Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 10 March 2026, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 10th March 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Okay, good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage
Advisory Committee.
My name is Michael Jarb and I'm the chair of the committee.
Members, I'll now call your names.
If you know the drill, please respond and put your microphone on and then switch it off.
Councillor Belton.
Good evening.
Councillor Owens.
Good evening.
Mark Dodgson.
Good evening.
Roger Armstrong.
Good evening, Chair.
Andrew Catto, Edward Potter, Libby Dawson, Pamela Greenwood, Peter Faro.
We have apologies from Councillor Ayers and Frances Ratcliffe from Friends of Battersea
Park.
have there been any other apologies? No. Okay.
We also have the following officers present
Lauren Way
Good evening, Chair. And David Andrews
Good evening
Thank you
Okay, please
ensure your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking
Are there any declarations of interest?
No sign.
Okay.
On to the minutes of the meeting on the 8th of January, which have been circulated.
First of all, are they a correct record?
Any amendments? No? Okay, I'll sign them after the meeting.
Are there any matters arising? I'll go through page by page,
starting at page three in your pack. Anything there?
Other than, is there an update on Fersdown Lodge?
Nothing, I'm afraid. No, we have been making inquiries, but nothing. We've heard nothing.
I contacted the planning officer who sent out the recent pre -app, but she hasn't heard
anything from either Enable or the applicants. So, yeah, regrettably, no update.
Thank you, but we will keep nagging. So will we.
Okay, page four. Is there anyone else? Sorry, have I missed some living.
On 1st Anne Lodge, can I just ask, it was over a year ago that I suggested that this was almost a candidate now, then, for being heritage at risk.
I know that we can't discuss a plan because one hasn't come to the table, but what about the condition of the lodge right now and does it belong to the council?
It does, yes, via enable, enable are also involved.
We do have another lodge nearby on Tootingbet Road which is in a desperate situation at
the moment but it was made slightly better at one point after the council served a list
building repairs notice on it because it was a heritage at risk building.
Can you speak into your microphone?
Sorry, because it was a heritage at risk, the council served a listed building repairs
notice on it and it's stayed at a slightly improved situation for some time, although
now it's still requiring help.
But that's not something the council is going to consider doing to itself or you still hope
this is imminent. So we are monitoring the condition of the building and
liaising with the necessary individuals within the council department. If it is
deemed necessary that we need to take those actions to try to get repairs done
then we will do so. We can, it may not necessarily be that we serve a notice we
might just liaise with the departments to ensure those repairs are taking place
but we have been reassured that it has been maintained watertight and has been
obviously boarded up to try to protect it from vandalism for now.
Thank you.
Okay, can I move on to page four? Is there anything?
page 5, page 6, page 7.
Okay.
So we move on to our main business which are the applications in front of us
starting with application 2025 4614 on the Roehampton estate who's going to
lead on this. For the purposes of anyone listening in, I should emphasise we've all seen
the presentation that is now going to be made. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Hopefully everyone can see that.
First item on the agenda is 1 -29 Danebury Avenue, so Roehampton. This is a hybrid planning
application, mixed use development on the site known as Block A. As the committee is
where there is an extant permission
on the whole of the site that includes
a larger part of the site for a master plan
for this part of the Alton Estate.
And this is where the Block A name has come from.
So this application is coming forward
in isolation of that master plan and is
varying from that original application.
You remember where we had the application for the downshift
fields, which was a similar sort of prospect
where the council was bringing forward some elements of the master plan,
but not the full extent of the master plan at this stage, just in phases.
So this is sort of the next phase of bringing forward and amending that original 2021 permission.
So there's a bit of changes from that permission.
The original block, if you see here on the location plan,
Excuse me.
So the red line includes the area
which is the building and site
that's situated just south of Roehampton Lane
and east of Dainbury Avenue.
It also includes the library
that is just to the west of the site.
So the library is then gonna be relocated
within the new development on this site
which is now taking the form of two blocks.
Previously as part of the extant permission
and there was one single block set back
with a public square in front at the location
at the junction of Dombre Avenue and Roehampton Lane.
Now we're bringing forward two blocks.
The first, the rear block is a residential block
and the front block will be a community block
which will include and house the library.
