Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 19 February 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 19th February 2026 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the February meeting of the Planning Applications Committee, 19th of February,
2026.
My name's Tony Belton.
I'm a Councillor for Ballon Park Ward in Battersea.
I'd like to introduce people on the front table with me.
Good evening, Nick Calder,
Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
Good evening, my name's Duncan Moore.
I'm the External Legal Advisor.
Stephanie Black, Democratic Services Officer.
Other members and officers will introduce themselves
when they wish to make a contribution.
So that is that.
I've got an apology from Councillor Govindia,
which is sad to note.
He's okay, is he?
Business, okay fine.
No other apologies, everyone else seems to be here.
No other apologies, thank you.
Any declarations of interest?
declaration of financial or other interests
that may affect your judgement?
No.
Have you seen a copy of the minutes, Councillor Humphries?
I have, Chair, and if you don't mind
indulging me for a second, I meant to flag it
up to you earlier, and I completely forgot.
Minutes were fine, but it didn't refer
to the little conversation we had
at the beginning of the meeting,
when Mr. Calder was telling him,
we're talking about the enforcement and that sort of stuff.
And I just wonder if the record,
there should be a bit of a note of,
cause it was quite an important conversation
for general stuff rather than the specific details
of that meeting.
But I thought we could add on a little note
about what was said at that beginning bit of the meeting.
It might be helpful.
That was the only thing.
Sorry, I meant to flag it up before
and I completely forgot.
That's fine.
Yeah, I'm sure we can make that addition.
It wasn't you, was it?
But I'm sure the clerk can make the addition.
Okay.
Okay, well, you'll see if you wish.
Or you just take our word for it.
Okay, so I can sign the correct record.
Thank you.
Moving on to the planning applications.
Application number one, we have a Councillor Critchard
who wants to speak on planning application number one.
Number one, sorry, I should say first of all,
on the opening page, page three of the agenda, 2657,
the bottom entry for the fourth enforcement action
should say not to authorise enforcement action,
but recommendation that it's not expedient
to pursue enforcement action.
So there's a typo there, but I think it should be noted.
So moving on to application number one,
which is a retrospective application from 26A, 26B,
Upper Tooting Road, and Councillor Critchard
would like to address the committee on it.
Councillor Critchard, I think you know the score.
Over to you.
Thank you Councillors, thank you Chair for letting me come and speak.
I'd like to speak on behalf of residents, particularly of Ferkroft Road on this application.
26A and B Uppatooty Road has a history of changes.
In 2020, permission was sought to make this into a 24 -hour gaming premises,
but colleagues on PAC and licencing deemed this was inappropriate
for premises that back onto gardens in a residential area.
And I'd like to remind the PAC membership of this
when you come to consider this next,
the decision that's in front of you.
And then in wider context,
the number of restaurants and takeaways in this area
has increased significantly from 2008
when one of the residents locally started to live here.
And I'm just gonna hand round,
I forgot you were in this layout. This sheet which indicates how it's changed.
Basically it's moved from being a shop area to lots of takeaways and restaurants
and it shows up there clearly in the red how it's changed over the years.
Okay, I'd also like to... Just one moment, Councillor.
Sorry, Councillor Critchard, you have been unpacked before so you know not to bring round
additional information. Can you maybe just read through what it is?
As long as it doesn't take too much, I can explain it.
Yes, I think that would be better than just providing more information at this stage which
hasn't been validated by any planning officers or any further information.
So what I say is, one of the residents who's been living there for a while has produced
this table, basically hopefully you can see the colour.
This is what the premises looked like in 2008
when she moved in and you can see the coloured ones
are restaurants and takeaways.
2002 and this is the position currently
and the properties that she's looking at
are two to 44 upper Tooting Road,
so it's that parade of shops.
It's just an indication that the character has changed
quite a lot while residents have been living there.
You will be asked to consider their amenity
and this shows the change that has happened,
which is obviously not something they necessarily knew
when they moved in.
I would also like you to note there's still
an outstanding enforcement action on the flu,
which you may like to hear more about from the officers.
The first thing is that residents are pleased
that the operation hours of the flu have been restricted
to what was beyond what was requested.
So the recommendation in the paper is shorter time
for the flu to be operating.
But in my view that does not go far enough.
The flu is directly next to the back garden of two Ferkroft
and you can see that from the pictures in your papers.
Because the premises have changed use,
and that's the kitchen extraction one.
And that application for that flu is retrospective.
There's been a lot of problems in that area with the flu.
I am particularly concerned that the noise from the flu
is not set to meet our usual stringent standards
at 10 decibels below ambient,
but is only set to two decibels.
The flu is next door to a residential back garden
and it is reasonable that residents can use
their outdoor space without undue noise.
Residents should expect the planning authority
to adhere to their usual standards.
And I hope the variation in para 3 .8 has not been made
because the flu was installed without permission.
In terms of amenity and policy LP2,
that's the back gardens of two and four
are set quite a long way back from Uppitooty Road.
they're protected by the houses themselves, so the noise levels are not
as high as for residents who have a direct outlook on the main road. I do not
believe that the noise from the A24 in these gardens is sufficient to justify
the lowering of standards and the excess noise will have a detrimental effect on
residents. The other key concern is the hours of operation. It's now winter and
residents have their doors and windows closed but that will not be the same
in summer so the noise will be more obvious.
To allow residents to have some peace,
I recommend that the hours of operation
are restricted further so the flu is turned off
at 2300 weekdays and 2330 at weekend
with the restaurant opening hours further reduced
to 1130 weekdays and midnight Fridays and Saturdays.
This change will also ensure that the restaurant users
leave promptly. Finally I noticed the waste management policy has to be
provided as part of the approval. Local residents report significant refuse and
rubbish from the takeaway aspects of local residents and I would like to you
to make sure that the waste policy includes dealing with this sort of
rubbish and memos to the users and it's likely, it's unlikely that this premises
will have a drinks licence, which means that that also restricts some of the ways that
we can actually enforce what happens at that restaurant.
