concern from residents
is the 1 .7 metres is possible that a standing person could overlook into their house.
So a garden fence is two metres, so I'm just kind of wondering why we haven't gone for
the full two metres shielding between the terrace and people's windows.
Surely largely because we go for 1 .7 almost every meeting.
But there is a slightly different situation here in terms of the proximity
of the development and people's windows.
I mean, they are absolutely next door to each other.
The extent of overlooking is greater than in many other places.
And I think that's why I'm wondering whether it's worth considering
increasing the height of the parapet walls.
I think we all know from experience, although almost anyone can stand on a chair and overlook
one point.
Don't look at me like that.
Almost anyone can, but actually 1 .7 metres is sufficiently high that most people, you
have to be very close to be able to look down that height and very, very tall.
I think that's...
You're pushing the point.
Your eyes at the top of your head rather than a little bit lower.
I think you're pushing a point.
We use 1 .7 metres on every other application.
I'm echoing the residents of Redstock who raised us.
So I think they are entitled to be heard in terms
of the seriousness with which they view the diminution.
And we need to address it with seriousness too.
Our experience is that 1 .7 works.
If we could just go back to the landscape condition, we could look at that again and
Mr. Moles has come up with some additional suggestions we could include.
Is this about the green wall?
It is.
The vertical meadow to which is referred in the report.
It's condition 51, page 165 over to 166.
So I won't read that condition out, but I think what can be included within that quite
reasonably under the MPPF requirements for the conditions is we make it clear that that
Landscape scheme is to include provisions for the monitoring and maintenance of the vertical meadow and to require the replanting of
replanting within that
I'm sure everyone will agree that we should do that. Yes
Okay, I think most of us perceive
Can I just quickly for completeness refer to Councillor Govindia's issues on daylight
and sunlight because I think that's an important part that needs to be addressed.
So I have seen a lot of, I've been involved with all of the correspondence between the,
from the initial stage, when the applicant submitted their daylight, sunlight done by
their own engineer and then been,
I've seen rebuttals to that from the occupiers
of Radstock House.
And they've raised fair points that needed
to be looked at again and reexamined
in terms of methodology, for instance,
and the physical constraints and what the layouts were
of Radstock House and the impacts in relation
to the proximity of Radstock House
and what the differences were between the,
because we can't forget that this has been found,
not this scheme, but a scheme of some likeness
in terms of form and scale, has been found to be acceptable
to the Council on policies that aren't massively materially
different, especially amenity policies.
They're very similar in the past.
So there's been information exchanges.
There's been a number of exchanges on these points.
And it's actually gone into a lot of detail.
and there's been, you know, we as the planning authority
have to make sense out of these exchanges
and always arrive at a conclusion and a recommendation,
but to my mind, I'm satisfied that the way
that it's been assessed in the report
and the conclusions we've arrived at,
that there would be some reductions,
however we think they lie within tolerable parameters.
The information that's allowed us
to arrive at that conclusion,
having witnessed the information going backwards
and forwards from the residents to the applicant
has been a thorough and comprehensive exchange and a fair exchange.
Okay.
We know what the recommendation is to approve.
Do we agree?
With, certainly with the informative and the statement about the condition.
Yeah.
Sorry.
What was the informative?
Sorry.
No, no.
The condition change.
The applicant of their ambitions as stated on page 67 about strengthening existing local
business community and education networks.
So we would know.
They have cultivated already but this is about saying and their contribution to design quarter
Yes, we note and welcome and I'd like to...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay.
Okay, with that accepted, it's agreed, it's agreed.
Thank you.
Move on to the next item, which is...
Longley Road.
Where...
Do you want to have one presentation on this one?
We do indeed have a presentation from Councillor Osborne.
So council Osborne, do you want to come to the table and talk on Longley Road?
Sorry, page, that is application 20253031, page 167.
You've got five minutes.
Council Osborne, as you well know, I'm sure, and
then the committee may want to ask you questions about it, and then we'll discuss it.
Okay?
First of all, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee tonight.
There is considerable disquiet amongst the residents next to this planning application
and I do feel that their voice should be heard at this committee.
And I think they can be forgiven for having misgivings about the planning application
on that site.
If you look at the previous planning applications in the area, some of which are outlandishly
elaborate and have been rejected. The local residents I think would say that
the planning application is obtrusive. Now I understand there are all sorts of
technical measures which might say that that's not the case and there are plenty
of other sheds in the area of similar size and so on but there is there's a
subjective side to it and I have to say I tend to agree with the with the
that given where it sits it looks like an obtrusive development on that site.
So there are a lot of objections and a lot of things I could say but I am going
to concentrate on the size of the of the shed and I think there's a reasonable
question on about why the shed needs to be the size that it is. I'm not going to
describe it as a large shed. We're told that it's going to contain maintenance
equipment for the residences which front onto Longley Road, tools and landlord
property. I think it's worth noting that there is a large front garden area
that's been paved over for vehicles so I can see that it might be more efficient
occasionally to maintain tools in a shed out the back but at the same time you
can also see I think that it might make more sense if you were to do decorating
or something in a building of 10 residences make more sense to bring in a van load of
decorators with their equipment.
So you start to get questions locally about why does the bed the shed have to be so big
for the amount of tools and there might be arguments for why it has to be that size but
there are questions about it.
Similarly there's several references in the paper that's before you about a communal garden
around where the where the shed has been sited. What the paper doesn't say is that
that communal garden has been sequestered from everybody for many
years. No one's been into that garden for years on end. It's contained within a
large fence. In fact you can see a photo of that fence in your papers if you were
to look at the arboricultural report. I don't know if you've got that in front
of you this evening. But if you were to go on the website and look, there's a
photo of the of the communal garden and the fence around it which shows that
it's been cordoned off from everybody and nobody can get in at the moment. So
that I guess would be the epicentre of the biodiversity requirement in this
planning application and there might be something done there or on the other
hand I can see there's an argument if you want biodiversity for keeping
everything unkempt but the fact of the matter is that's all academic at the
moment at the point at which the shed and the and the planning application
went in. If you were to ask were there be would there be any gardening tools in
this shed there would be no need for them because nobody's doing any work in