So in terms of heritage context,
probably one of our most affluent areas of the borough
in terms of actual numbers of heritage assets.
So this site is sandwiched between a number
of conservation areas, as you see here.
We've got Roamahanten Village Conservation Area
that is situated to the east and to the north and south.
That encompasses the historic village of Roehampton.
To the north is Westmead Conservation Area,
and then we have the Alton Estate Conservation Area
that's situated to the west and to the south.
Just outside in our neighbouring borough of Richmond,
we also have Richmond Park Conservation Area
and Register Park and Garden.
And also part of Alton West Estate
is now Register Park and Garden.
Several listed buildings within the context as well,
the closest being the fountain, the drinking fountain
that's situated just to the east of the site,
which is highlighted here,
and has a number four next to it.
and also the, so that's the list of building
that we consider as probably the most impacted.
We also have Parkstead House located here
and a number of non -designated heritage assets as well
which are highlighted in sort of a peachy colour.
Here you go, you've got the list of buildings
within that context within the proximity of the site
and the locally listed buildings.
So this is the existing site.
You see here this is the existing building on the site.
Largely unused and a little bit of an eyesore
in terms of that entrance to the Alton Estate.
There's always been an aspiration to make this
sort of an entrance marker to the estate
and to the master plan for this image.
So next door to the site there's also a health centre
which is actually encompassing the Red Line plan,
which was previously not going to be encompassed,
but they've managed to include that
as part of the Red Line plan,
and it will be forming part of the development site.
Just some further images.
I think quite a few members of the committee
know this site pretty well.
And some of the heritage assets in the vicinity of the site.
So you've got the Holy Trinity Church,
just from Omerhampton Lane.
St. Joseph Church within the churchyard
which is locally listed.
And my apologies, I can't actually see what that one says.
Oh, 29, one to 29 Denbree Avenue towards the youth club.
So that's just an image of the site
that shows it more in its context.
And again, I'll quickly go through these fairly quickly.
So as I mentioned, the scheme coming forward is two blocks.
This is the front block here,
which is going to house the library
and meeting rooms and community facilities.
So it's a full storey block, but the floor to ceiling heights
are quite substantial to take account of the use within it.
And you'll see here, this is a cross section.
Again, so elevation D is sort of looking from
Dombury Avenue towards the site
with the residential block towards the rear.
Some further sections here to show the residential block.
The residential block is situated closest
to the Alton Estate Conservation Area,
whereas the community block is situated closer
towards Roehampton Village Conservation Area.
So the main elements of the presentation
will be the proposed IVR, the views that have been provided
as part of the Heritage Visual Impact Assessment.
So here we have a proposed view looking from Roehampton Lane
towards development. We have in its context with the two blocks.
Opposed view there from Junction at Medfield Street in Roehampton Lane, so just
within the conservation area there and you have the grade two listed drinking
fountain in that corner. And these are the actual AVRs or accurate verified
representation. So this is a view taken from Roehampton High Street at the
of Rodway Road looking down towards the site.
And it's just an outline plan of the buildings
looking just below the roof line, so not visible
and largely blocked from view by the development,
the existing development along the street.
However, as you start coming up towards the upper part
of Medford Street and the junction with Treville Street,
which is where you start going in towards Putney Heath.
Because of the topography of the land
when it comes to Roehampton Village Conservation Area
and the topography rising up towards Putney Heath,
you start seeing these longer range views here
where you have the tops of the buildings looking down
and this will terminate that view at that end.
You see the existing on the left and proposed on the right.
A further view from Medfield Street looking down
where you see the roof line of the terrace houses
looking down Medfield Street,
the spire of the locally listed church,
and then the new development picking up
at the end of that viewpoint there.
Then the junction of Medfield Street and Roehampton Lane.
So this is the setting of the drinking fountain here
with the development bringing forward.
So by way of context in terms of the stamp permission,
the building that was permitted was largely quite set back.
So the square was going to be located here,
if I can get my cursor.
So now they're bringing that development further forward
towards Roehampton Lane.
Another view again, just from Medfield Street,
looking towards the application site
with the two buildings proposed.
And view six, looking from Roehampton Lane
towards the site, this is what we call a wireline view,
which doesn't actually put in any of the details,
it just gives you an outline of what the height
of the development is.