In summary, I request changes to conditions that the flu should meet the normal environmental
noise standards at 10 decibel, bells below ambient, and the hours of operation are reduced,
and the premises close earlier. All of these changes would safeguard residential amenity
for local people and follow policy LP2.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Critch.
Can I get this straight?
You're not necessarily opposing the application,
you're just saying the conditions,
you mentioned the conditions about rubbish collection
and the hours of operation.
I think I missed what you ever used,
it was you said about paragraph 3 .8.
Could you just repeat that?
OK, the flu in...
Oh, excuse me, I'm about to sneeze.
What has happened is the flu is allowed to be
at two decibels below ambient,
but actually a normal policy is that it should be 10.
I think I remember this from the case of the co -op
on the corner of Aldridge Road,
this whole thing going on a long time ago with flus.
And I think that I would be concerned that that flu is likely to be a...
there was some enforcement. It's a retrospective application and I would be
concerned that because it's there we are not being astringent. That's my opinion
but that would be my concern. We're not being astringent as we would normally be.
And I think these gardens are actually quite some way away from the main road
so it is not as noisy as you might think.
So Mr Grainger, would we have allowed,
if we were not doing a retrospective application,
would we have demanded that the flu was further away,
or what are your comments on the officers,
sorry, on the Councillors' views?
Thank you, Chair, Nigel Grainger, East Area Team Manager.
The paper sets out what officers' views are.
I think on a fair reading of the paper,
you can see that these matters have been assessed
against our policy objectives and our conclusions
in terms of the operating, the change of use,
the future operating hours of the proposal,
along with the technical operating standards
of the extract flu have been outlined
and found to be acceptable to officers.
Thank you.
Okay, let me throw it open to Councillor Tiller
and oh, I have a full house here.
Tiller, Worrall, Aps, to start with anyway.
Thank you, Chair.
Matthew Tiller, Councillor for Roehampton Board.
I'd like to thank Councillor Critchard
for making this representation
and if anything, on the matter of the flu,
I don't think she goes far enough.
I mean, if I were a resident, I'd want the noise from the flu
to stop well before 11 or 30 at night,
especially given that it's not meeting the usual standards.
It's noisier than one would usually allow.
So, yes, I would like that to be considered.
So, although you think you'd be more ambitious,
you'd like to back Councillor Critchard's comment
on the hours, yes?
Yes, I would.
Right, Councillor Worrell, sorry.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Worrell, Shaftesbury and Queenstown.
I have actually great sympathy with the presentation
from Councillor Critchard in terms of the noise level,
but also there is a contradiction in the paper here.
So the hours of operation are eight till midnight,
and then Friday, and then Saturday,
eight till half past midnight.
The flu itself then, it finishes,
the conditions I believe should be eight and midnight.
But if you then use the half hour as a wind down period,
and people are supposed to leave during that period,
and there's no service actually happening,
you should then apply that principle for the week as well
and actually be finishing half an hour earlier
in terms of the flu noise.
So either we reduce the, my proposal would be
is actually Sunday to Thursday is eight till 11 .30
and, or we, let me start again.
We need to bring these hours into balance
and somehow there is that contradiction.
I actually, I'm very, as I said,
I agree with you in terms of reducing the hours
and in terms of the noise levels.
I'm not too sure whether that's in the remit
of this committee.
I'd need clarification upon that as well.
Councillor Apps?
Councillor Sara Apps, Shasta in Queenstown Ward.
I wanted to cheque about,
I'm sorry to take it back a stage,
but firstly, thanks very much to Councillor Critchard
for coming along today.
I find that really interesting.
I wanted to ask about how the assessment
of background noise is made.
So two decibels below, is it the quietest point
in the evening or is it the busiest point in the day?
Because clearly that's gonna have a reflection
on how residents experience that.
And I would also be supportive of looking
looking at variants in the hours.
Again, I think it's disappointing that it doesn't reach
our normal standards and we all have concerns
about retrospective applications because often it feels
that there is more, whilst it might be within the broad
spectrum of expectations, it may have been that we would
have asked for a better flu or we would have advised
on a better level of flu, thank you.
Can you help us on the decibel counting, Mr. Grainger?
Yes, certainly.
So the, again, I can take it back for you
if it so pleases the committee.
The initial report that we got to make an assessment
on the technical performance of the extract flu
initially received by officers was insufficient
in its methodology and the actual noise positioning
of the microphones that they use to record
the existing background noise levels
and then when it operates.
So it was apparent quite quickly to us and our colleagues
in the environmental services team that that needed
to be looked at again by the applicant, which it has been.
And the document that has supported
officer's recommendations and the opinion of the
environmental services officer has used a correct
methodology using the correct equipment to measure
noise and has indicated what the existing proposed
background noise levels are.
I mean, in a retrospective situation, we actually
know what the noise levels are.
So, it's not, you're not looking, measuring that
against predicted technical performances from a
manufacturer's specification.
So this is a known known.
In that regard, the advice from the
Environmental Services Specialist Noise Officer
who's been involved with the initial breaches
that have been reported through planning enforcement
and through the Environmental Health Services,
especially last year when this equipment
was just being modified and changed.
He was very aware of these breaches and also,
well obviously that's done through correspondence
and a stimulus to actually make investigations
in that regard.
And also he's very aware of the revised method
and technical reports in so far as that he knows firsthand
how this equipment operates.
So it's not a matter, this isn't just looking
at this equipment purely on paper.
This is the first hand advice from a specialist noise
officer that understands the constraints of the site,
understands what the noise generators are,
and is content in his professional view
that the operating tolerances of that equipment
will remain below background noise levels.
and there are two readings, night time and day time.