that garden. So you're beginning to get a shed which might well be far too big for
its purpose and I've been careful not to describe it as a large shed. If you look
at the previous planning applications on this site I'm tempted to say what if and
the local residents are concerned about this what if this isn't a large shed at
all this is actually a small warehouse for the for the landlord and indeed the
fear of that I think is partly acknowledged in one of the planning
conditions which talks about the need for the shed to be ancillary to the
residents that's on the front out on Longley Road and if it is used for
some broader purpose contrary to the planning conditions I'm interested in
the comments earlier on in the meeting this evening about the importance of
planning conditions, then you would be presaging a lot of coming and going between that shed
out the back and the go through the large arch which connects the back part of the property
to the paved area out the front where the front garden used to be, possibly for dealing
with the landlord's other properties in and around South London.
and that's one of the key things which people are concerned about locally.
So like I say, a number of things I've concentrated on the size.
I think the point is this, that it seems to me that there should have been another planning condition
in between the need for the shed to be of ancillary purpose to the residences,
item 2, the planning condition number 2, and the stuff about the biodiversity planning
condition number 3, there should have been a two and a half which would have required
the applicants to bring the shed down to a smaller size in line with the concerns and
the worries of the local residents.
And I think on that grounds I would I would plead to you that
this might be rejected and in order to look at a further application for a
shed, which is
Less obtrusive in the eyes of the local residents
any questions from
councillor de Vindo
now souls when on page 174 and 175
we are told that on the first consultation ten people objected and
there was subsequently an amendment to the scheme,
and a second consultation was undertaken
when two people objected.
And you say yet that there is a sizable local concern.
I mean, 10 and 2 doesn't sound to me
like a sizable local concern.
I looked at the website, and the two people
who responded to the second consultation
are resident of neighbouring property, both in the same property.
So it's not a widespread concern.
So what's the evidence of widespread concern?
Okay, fair question.
I've been approached by other people in the area, both in Longley Road and Trevelyan Road,
spoken to in the street, collared in the street.
You've got, I think the two objections that came through second time round were the people
were repeats I think they were been in they've been in the group of 10 first
time round I may be wrong on that but the I think the people who objected in
the first wave the 10 felt that they'd made their point and that it still
applied their objections still applied in the when the second bit of the
consultation came around and don't forget when the second time we consulted
it was over a very minor change in the in the drawings I think so that they
they aligned with the reality of the size of the shed on the site, something like that.
Councillor Apps. Oh sorry, and then Councillor Pritamir.
Thank you. I do agree it's a very big shed and I and of course when people are, when people apply
for retrospective planning, people do feel like it's taken away the opportunity to be consulted.
Do residents have fears that there's some sort of precedent, have people expressed that worry to you,
that there's some sort of precedent of putting the building of this size here for future development,
because obviously there have been attempts in the past?
I don't want to make any untoward accusations. I've tried to express genuine concerns, I think,
from local people. And I think what you've got to look at is planning application after
planning application after planning application, all of which have been rejected. And I suppose
a suspicion that there is some bigger plan. You put the shed in, you don't bother to get
planning permission. And then when someone starts to object, okay, the process starts.
There's a feeling that they're being dealt with as neighbours in a rather cavalier way.
And that's bound to make people suspicious about what's going on.
I think that's true.
Councillor Pridham.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Tom Pridham for Lavender Ward in Battersea.
Just by way of context more broadly, there was actually a planning application in my
ward which had over 500 objections, which I think is perhaps a more appropriate example
of something that attracts interest from local residents.
but my question sort of is just to clarify so that the fear is that the
shed is going to be used for a purpose beyond what is stated here and to be
used for other properties so you mentioned the landlord owns other
properties how many does the landlord own?
I can't give you that figure this evening I'm afraid.
Because if they own say 30 or 40 properties fine but if it's literally a
of one other property elsewhere then I'm not so sure that that really there's no
real evidence to support that. Like I say it's a fear but I suppose I could find
the get a better bead on the number of properties I just don't happen to have
that that information this evening. Well I think you've made your point fairly
clear and I think we can all assess that it's down to not best the best
neighbourly relations, but I'm not sure that's a planning ground. So do we, people see the
recommendation as is agreed? Oh, Councillor Colle, and Councillor Colle and Councillor
Givens, do you still want to continue? Go on, Councillor Colle.
Sorry, this is more sort of directed at officers. I do have sympathy with the residents. I think
I think it is quite a big early shed.
And if there was like a compelling reason to vote it down,
I'd probably be inclined to,
but I can't see one itself.
I guess one thing that could be improving it
would be sort of the biodiversity improvement
as a result of it, because it says in the paper
that because there is a loss of habitat
that needs to be improved some way.
And for example, it might be better for the residents
if the shed has a green roof put on it instead,
so then it's a bit less sort of
visually disturbing for the residents,
and then also it brings back some of that biodiversity
that was lost by putting this in,
and I was just wondering if that was possible.
We could put that as an informative to investigate that.
Yeah, just any comments on that from officers?
If I pick that, I want to update,
but the condition actually refers to things
like a ground -planted living wall or, you know, various options that we look at within
the site first. So we've given some examples of things that they could do. Putting a green
roof on that usually increases the height, which is one of some of the concerns that
was raised and why we got the accurate drawing showing the actual height. So I don't think
that's probably a good thing to do if some of the concerns of neighbours.
Councillor De Vento.
I'm actually more concerned about the fact that we have spent an enormous amount of resource
in determining the outcome of what is a garden shed between two Victorian properties and
each one of them could have had a 30 square metre garden shed without a need to come to
this committee and in fact put it side by side and made a 60 square metre garden shed.
I do think that it is in fact a bad use of our resource and time and also I think
it's bad for the reputation of the planning process that it could stand in
the way of what is essentially a small garden shed in context of a very very
large garden. I know about that I can hear the neighbours getting upset I know
about the applicants perhaps reputation locally but none of those are matters
for planning consideration I think we should approve it I'd put the
recommendations to the committee agreed agreed thank you thank you counsel
Osborne and let's move on to the tree preservation orders although I say