Looking from Holybourn Avenue towards the site,
which has the residential block here,
so it's looking within the conservation area,
just at the entrance at Whitelands College.
Lava Stock Gardens looking towards the site
with the new development, the residential development
terminating that view.
And finally, I think this is one of the last views,
which is Dainbury Avenue at the junction
of Herbridge Avenue.
So this isn't just outside the conservation area,
but gives you an understanding of how it will be visible
from this point.
And finally, I think this is the same view
that we had previously, but it's a verified view,
which is from Roehampton Lane, looking towards the site.
So this is within the Roehampton Village conservation area,
looking towards the site.
Hampton Lane at the junction
with the King's Head Public House,
which is grade two listed.
So that gives a good clear indication
of the design and architectural treatment
of the two blocks.
And finally, I think this is actually the last view,
which is from Ackhurst Street.
So this is a view from the Westmead Conservation Area.
Within the Westmead Conservation Area appraisal
we have a number of local views that have been identified,
which contribute to the conservation area,
and this being one of them.
It's particularly close to the Roehampton Estate,
but because of the orientation of the road,
you actually don't see much of the Roehampton Estate
from this point, but as you will see with the wire line here,
it will start to peak above that roof line at this point,
just above that taller block,
which is the residential block,
and break the roof line at this point.
So where previously there was no visual appreciation
of the alternate state, there will now be just a mild appreciation of that state
from this viewpoint. And I think that's the last image. Thank you.
Thank you. First of all, are there any factual questions that people want to
ask of the conservation officers or is all reasonably clear. Mr. Farrow. I may
have missed it but could you tell me what is happening to the old library
building? There isn't any details as to what is proposed for the library
within the application.
Okay, any other factual questions before I ask for comments?
No?
Can we be reminded how many affordable units there are in it?
Bear with me, I'll actually find the exact numbers for you.
I don't have it actually on my notes with me,
but I will cheque that for you
in terms of how many units are affordable.
So that will be after the meeting.
I think it's, I've got someone say 55.
I read it myself.
Okay. We're in slightly opposition that this application is going to PAC in two days' time.
So there are detailed papers on this. Mr Dodgson.
Forgive me, do we know anything about materials
on either the two buildings, the block of flats
or the library replacement, the exterior materials?
Just perhaps a brief summary.
Mix of stone and metal.
So there's, I can give a bit more detail
if I bring up the actual details of the application.
But it's largely stone and metal,
so there's metal trellis work within the library,
the community building you see.
Let me bring it up.
But presumably the flats are not stone clad.
No, no.
Okay, comments please.
And I'll go to Mr. Catto first.
Thank you, Chair.
Firstly, I can answer Councillor Bensalyn's question.
It's 55 in the new building,
but there are 10 flats being lost
in the old one to come down.
They were all council units and therefore deemed affordable.
I don't see why.
So 45 net is the answer.
And the Partner Society's comment notes that
a more traditional urban arrangement of the site
might well have achieved more units,
but that's a matter outside the scope
of this panel's normal remit.
I'm not going to say very much about this, I suspect,
because as you rightly point out,
the officer's report, 90 -odd pages of it,
is already written and circulated to the members of the PAC.
So anything we add tonight is at best
going to be a late edition.
again.
Can I just interrupt?
Ms. Campbell has undertaken to provide a minute
for me to peruse tomorrow,
which will go as a late item for the PAC meeting.
Okay, thank you for that reassurance.
If in answer to the question also posed
through elsewhere in the room,
a lot of the detail, there's a lot of detail missing,
and if you look at the officer's report,
basically they're talking, we're being asked to,
or the committee will be asked to approve
one to 100 drawings with very little information
in some respects, and there's an awful lot of conditions
proposed saying we need more detail on all of this.
So I think I don't need to echo that any more
more than just to let you all know.
I think my prime concern is twofold.
One is it's amazing that the, to my mind,
that the heritage, whoever assessed the heritage impact
thinks that putting a large building directly in line
of the view down Medfield Street will enhance it.
I suspect this panel, this committee
might not agree with that.
And the second is that we need to take a second look
at the question of allowing a change of use for the library.
Many of the uses that potentially are there
would require substantial alteration
in order to make the building commercially usable.