In that respect, given his experience of decades
in the field of environmental health and noise generation
by mechanical equipment, we obviously think that
that is highly material in being able to recommend
this proposal for approval.
Thank you. Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Humphries, Southfields in Putney. I myself would be reluctant to
modify the hours for the business and the flu for the point that this is a major thoroughfare
in the borough where this premise is. It's the A24. We're not talking about a back street
It's a significant part of the way, but there's a lot of business noise and traffic all the
time.
And also from the point of view of we know, especially nowadays, how every hospitality
business is struggling and just about keeping their head above water.
And I thought we were trying to impose unreasonable conditions on their operating hours when they're
trying to turn a reasonable profit.
I think that would be overly onerous of us to try and do that kind of thing.
I think as Mr. Grainger says, the experts have looked at it and found that it's acceptable
within the parameters it has to be.
If in the future there are complaints
about the operation of it,
then as we call through the enforcement office
was to do that.
And I think it would be unreasonable of us
in the nature of trying to support
another small business in the borough
when there's lots of businesses up and down.
As Councillor Critchard said,
up that whole high street,
which are thriving businesses
that need to be supporting them and doing well.
And I don't think I was cutting down the hours
on this one particular business
is gonna have any impact on the overall area.
And as officers say, it's within parameters.
So I would be happy to accept the report as it is.
I get the impression that everyone's
happy with the application in principle.
That is the provision of a restaurant here.
We're just discussing the nature of the conditions.
I think that's right, isn't it?
And what's made mainly at dispute
are the conditions in condition three, I guess.
and Councillor Critchard was suggesting, I think,
that effectively, although this covers the hours of opening
rather than the flu, the two must be pretty well related,
fairly obviously, so she wanted a limit
on those hours of operation, which currently the officers
are recommending Sunday to Thursday, eight to midnight,
eight a .m. to midnight, and Friday to Saturday,
eight a .m. to half past midnight.
You've heard Councillor Humphrey's view
and given other views.
Any other comments, any amendments? I think I need an amendment or so I think I think
Councillor Tiller effectively is amending it or wants to amend it. What are your, from
Sunday to Thursday, 8 to what are you saying?
to... I'd say 11pm, that's the latest. 8 to 11 is your motion and on Friday and Saturday?
I think the same. The same? Oh I think on Saturday is 11, well
that's what your motion is. So Councillor Tiller is moving, that's changed
to 11 o 'clock during the week. Any Councillor Humphreys?
With respect Councillor Belton, that's ludicrous. Are you talking about trying to shut the flu
off at 11 o 'clock at night or the business closing at 11 o 'clock at night.
What business around there shuts at that time?
And you have to understand, I appreciate colleagues might not have the understanding of the technicalities
of running a restaurant, but it's not like closing uptime in a pub where you get half
an hour's drinking uptime.
The kitchens are extremely hot.
It's not just for cooking, it's to keep the heat at a sensible temperature for the staff
working as well, that you have to keep those flues going until the business is closer to
closing time.
So you just would make a mockery of their business model
if you're trying to be so restrictive on the hours.
It's ludicrous.
In other words, you're opposing his amendment.
That's fair enough.
But, no, I know you explained why.
That's fair enough.
But I think, perhaps I'm confused here,
we're talking here about the hours of operation.
Not...
So condition three is the hours of operation.
If that is to be amended as suggested, then by reason condition 5 would also have to be
amended.
Yes, that's true.
So, decide about condition 3 first and then we will have to amend 5.
Okay, that's my mistake for picking the wrong motion first, isn't it?
I do beg your pardon.
So start again, Councillor Tiller.
I do apologise.
Whereas you're nonetheless effectively moving an amendment
to condition five and subsequently possibly to three.
But you're moving an amendment to condition five
where it is hours of operation of the flu,
eight till midnight.
And Councillor Warrows got his hands up as well.
If Councillor Tiller's motion doesn't go through,
I'd like to propose an alternative one.
Actually we just aligned the hours
that Sunday till Saturday,
it is eight till midnight.
Sorry, is that, I've confused it now.
I do apologise.
Are we talking about condition eight, five, or three?
Condition number three, my proposal would be
just to align the hours completely.
So that's actually eight till midnight,
Sunday till Saturday.
That would be in line with,
they would then bring it into line with condition number five.
Okay.
Technically is that more reason, whether it's accepted or not, it's another matter.
But that more reasonable as far as you're concerned?
It aligns if that's what you want to achieve.
So condition three would read it eight till midnight,
you know, seven days a week effectively.
Yeah.
and that would marry with the,
you wouldn't have to amend condition five in that regard.
Right, Councillor Abbs.
Yeah, I would second Councillor Worrall's proposal.
Thank you, I was waiting,
I was gonna ask for a seconder anyway.
Chairman, sorry to intervene,
but we can only consider one amendment at a time,
So if Councillor Tiller withdraws his proposal
to amend condition five for closure to be a 2300.
I had taken it that he had effectively withdrawn it
after this discussion.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
OK, I'll withdraw it.
OK, so Councillor Wold.
Yes.
Anyone got any?
Now we've, at last, I do apologise for my mistake
in getting everyone on the wrong foot.
But now we've got somewhere.
if anyone wants to say anything again about it.
Councillor Apps.
Yeah, I think it's important to note
that what we're doing is making this proposal consistent,
condition three consistent with condition five.
So actually, at the moment there's a kind of mismatch,
so we're resolving that and also hopefully
giving some alleviation for local residents.
Okay, Councillor Humphreys.
Are we really seriously saying we're making a half hour's difference to a thing,
which might make a big difference to the business survival or not,
just for the sake of half an hour at night?
If it's going on until midnight, I just really think on a Friday and a Saturday night,
on the 8 .24, do you really think there's not going to be other noises going on,
as Mr Grainger said, it's below the levels of whatever.
I just think it's been totally unreasonable to a business
that the busiest nights of the week, he's got to shut half an hour earlier.