4 Tree Preservation Orders (Paper No. 26-11)

orders, plural, it's one paper. Now apart from the fact that some of us think that
some of those trees are pretty big, that is hardly a good, is it approved? Agreed.
So agree the tree. Make an observation, Chair. One is that I think it's quite
useful, particularly when it comes to lime trees, to make reference to the
fact that a lot of people do not like lime trees, and particular species of
lime trees because they are prone to have the secretions.
And in some instances, I think, I mean,
it's easier for me, at least, to read out
that if it is a particular type of lime tree,
I might have objected.
I checked it is.
Well, you've just made some strong points on them earlier.
Can I, to you, say, I know people
who don't like sycamore trees.
I know people who don't like deciduous trees because they drop their leaves.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Just using biological names and then help find that.
All right, all right.
With that comment, is it nonetheless agreed?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you.
Thank you and good night.
It's a decision.
Oh, sorry, it's a decision.
I think I'm doing it.

5 Decisions (Paper No. 26-12)

26.
Okay, decisions papers, is it agreed that's for information anyone got?
And closure of investigation files.

6 Closure of Investigation Files (Paper No. 26-13)

And closed appeals.

7 Closed Appeals (Paper No. 26-14)

I don't seem to have those papers at all actually, as it happens.
I do confess that I didn't look at them, but it's noted as well.
So thank you, folks, and end of the meeting.