It's designed to have a single entrance,
a single space in most of one side inside.
it is not half as flexible as the people scurrying
to find a use for it when they're building a new one,
might like to think, and I think that is something
this committee should bear in mind.
Otherwise, the Patni Society have already commented,
of course, and we mainly raised the two points
we've talked about. We think fundamentally that the community building in particular
is the wrong brief and therefore don't really need to detail the design, look at the design of it
and would hope that the council will take note of the fact that they're spending an awful lot,
proposing to spend an awful lot of money building new facilities they've either closed or already have.
So if I've got you right you are opposed to this application on grounds of
um,
needless,
is that the right word?
Needless erection of a building to provide services
that are already provided.
Is that right?
In essence, yes, but that's not really
why we're here tonight.
We're here to talk about conservation and heritage matters.
And the conservation and heritage matters
I would like to raise
are firstly the impact on views, in particular,
down Medfield Street and on the rest of the
Hampton Village.
I don't think the list of buildings scattered around it
are really going to suffer at all,
because Roehampton has such a varied and weird history
that a 16th century timber boarded pub
and a 19th century elaborate drinking fountain
and a whole lot of other stuff,
and nice little village streets,
all have learned to coexist for so long
that changing the 1960s estate for a 2020s estate
at the bottom isn't actually going to change
the character of the place.
But putting a great big lump at the bottom
of Medfield Street will.
Right.
So for the purposes of this meeting,
your argument is about impact on views.
Okay, other comments.
That being said, please, and the secondary element
that we need to be sure that any permission
for change of use of the Alton Library
takes note of its particular character
because I don't think it's as easily adaptable
as the many uses listed as potential ones seem to imply.
Okay, thank you.
Any other comments that people want to make?
I'll start with Mr Dodgston.
I agree with many of the comments just made by the Putney Society.
It's clear that the block of flats in particular is going to be very prominent in certain vistas
in that area and therefore will be quite a dominant building.
I think it's a great shame that the architecture over it
is in my view very second rate.
It's a cube with some balconies stuck on the outside
and I think that's not really, it's neither groundbreaking,
which maybe the alternate state was originally,
nor is it actually very attractive in my view.
So I think it's a great shame that the calibre
of architecture of that building
that's going to be very prominent in certain visitors
is not very good.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any, Mr. Farrow.
Thank you.
I just think it's important to, as it were,
emphasise that the adverse effect on the views
is a consequence of the massing of the two buildings.
They are, I think, significantly bigger
than they should be, and that is what it is
that causes the harm that we've been previously discussing.
I just think that if we were to minute,
and that it is, it's the bulk and the massing
of the buildings which is of concern,
as well as the other matters that have been raised.
Sorry, misway.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify.
I have a copy of the PAC report.
It does state in the PAC report that there will be harm
through impact on views to the
Roehampton Village Conservation Area,
including views from Medfield Street.
So it has been identified in the pack report
that there is harm, particularly that view too
towards Medfield, down Medfield Street from Treville Street.
Okay, are there any new points that people want to make?
Points that haven't already been covered?
In that case, can I try and summarise
that we have concerns to some extent echoed in what the
officers have just said
about the impact on
views
from the Roehampton Village
conservation area and from Medfield Road in particular.
These arise from the bulk and the massing of the buildings
and we have in addition some reservations about the quality
of the architecture involved.
Chairman, could I ask that instead of saying concern,
we say a strong objection to the,
the adverse effect as a consequence of the massing and bulk.
Okay, I think, I hope I've,
that Miss Campbell will be able to capture that
in her minute.
Is there anything else to be said on this application?
Well, we will hear its fate imminently.
Okay, Mr. Catto, I'll allow this one last comment.
It's not a comment, I'm just going to answer a point
that's already been made across the room.
Those who were mentioning the bulk of the block of flats,
it's actually very marginally taller, slightly longer,
and twice as thick as Albrook House,
which is the building that the library sits under.
Okay, do you have enough, Ms Campbell, to draught a minute for me tomorrow?
I doubt that there will be time for me to circulate a draught.
I will comment on any matters that I think that Miss Campbell hasn't got quite right.
I'm not expecting to have to do that, but I reserve the right.
I'm not going to be able, I think, given the time constraints, to give you any chance to
comment.