I don't know, really, I think that's silly.
The side road isn't the A24, by the way.
Yeah, I know, but I mean, that's where the impact is,
isn't it, I think you're not,
you're playing a little bit with the words there.
Council.
Thank you, Chair, Councillor Tom Pridham,
Lavender Ward in Battersea.
Speaking as someone with about 10 years' worth of experience
working in the hospitality industry, I'd like to back up Councillor Humphries' point
that he made earlier that actually I don't think we're necessarily acting with the
knowledge of the kind of impact this could have on the business and how
viable it would make their trade and obviously they do those busier periods
that's where they really make the margin which allows them to provide jobs and
sustain their business throughout the week so I just think we should bear that
in mind. Thank you. Okay I think the case is pretty clear cut, not much
I'm not quite in discussing it further, I don't think.
So can I ask for those members in favour
of Councillor Worrell, seconded by Councillor App's
amendment to the hours so that they all chime in
at midnight, those in favour of that amendment?
Three, those against it?
One, two, three, four, five, and one abstention, I think.
Yes.
Okay, so that amendment is defeated.
The application, no one's talked against the application,
have they?
So do we take it the application's accepted, approved?
Thank you.
Right, moving, oh.
Well, it was agreed in the con.
So that's unanimous then?
Yes, do you want to chair the meeting?
I mean that's okay but moving on to the second application which is a
a hip to Gable rear extension in Cornford Grove in Ballum.
Any comments about that or is it approved?
Approved, so that application is approved.
Moving on again to application number three,
first floor 34 Standen Road, page 34.
which is to do with a roof terrace and a balcony window.
Any comments, any views?
Councillor Humphreys.
It's in my patch, so I've obviously got a vested interest.
I just wanted to cheque, because it implied in the report
that this has already been implemented.
So is it another retrospective one
that we're trying to put in?
Well, they've started it, but they haven't finished.
Is that what it is?
Oh, okay.
I just wanted to reassure residents that I think the reason why this is acceptable, as
we have had in the report, but the fact that it is on the second floor rather than the
first floor, and that makes a big difference between the impact on the neighbours.
So although neighbours I understand are concerned, I think because of the location of it it won't
have the negative impact as much as they might think it was.
And again, they always have recourse to Mr Raybould and his team if there are issues in
the future.
So, that's what I thought.
Okay, any comments?
No comments?
People agree their recommendation?
Agreed, thank you.
Moving on to item four, which is a proposal for seven flats
built as a third floor in Aslet Street.
Any comments?
Councillor Coakley.
Sorry, that's page, what is it?
Page 41.
Councillor Coakley.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Jamie Coakley for St. Mary's Ward.
This is the third iteration of this application
which has already been approved twice.
The first one was in 2016,
So it's essentially been 10 years of the developer
getting the permission and then not developing it.
And I think this is very frustrating.
And so I'd be minded in this.
I've got nothing against the application itself,
but I'd be minded to give two years for them
to commence development instead of free
because we want development to happen in the borough.
And if they're gonna keep just getting the permission
and then sitting on it, then that's just quite frustrating for us.
Okay, any other comments, queries? I know there are. Councillor Tiller?
Thank you, Chair. So firstly on London Plan 23, affordable housing. I mean, yes, technically
this is less than 10 units and therefore affordable housing requirements wouldn't apply, but I
I still think it's a terrible waste
not to have any affordable housing out of these seven.
Especially considering the other drawbacks of this.
I was struck by a resident's comment
that she didn't choose to be in a middle flat
when she bought her property.
She was buying it as a top floor flat
and now it will be the middle flat of a three floor property
and what's more, she and the others on the current top floor
will have their one bedroom flat turned into studio
apartments, which does seem terribly unfair to me.
We may say this is beyond the committee's remit,
but I think it does need to be said and discussed.
And especially since Wandsworth Council
and the previous administration proposed doing something
similar to some council blocks in West Patney
and then decided against it,
given similar concerns by residents
about all the disruption and having a new floor,
new storey built on top of one's own property which can't be pleasant for anyone.
Any other? Councillor Jeffries.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Jeffries, Thamesfield Ward. I'm quite sympathetic to Councillor
Colle's point around making sure that we actually get the development online. I suppose
Just though there must be various different reasons why sometimes the application is granted
but the development doesn't happen, there's obviously surely outside of our control and
I'm just grateful for clarification from officers as to whether it's at all our place to determine
outside of what's set in place by statute how long developers have under the applications
that get granted.
Okay, Ms Richards.
Thank you, Ellen Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area.
So I agree with the Councillor's comments really in terms of it is frustrating to know
that we've granted permission for seven units on the development on a number of, it's ten
years now as was picked up and they don't seem to be able to get the
proposal implemented which I suspect is a lot to do with the fact that there are
interested parties living at the block already who are not agreeing to whatever
the terms are to allow the works to be undertaken potentially and because the
implications in particular to the person or people whose flats will be turned into studio
flats instead. So I think there is a frustration, which is understandable. I don't think that
we should be looking to change the period of time for implementation. That is the standard,
although our legal advisor will be able to give you a bit more information on that.
But I don't think we should or could really, it's not advisable to do that.
It's a reasonable period of time probably to arrange for all sorts of things associated
with construction of dwellings, especially on existing buildings.
Can I interrupt just for a moment?
Pardon?
Can I interrupt for just a moment?
Yeah.
I think there's an interesting difference between the technical professional planning
advice about could and the political decision about should.
So can I ask, as you refer to Mr. Mors, because I don't know, I've always accepted the officer's
words.
How supine of me.
Can we give recommendations on approval for any length of period we like or what?
I'm not getting involved in politics, Chairman, but the statutory position is that an applicant
will have three years beginning with the date on which permission is granted in order to
implement the planning permission.
In the absence of an express condition that says that, the statute implies that condition
into every planning permission.