I just I think it's important we get this
circulated to PAC members as soon as maybe
That's okay
In which case let us move on to
2025 double four five nine buttersea power station who's leading on this
Miss way
Thank you, Chair.
So this is a part retrospective application at Battersea Power Station, a grey two star
listed building for, in particular, the chimney lift experience, which is located in Turbine
Hall A. So this is the site location that shows it within its context within the power
station.
Now the chimney lift experience was kind of slightly a later insertion within the application.
So it was added in slightly later on and as it describes it allows you to go up the inside
of the chimney and take in views from the very top within the lift.
But this particular element of the experience is looking at the very beginning of the experience
within the balcony within Turbanville Hall A.
So this is the location.
This is an extract from my heritage partnership agreement.
We've got a number of agreements that have been set out
for Pahoa Station, which effectively provides an idea
of the significance of each elemental part
of the interior of the list of buildings.
So in this you see that the actual fabric of the building
is considered high significance,
which means the faience tiles, walls.
The actual balconies themselves have later insertions,
but obviously reflective of the character
of the turbine hall.
These are existing pictures.
So this was part of a pre -application
back before Christmastime.
The engagement took place with Council and Historic England
because it is Grade II star
that means Historic England are involved.
So these images are taken at that time before the works were introduced.
As I state, this is a part retrospective application, so the works have been implemented.
So you see here, this is the balcony where the lift experience takes place.
Here is the area in particular which is subject to the change.
So this is an area where you go in and get your ticket and then you kind of have a holding pen,
So you stand and wait in a queue before you go into the main part of the balcony,
which has got the very distinctive light feature here.
So it shows you that holding pen, as it's described by the Battersea Power Station group,
where you get your ticket and you go through your security measures.
And then here you have the proposed and existing sections
to show the changes that have taken place.
So the main element of the proposals is this sort of
enclosed space along the side of the balcony
before you go into the main part of the balcony.
And this includes a circular element at the very beginning
where you go through security,
and then you go into a second element
which is a representation of an office,
which is Charles Gilbert Scott's office,
and then there's another interactive element after that.
There's a number of changes on the balcony itself
in terms of interactive features,
which have also been changed,
as well as a sign that's been added onto the balcony,
towards the front of the balcony.
So I'll quickly go through some of these images
and then don't really kind of give a clear reflection
of some of these changes,
as we have obviously been on site and taken images of it
as it's, hasn't been introduced
with a much better representation of what they're proposing.
So there's another cross section looking towards,
this is where you actually go in
and start the next part of the lift experience
where you go into sort of an immersive room
which has videos that take place all around you
and then you go up into the lift, two sets of lifts.
It's cross section looking towards the balcony.
You see the change here.
So previous to it, it was an open, completely open
and then they're introducing this enclosed box -like
structure within this corner.
Again, another feature shown there, the sections.
And these are the photos as constructed
within the Turbine Hall.
So this is taken from the balcony towards the site.
So these are the new structures that have been introduced
here along with this feature here,
which is an interactive screen.
You're supposed to be able to touch it
and it gives you information.
And you'll see here,
this is the new sign that's been introduced over the balcony
which is sought as a wayfinding mechanism
within the turbine hall.
I was going to just give a summary
of the significance of power station,
but I think most of the committee members here
know it quite in quite a lot of detail,
so I won't go into that.
I just focus on the actual application proposals.
So as I mentioned, you go in through
the semi -open curved space.
The idea behind it is that you go back in time,
so it's to give the impression that you go back in time
to a sort of 1930s or 1920s representation of an office.
This has got the blueprints of Gilbert Scott's drawings,
basically, the drawings of Gilbert Scott's
of the power station, so you can actually look through it
and then some images up on the walls.
And next, they have the animated screen display,
which is enclosing the faience tiling behind it.
You touch on it and it allows you to understand
how the pallet station worked and how it functioned
in the Wyneham Remit of London.
This is the sign on the front of the balcony,
which has been introduced as well,
which is part of the retrospective application.
You'll note that it was previously called Lift 109.
They've now changed the name to the Chimney Lift.
Some more images of those enclosed spaces
as part of the new chimney.
Lift experience, just looking from the balcony
towards these enclosed spaces that have been introduced.
And again, some of the entranceway.
So that's existing or as before the works took place
with the openness of the balcony
and then the enclosed spaces as retrospectively introduced.
Longer range views, we've sought to try to marry these up
from when we took them at pre -application stage
and as I've been introduced,
it shows the changes taking place.
Albeit, this is slightly further out on the existing plans.
Note that the banners that were introduced
at pre -application stage have been removed
because we raised concerns about those.
I think that's all of it.
Yes, thank you.
Okay, thank you, Ms. Way.
I'm going to forego my position
as the representative of the fantasy society on this.
I have views, but I would welcome other views
before I express mine.
But let us start with questions,
factual questions relating to this application.
Are there any?
Peter Faro.
The structures have been put in place.
Do they require planning permission?
This is a list of building consent applications,
so whilst they don't need planning permission,
they do need list of building consent
because they're contained within the interior
of the list of building.
And the application has been, this is the application that we are looking at?
Yes, so it's listed building consent application.
Okie doke. Was there any pre -application or advice sought before the construction or before
the submission of an application?
Yes, yes. So they engage in pre -application advice with ourselves in Historic England
before they implemented the works. They have implemented it so we had quite
clear advice at the pre -application stage that there was concerns regarding the
enclosure of this part of the space and the impact on the spatial qualities of
the turbine hall but they have submitted, well they have introduced it despite
that pre -application so this is my retrospective. Thank you. It's largely as
as constructed is largely similar to what was presented
to us at pre -application stage.
Thank you.
And is, for listed building consent,
can that be approved in a similar way
to a planning application for a temporary period,
or if granted, would it be a permanent approval?
I think you can do a temporary list of building consent.
Any other questions, comments in that case?
I can't believe that there are none.
Mr Dodgson.
I have to say my initial reaction was,
oh it doesn't look as though it takes up,
looking down the end, the long view down the turbine hall,
it didn't seem to take up much of the space
if you're a long way from it.
But I have to say looking closer,
I do begin to think that would Gilbert Scott himself
have actually approved of this in the context
of the space that's been created
and I sort of begin to think that perhaps he wouldn't
and that maybe it is rather detrimental to the space.
Thank you.
Councillor Owens.
I agree with what's been said.
Having said that, I can sort of see why they've done it.
When you're in the power station,
you're not, frequently not aware of the lift
and it being called lift number nine
or whatever it's called,
If you're sort of down one end of the shops,
you may just pop in, you may not,
and yes, obviously you have to pre -book,
but frequently, I've been there,
there are slots, it's not particularly obvious
where it is in the building,
which turbine hall, et cetera, et cetera,
so I can understand why they've done it
in order to advertise that it's there.
Did I see Mr. Armstrong raising a
Do you have any comments?
Okay
Well, let me just make a couple of comments I
Agreed totally with with Councillor Owens it is actually
quite
difficult
to find the lift experience.
And that's a problem of, an acknowledged problem,
I think, in the power station of wayfinding.
The wayfinding, the noticing, and so on,
simply does not work effectively at the moment,
and I think many of the people at the power station
and acknowledge that.
And one of the results of that is that they're
rather disappointed with the take -up of the Lyft experience,
which is why they are trying to make it more interesting.
Having said that, I'd rather share Mr. Dodgson's view
that it does look rather incongruous,
to put it at best,
in the context of the turbine hall.
Although it is not particularly visible
from the south end of the hall,
you can, one of the main entrances to the upper levels
of the turbine hall are at the north end
and you walk into the turbine hall
and what you see directly opposite you
is this rather strange structure.
So I do have some quite marked reservations
reservations about this. Having said all that, I mean some people I have spoken to say well
it's hardly a very major intervention into the space of the of the turbine hall
and maybe we're sort of straining us in that
in opposing it.
So I mean there are countervailing views about it
and now that is precisely why I wanted to get a view
from the rest of the committee about this.
Perhaps what we might do is to comment on the application,
say that we do have reservations about what seems
to be a rather ham -fisted, if small, intervention.
and it is a pity that the applicants
did not engage more constructively
with the officers in pre -application.
But I can see that Mr. Dodgson wants to go further.
Well, just to add, I think perhaps
the message needs to be sent that,
that if that space, if they kept on repeating this
throughout the turbine hall and more and more clutter
was added, that would be very detrimental.