It is an option for you to change the date of implementation.
It can be brought forward.
I've just had a look at the National Planning Policy Guidance
and it says that a local planning authority may wish to consider
whether a variation for a time period could assist in the delivery of development.
For example, the shorter period may be appropriate
where it would encourage the commencement of development
and non -commencement has previously had negative impacts.
So we haven't had any information from the residents
to say if the three, or from the applicant
to say that three years will be optimum
or two years will cause them difficulties.
But it is a planning judgement that's open to you.
In light of the fact that they have had
previous permissions that haven't been implemented,
we're not able to require implementation of a permission,
but you can, it is open to you to bring forward
that commencement date to two years from the data commission
and then it's up to the developer to do so.
They can obviously make an application
to vary that condition, but it is something
that's open to you.
Mr. Morris, you said, you gave two reasons.
You said one, because it might encourage development,
which I think is something that Councillor Colle
definitely, and I suspect Councillor Jeffries
would be in favour of, but you said secondly,
all causes nuisance.
And it doesn't do that, does it?
Courage and non -commencement has previously
had negative impacts, so the two run as well.
You've got to have the two together.
I don't think you claim it's had negative impacts, could you?
I mean, people who don't want it to happen, who live there,
would presumably say it's had positive impacts
about being delayed.
So I think that probably fails that test, doesn't it?
I suspect though they could argue that the negative impact is not knowing if the mission
is going to be implemented.
So I think it is a decision that is open to members to make sure they wish to.
So that was one.
Do you want to ask on that point?
Yes, Councillor Ayres and Councillor Apps.
Oh, okay.
On that?
Well, if you're not on that, perhaps we can go back to Ms. Richards to continue the second
part, if you remember what it was.
The second part was someone made other comments.
It was regarding the affordable housing.
Yes, it was Councillor Tiller's comments.
So in terms of Councillor Tiller, I can pick this one up for you.
At the moment, there isn't a policy for less than 10 units.
We do have the draught local plan going through,
and that's at a very advanced stage.
And that asks for 50 ,000 pounds on each additional unit.
So next time this comes back, maybe in two or three years,
we would probably be looking for affordable housing.
But at the moment, we can't do so.
Stay tuned, I think, is the answer on that one.
Okay, now any other comments?
I know there was, Councillor Apps.
I want to assure you that I have read the sort of
documentation regarding privacy and the late notice,
but given that we received concerns about primary school
being nearby, that's right, yeah?
and about privacy and concerns even though the balconies
are set to have screens, could you just take us through
some of the points in relation to that, thank you.
Thank you, do you mean in respect of what the late objector
or the objection sets out?
So as set out in the late items,
an additional letter was received from a resident.
Most of the points had already been covered in the report, but there was objection based
on no meaningful engagement by the applicant with the community affected or the residents
or the school.
The proposal involves internal reconfiguration and additional units, which increases overall
number of residential units at the site.
Overlooking is a concern, particularly of the adjacent school site, where safeguarding,
privacy and well -being of children is a priority. There's also a point about CIL funding which
this generates that should be directed towards supporting the amenities and facilities of
the school and also that the CMP condition which is recommended should be robust and
take into consideration the impact of the construction works on the school in terms
of noise mitigation and safety during school hours. As I say, most of these points were
covered in the report.
Just to reiterate and reassure residents,
the proposal is for screening to the balconies,
which is 1 .7 metres.
So that's sufficient in the standard height
that we generally approve, which ensures that direct overlooking
doesn't occur.
And there's also wooden slatted elements
to the end of the terracing as well at the end of the building,
including the one that overlooks the schoolyard.
So we're not concerned that this is gonna result
in any big issues.
In terms of public engagement by the applicant,
the council does encourage that early and effective
public engagement is undertaken by developers
in advance of submitting any planning application
in line with our raising the bar guidance.
although that's largely directed towards larger sites
and proposals for more than 10 units,
but its general principles are recommended.
I think in this case, however, this is a resubmission,
as has been mentioned, this is the third submission.
The first submissions all predated that guidance
in any event, but I think and I hope
that the applicant is listening
and is hearing what people are saying really
in respect of engaging with the local community
if this is to progress.
I know one or two members are concerned about
the impact of the works on one or two of the properties
like single unit being turned into studio flat
or things like that.
Those kind of issues are outside the remit
of this committee, however, are they not?
Mr. Richards had the relationship
between the current residents and their tenure,
whether it's only Occupy or Lease or Rent,
and whoever it is trying to develop
is outside our framework, that's for the law courts.
That's correct, and in terms of the changing the flats,
the one bed flats to a studio, provided that they meet with the standard floor space required
under national guidelines, technical guidelines, that that's acceptable to us. The change is
required to enable additional stairs to go up to the next proposed level, so some kind
of internal change would have to happen to enable that to occur.
Okay, on the other hand, sorry, Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair, just a quickie on that point,
just to hopefully reassure colleagues a little bit.
I'm not imagining that we're saying to somebody
who's in a one bedroom flat, why are you there?
We're gonna knock it down and make you into a studio
while you're sat there.
One hopefully assumes that they would either come
from a commercial arrangement with the lease holder
or the owner or whatever they happen to be and they would go and it wouldn't be the same
person that would be living there once at the studio flat. I imagine they would re -let
it to somebody else. So it's not like we're chucking somebody out of their home and making
it around them as it were, just so people are clear about what's actually happening.
I had another little question in my May for Mr. Tiddley perhaps about the construction
management plan. My first little question was, it actually says in the report, page
the next 51, construction logistics plan.
I was always curious what was the difference
between a logistics plan and a management plan.
And I just wanted to be reassured
that in whichever of those iterations it is,
there will be some specific comment,
apropos what we were just talking about,
about asking for some kind of dialogue
with the residents that are living there
while the development actually happens
to make sure that,
because obviously that's the worst part for them,
if it's going on while they're living there,
and just make sure that will be incorporated
in the plan as part of that,
or if not could we add it on as an informative perhaps
that there's a proper dialogue with the residents
as it happens.
Thank you, Councillor.
David Tidley, the head of transport strategy.
There's no material difference between
a construction logistics plan
and a construction management plan.
I think that's just a terminology
that individual case officers might use
a term slightly different.
The discharge of any condition or obligation
is something that is registered and has its own process
of, if you like, notification and consultation.
I can certainly try and keep a note of it
so when it comes in, I'm aware of its need to be
circulated, but I'll leave it for the councillors
if they want to have some sort of additional
informative to that, but I don't think
we probably need one, thank you.
Cass, Miss Richards, may be a bit, maybe slightly unfair, but could you recall what the London
plan expects the small sites to contribute over what period of years and number of properties?
I know it's thousands and I always wonder whether we stand any chance of achieving it,
the small sites, not the large sites but the small sites because the important bit here
is the seven extra units.
Well, important in one sense.
So on page 48 under the first principle of development, under the first part of the report,
the principle of development, so this is identified as a small site, Wandsworth, 4 ,140 of the
near 20 ,000 dwellings are expected to be delivered through small sites.
In what period of time?
Ten years.
So that's 400 a year in small sites, which I think is a very demanding target.
But if we don't achieve that, well we know the housing crisis in London.
I don't need to tell anyone about the housing crisis in London.
So anyway, there's the discussion.
Is the recommendation of Councillor Colle?
Relating back to my previous comments,
I'd like to formally move, amend in condition one,
from three years to two, in the interest of
getting this development done.
I would like to oppose that, if I may,
on the grounds that I think this sounds like a very complex
with lots of ownership related issues.
So I think if they haven't got very far,
I think perhaps three years is still required.
But nonetheless, you've moved it.
Do you have a seconder to vote?
Sorry.
Oh yes, Councillor Jeffries, you supported that view.
No, sorry, I was sympathetic in a general sense,
rather than supporting actually moving it to two years.
To me it seems like a really complicated situation.
We are not developers in this room,
we don't know how to get that sort of thing over the line,
so I think it's best to leave it at three.
Councillor Worrall?
So just a point of clarification from Mr. Moyes.
wasn't that there were two conditions that had to be met
in order for this to actually happen,
or was it just one of the two?
My understanding from what you said
was that you had to meet both conditions.
Yes, both.
Forgive me, sorry, Chairman, it's both.
So to incentivize the development coming forward,
and also the delay has caused difficulties,
I can't remember the exact wording,
forgive me, yeah, a nuisance.
It's the delay nor a nuisance to the planning department.
Does Councillor Kilkley have a seconder?
No, I'm afraid you don't Councillor Kilkley by the looks of things.
Is the application approved?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Moving on to the next application which I can disentangle myself from the microphone
for a moment is 31 to 43 Putney High Street variation.
Now, one councillor asked to appear,
but I didn't agree to that on the basis
that A, it was only a variation,
and B, the ward was represented anyway on the committee.
So, Councillor Jeffries, do you want to start on this?
Thank you very much, Chair.
Speaking as you suggest, this application is slap bang in the
middle of my ward, and I should note I'm very conscious of my
obligations as a member of this committee, so I have a couple of
questions which I think reflect some of the concerns that I'm
aware of from residents and indeed the Putney Society.
I also recognise that we are not here to unpick the whole application which has been approved
previously, so I will try to do my best on that front.
So I had two specific queries.
The first one was more of a general point.
I appreciate this is a variation, the changes are relatively minor, but they're not nothing
taken as a whole.
and it would be helpful, I think, for this committee
and for residents to understand is that usual
or indeed an appropriate use of the planning system.
My second question and I guess more of the substantive point
are we sure that we're doing absolutely enough
to recognise the transport impact here
both during construction and afterwards.
I've spent 10 or so years walking my children
past the site to school, and I'm very conscious
that it is a really awkward position
from a traffic perspective, and I can see all sorts
of trouble being caused, as the Purney Society point out,
in terms of the cycle lane, the bus lane,
and traffic more generally.
From what I can see in the papers, there's only one varied condition that we're voting on essentially, and it's got nothing to do with traffic.
Traffic, as I'm sure we're all aware in Putney, is absolutely horrendous at the moment, and I cannot emphasise enough just how frustrated residents are at the moment.
they will be looking for some reassurance on this point.
So my plea on their behalf as a member of this committee
is for officers to provide it if they possibly could.
So I'll hand back over at that.
Councillor Jeffries, you put that point very reasonably
and you do realise obviously that if we were in some way
trying to refuse the application,
or did refuse the application,
then they'd still have the previous permission,
so go ahead anyway.
Nonetheless, I recognise the reason you've made the point.
We have the same problem in Battersea at the moment.
There's traffic chaos everywhere for different reasons.
So whilst we're here, I think it would proper
for the public to hear Mr. Tiddley's comments
on the traffic implications of this particular development
as was agreed at a previous meeting,
which is not something we can reverse,
but nonetheless to express them.
Thank you, Chair.
So as we've mentioned, the starting point
for the development itself is there's already
a permission there and these changes
are relatively minor in transport impact terms
in terms of what it means for the numbers
of people going there and leaving, et cetera, et cetera.
But the original consent had several conditions
placed on it, one of which was the submission
of a construction management plan to show how
it would be satisfactorily constructed.
Also a delivery and servicing plan to show how
the finished development would then be serviced.
And that's equally significant given that effectively
you can't easily stop on Putney High Street
or on Putneybridge Road to service property.
So although there are no additional conditions
maybe related to this particular change,
those original conditions would still follow forward
and are still required.
What we have mentioned within the papers
and in late papers as an additional informative
is to remind the applicant of the need
to produce the construction management plan
and not to assume that what they may have been
thinking about doing originally would be applicable now.