So you don't want to feel there's a precedent being said.
I would certainly agree with that.
I strongly agree with it.
I think the problem is, yes, it could be a precedent.
and also have concerns about the consequences of the listed building consent,
because then it will become a hard precedent if they've achieved listed building consent to this.
There will be little reason why they couldn't continue to apply for consent based on the approval given to this one.
I would like the committee to express,
not sure how to put it,
strong reservations concerned about clutter
or development on this balcony.
You mentioned the fact that we think a reason
for it being done is to try and get more custom
for the lift.
and the reason being that people don't know where it is.
Well, they're not going to find out where it is
if the only thing they've done to tell you where it is
is where it is.
So I think it fails on that score.
And it's another little annoying thing
is I find the terminology annoying.
The chimney lift experience, it's a gruesome expression
and I doubt we can get them to change it,
but I wish they would.
I'm sure much thought has gone into the naming.
Very little thought has gone into it.
But I don't think that's conservation matter.
Do you have enough to express our reservations
about this and encouragement to the applicants
to re -engage with the officers.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, our final application is 99 Darrington Road
in Tooting.
who's going to lead on this, David Andrews, over to you.
That's me.
Okay, so this one is a proposed new dwelling
at the end of a terrace in the Tottentfield
Estate Conservation Area.
Now, as you'll see from this plan,
a typical termination of these blocks
is to have a buffer zone of a side garden
or a patch of land between the building
and the pavement edge, which gives a buffer zone,
bit of breathing space, a sense of openness
in the townscape.
The proposal is to take a piece of land
which you can see between the end of the terrace there
and that blue car parked by the pavement edge
with the shrubs and bushes there,
to take that and build a single -storey house.
Essentially, oh, can we go back to the,
oh no, to the photo cross, there we go.
So from the setback from the terrace,
from the end of the terrace,
but then stretching back all the way
to the electricity substation.
Now all of that area is in the conservation area.
The bottom photograph there, everything
to the right of the substation, that
is not in conservation area.
That's Linwood Road and the backs
of the gardens of the houses in Linwood Road.
That's not in the conservation area.
That has quite a lot of relevance in something
that the applicant says in their supporting statement.
Part of their justification of putting a brick wall,
which would be the end elevation of the house,
they've said that, well, it's just gonna continue
the brick wall on the right hand side of the substation.
But that is not crucially in the conservation area.
So you would get a blank expanse of brick wall
on the back end of the pavement.
And that's going to take away the buffer zone
because of the, between the pavement and the street
and the houses.
And that's what you're going to see,
principally in that area.
It's a single storey dwelling, it's not very tall.
And it's supposed to read as an extension
to the end of the terrace,
but is in fact a separate dwelling.
So you see there on the left hand side,
it's very steeply pitched,
it's pitched at the same angle as the terrace,
a single storey.
But you've got a very high brick wall,
which is forming the end flank wall of that proposed house.
And there you see the proposed wall,
which is only marginally less tall
than the top of the electricity substation.
And all of that area there,
bar a very small part of the rear garden
of 99 Derrington Road,
will be filled in by the house, by the development.
It appears that this is a separate site.
So it doesn't read as a garden site.
I think this is a separate site.
But really it's kind of self explanatory.
That's really it.
But it's just the principle of building,
even if this was an extension,
the principle of building something in that location
which would terminate the street with a hybrid wall
and remove that buffer zone between the end of the block
and the street when the character and the language
of those blocks is to have that buffer space
between themselves and the street.
So I'll leave it there and see what you think.
Thank you, Mr Andrews. Again, factual questions to start with.
Ms Lawson.
You referred to it as a separate site to number 99 and it's a separate dwelling.
I mean there's lots of this, well, are we sure that it's not garden development?
when was the land transferred?
That I don't know, but it does appear to be a separate site.
Obviously we will look at that.
And that will be part of the analysis of going forward.
But it does appear to be a separate site.
It's described in the application as a piece of derelict land
and quite clearly is demarked as separate
from 99 Derrington Road.
Mr. Dodgson.
So have I understood correctly what I've seen,
that what appears to normally be the land
at the rear of the existing house,
part of the garden is being chopped in half,
and that's part of the new site?
Yes, that's happened historically.