The original scheme did indicate, did itself realise
that for smaller vehicles can get through that little arch
and make various deliveries both during construction
and in the final arrangements.
But for the larger materials being delivered,
the previous arrangement assumed a pit lane.
So the footway on Putney High Street would be scaffolded
with a pedestrian walkway through it.
And then there would need to be some sort of pit lane
behind that so that vehicles could get off the street
because clearly the idea of having loading and unloading
from either Putney High Street or Putney Bridge Road
wasn't really permissible.
So it looks as if that arrangement would still be
applicable here.
and would probably be able to work,
but we're very mindful of the issues there.
And then in terms of the final,
in terms of the finished product, if you like,
and how it would be serviced,
in those circumstances, small vehicles could continue
to use the access.
If the leveler's court site comes forward as well,
then the sites together actually have
a significantly improved ability to access
from off the street.
That said, as it currently stands, larger vehicles
servicing the final hotel arrangement would need to service
from the street somewhere and we're thinking about
how we might be able to provide some off -peak loading
setback from the junction for that.
I suppose the only final thing I might say
is that where we have hotels elsewhere in the borough,
Quite a lot of them are on busy corners and on main roads,
and we don't seem to get too many complaints about them.
I think maybe there's a travel logic at Clapham Junction,
for example, and there's plenty of examples of hotels
in busy town centre locations which seem to work
without causing significant problems in the final state.
Thank you, Mr. Tiddley.
Whilst you said at the beginning,
not particularly relevant to the variations,
nonetheless that's helpful for residents to know,
I'm sure.
Any other questions, queries, Councillor Humphries?
Councillor Apps?
Thank you, Chair.
A slight concern about, and it doesn't say much about it
other than to stage it as a fact,
that there is a reasonably significant loss of retail space
as part of the changes here.
I think it's page 61, it says we're gonna lose
128 square metres of retail space,
which is including, I think, mostly in the basement,
but a little bit on the ground floor as well.
I just wanted to, I understand that's to do
with the jiggling around to make the hotel part of it work
and things like that, which is fine,
but I just wanted to make sure that doesn't impinge
so much on the retail space and it's not viable anymore.
Mr. Richards.
Thank you.
Overall, as an overall development,
an introduction to the High Street,
I don't think that that is considered to be significant
to impact on the viability of that as a space,
particularly because it would be designed
to very modern standards and introduce a whole new frontage
on that corner where it doesn't really show off
at the moment, so we're welcoming it really overall
as part of the overall development rather than just being
a hotel, it also offers a mix with office above as well.
That is reassuring, so thank you, that's good.
If I could, Chair, just to refer back to Mr. Sydney's comments
to Councillor Jeffries, and yes, it's obviously a very hot topic
at the moment with all the stuff that's been going on,
but I was slightly concerned about the fact that
one of the potential solutions is the levellers court
coming forward and getting that bigger access,
which would be great, but as we've just heard
in the previous application, granting permission doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen
and Leveller's Court again is one that's been knocking around for quite a long time.
So is Mr Tiddley confident, sorry to put you on the spot again, that even if that doesn't
come forward we can still make that servicing delivery work?
It's quite a reasonable size hotel so it's going to need quite a lot of sheets and stuff
and supply.
Yes, I mean the application has been assessed on its own merits and the plans that come
forward will also as well.
It would be helpful if Leveller's courts comes forward
to help deal with the whole,
and in fact to deliver a more holistic development
of the wider site, but it's not essential.
Councillor Apps.
Thanks.
I also shared the concerns that Partner's Society raised,
and I note in page 78, paragraph 514,
that obviously it says that these things
will be considered, the conditions attached
will be looked at.
But the TMO is suggested for seven to 10 and four to seven.
One thing that we've all really noticed
is that traffic is now busy a lot throughout the day.
And so I think it would take a detailed study
of traffic flows.
One thing we do not want to do is create
any more kind of sluggishness on Putney Bridge Road.
We want traffic to move as freely as possible.
within the limits.
So I'd urge that we kind of take a good deal of,
I realise it's not for this committee to determine,
but if we could kind of voice our concern to make sure
that that is looked at really closely
and indeed make sure it was working properly
if it is introduced,
because I have real concerns about the traffic on that road.
Thank you.
Right.
I mean, surely from our own personal experience,
We all, I'm being a bit, some should give here,
but certainly when I go to cities,
and I think London's a pretty big city,
I stay in hotels not having gone by car.
Very seldom, I must say I have done once or twice,
but it's normal for people to come by public transport
or by taxi or something and not their own vehicles
and jamming the place up.
So as Mr. Tiddly said, our experience of hotels
like the Travelogic Lambton Junction hasn't caused
particular traffic problems.
So I think we can rest assured on the professional advice.
Any other comments?
No, is the application approved?
Application's approved, thank you.
Moving on to 14, 16,
16 Triport Street, page 93, and let me find it.
And it's rear extensions again, isn't it?
So any comment on these applications?
Councillor Humphries.
Thanks, just a quick, I just wanted to be clear with the, it's one of your favourite
topics isn't it, the raising of the ridge height again, I know it's not a big ridge
height raise but will that follow the existing line, because I wasn't clear if any of those
other ones had been done or not down that stretch of the street and it referred I think
to numbers 1 to 10 or something but I just wanted to make sure, because they are quite
distinctive in that street, they are all very similar and it's nice, it would be a shame
it got spoiled. But I just want to know if anybody, if we've got a precedent as it were
there on any of the other ones having been done. I know it says we've got some other
roof terraces already. I wasn't sure about raising the ridge height. I went down there
to look because it, well I suppose that's part of the answer in itself isn't it? The
street being narrow you can't get back enough far to tell in reality whether it actually
is or not. I don't know if we had a... In a very modest way these three streets here
are quite interesting, aren't they?
They're interesting architecturally.
Mr. Shish, any comment?
Thank you.
There have been, I feel the same about this street.
They have a lovely character and yeah.
The report and the planning officer acknowledges
that the increase in the ridge height would be
not completely unique, but it does interfere a little bit
with the consistency of the ridge.
But for the reasons given, you still have to demonstrate
how that would be harmful in some way
to the visual amenity of an area.
In this case, it is quite a minimal increase
to enable the extension to happen at the back
and to achieve the internal roof height
for the standard of accommodation
that you would need to secure.
So it's a balance between enabling the work
to be undertaken correctly and harm
that would result from that.
And I think in this case, it's considered to be acceptable.
Certainly there are lots of other examples
of similar extensions within the patch, if you like.
Thank you.
I think on the whole, as a borough,
we've done those quite well.
I mean, everywhere around where I live,
there are back extensions and the same,
and sometimes the ridge height's gone up,
but with the slope, it's hardly noticeable.
I think it's done quite well, really.
So is that approved?
I beg your pardon, Councillor Colkley.
Sorry, just one quick general point.
I know the application is compliant.
Just wanted to make a point on biodiversity
that I feel like it is frustrating
that their work's been done on the roof
and there could have been an opportunity
to have increased the biodiversity on the roof
and I understand why and they've provided the statement
and they've done everything compliant with the plan.
I guess it's more just maybe appeal for the next writers of the local plan to make it so that even a small extension like this can make a good positive contribution
regardless of whether it's biodiversity net gain required or not and it just feels like we need to get the most out of our developments to help us meet our targets.
That's just a low spiel.
I'm sure the planning policy people will take note
that we'll be hot on both parties,
I'm absolutely confident,
hot on increasing biodiversity
and those kind of issues in future plans.
But at the moment, as you say,
they've tried their best here.
So it's approved, is it, this application?
Fine, agreed, thank you.
Move to enforcement actions, enforcement actions which I found rather interesting this month,
always quite interesting but particularly interesting this month.
Number the first one about Hobbs Walk, 113, page 113, the recommendation is to refuse,
sorry, it's to enforce.
Any comments on this particular one?
Councillor Worrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm just looking at the details of the breach,
and there's a, I suppose there's a pattern here
that's established of the person ignoring guidance
and ignoring the decision making processes.
If we go down this road, which I hope that we actually do,
do and the owners actually then ignore the enforcement action, what is the next step?
Because it feels like this person will actually take us right to the limits in terms of how
far we can actually go.
And I think this is an example where we need to use all the powers that we have because
I think this is a case where actually they don't care.
Thank you, Councillor.
So, after we serve an enforcement notice...
Introduce yourself, please.
Sorry, Mr Raybould, Enforcement Manager.
After we serve an enforcement notice,
if somebody doesn't comply with the requirements of that notice,
at that stage an offence has been committed.
So, the further kind of enforcement powers we would have
would be to prosecute in the Magistrates Court,
which we do routinely as and where proportionate.
Okay.
Okay, is the action to enforce agreed?
Agreed.
Move on to the second one, if I can turn over the pages,
which I can't at the moment.
I've lost it, I've lost it.
Yeah, I realise that.
So the second one, 22 Roehampton Vale, page 121.
Are you got problems?
Oh were you? Thank you very much.
22 Roehampton Vale.
The recommendation is to authorise enforcement action.
Agreed, everyone happily agreed?
Interesting enough I questioned that a little bit
just because of the nature of the area.
But I got roundly sat on by Councillor Ayres
who told me not to talk such nonsense.
So the third one, 50 Lavender Gardens, page 131.
Yes.
Yes, that is an interesting example,
if I can get a bit of why we have such regulations,
having a fence of that scale put alongside you
in the smallish gardens we have,
take all the sun, would it not?
So yes indeed, agreed enforcement action.
Number 4174 of St. Anne's Hill,
an application, a site we all know well.
where the recommendation is it is not expedient to enforce.
Anyone got any problems with that?
Councillor Humphries.
No, is the short answer.
But as you say, Councillor Felton,
quite a few of us have got a finger in the pie on this one
of having done lots of site visits and stuff like that.
And I just wanted to say for the sake of the residents
who obviously aren't thrilled about that outcome
is that we understand their frustration, but we have to sort of tread the line of a middle
course between being sensible and being what's expedient. And I think in this case there's
going to be so many eyes and ears on that side over the coming with the history we've
had on the side that I'm sure there were any inclination from any current or future
owner to re -put that floor back in or whatever it happened to be that everybody would be
on it. So I would just, for my own sake, and I'm sure colleagues' sake, reassure them
that the difference between whether we take the ridges of the remnants of the floor supports
away or not won't make any difference to whether that's going to happen or not. We understand
the sensitivities and all the rest of it, but we have to be sensible at the end of the
day as far as what we can enforce. And I don't think it will influence the outcome one way
or the other, actually in fact.
Thank you for that Councillor Humphries. I would add to that I think that if we were
to pursue enforcement action and it were to end up in the courts, I don't think removing
what might be described almost as a picture rail but a bit more solid than that would
get much support from any judge that I could imagine. So I don't think we'd get anywhere
anyway. So thank you for your comment. Councillor Ayers.
Yes.
Finna ears, east, me.
I would support what's just been said.
I would also like to say I've been
impressed with the persistence of the residents in Queen Anne's
Hill.
All of us have had long conversations,
read long emails, visited site, and have a lot of sympathy
with the fact that the initial build was done
in a slightly suspect manner.
But I hope now, if they will accept the fact
that we're not going to pursue taking down the ledge,
that they'll find other things to worry about.
Right, so recommendation not to pursue because of,
it's not expedient, is that agreed?
Agreed, thank you, move on to the last three papers,
the decisions paper, is that noted,
or anyone got any comments on it?
Noted, closure of investigation files, noted,
and closed appeals noted.
Thank you and thank you and have a good weekend.
Cheers.