The 99 Derrington Road only appears to have
a small rear garden, and this development kind of snakes
around the back of that.
So if there's a plan, so yeah, you can see there,
you can see the remaining garden of 99 Derrington,
and you can see the substation.
So it's kind of working its way around the available land
that it's got that plot, available plot.
So there's a small rear garden to 99 Derrington,
which would remain.
You've got the substation, which obviously can't be removed.
And the development is working its way around that.
Any more questions?
Materials to match?
Was that what they were talking about?
Yes, they're proposing brick.
They're also proposing a small area of engineering bricks.
There is on the Totta Danfield estate
the use of very low walls and half round engineering bricks,
so that's what they're going for with this.
But typically there aren't brick walls like that.
They're not all built of engineering bricks.
So they're mimicking materials,
but they're not aping form and use.
But the rest of it is stock brick to match the houses.
Okay, comments then.
I'm going to start with Libby Lawson.
And can you speak into your microphone please?
I'm concerned to consider this.
If it is, in Tooting especially,
There are a lot of supposedly disused abandoned sites
which are back gardens which we have to fight,
to be considered as such.
But should this be a separate piece of land historically,
then the proposal is quite an interesting one
and there are some positives about it.
But I'm concerned to be too enthusiastic about it
and because of the precedent that may be set
for every corner site on the Totterdown Fields Conservation
Area, which is made up of lots of streets
and has lots of corners, where even actually putting
in a garden or summer house, we've not objected to,
but that's about the limit.
I would worry that this would set a precedent.
Having said that, it is on the edge of the Totterdown Fields
Conservation Area, and there is a sort of visual theme
of continuing a wall.
And what is proposed is quite interesting.
But my first, before I could be too warm to that proposal,
my concern is that I would need to know historically
it's a separate, historically separate block of land.
If it is, then what is proposed has some positives.
I'm slightly concerned about a boundary wall
which is in yellow stock or something similar
that then turns to be a front garden wall
in a black engineering brick.
I think it should perhaps be more keeping in character
to the walls which are yellow stock
with an engineered bullnose coping.
There are things that I think the applicant
could look more closely at the character
and of the estate, of the conservation area,
and of the management appraisal and strategy
document that Wandsworth has produced.
So those are my concerns and some enthusiasm for it.
Other comments?
When this is very much an issue
in the Tottesdown Estate, isn't it?
And the use of,
the use of buffer land.
and any other comments?
Mr. Dodgson?
I do think the height of the perimeter wall is an issue
in an area that isn't particularly prevalent.
I think it does destroy the appearance
of the properties in the street.
uniform and then suddenly you have this high wall.
I am concerned about that.
But on the other hand, I do agree that there's land
in that part of the borough that's not,
that could possibly be used for housing.
But I think the whole point of a conservation area
is that it's there to be conserved.
Okay.
Mr. Armstrong.
There are some trees on the site, it's somewhat overgrown.
Can we know about those?
Are any of those worth saving?
Do they make a difference in
the possibility of developing
this site, that maybe trees should be preserved,
or the greenery that should be preserved? The site seems very overgrown
as if it's been vacant for a very long time
and actually not part of a garden.
Do you want to respond to that?
Yeah, no, sorry, we were just having a chat.
Obviously that would be a factor,
one tree towards the rear, which is in the,
well you can't see it now, but,
which is to the, oh there we go, can you see it?
There we go.
To the left of the electricity substation at the back,
where you can see there, yeah, there's a tree there
which would have to be removed for the development.
Clearly our tree colleagues will have
representations to make about that.
The other growth on the site wouldn't be classed as trees.
I don't think, I think they're more shrubs
and they would be able to take those out
without any application.
The street tree, there would need to be a condition
making sure that that street tree has its roots protected
during construction if we were to give it permission.
But that's a street tree and that's maintained
by the council.
Could you show the section through the development please?
and give me the floor to ceiling height they've given there.
I can't read it on...
There, that's the one.
Can you make it out?
I can't.
It's not very distinct.
I mean, it's just that it looks very generous.
It's about 2 .4 metres.
Which used to be the recommended?
Sorry, our concerns, well, one of the concerns
is about the height of the wall.
I think that the scale of the building,
that is its planned form, could seem incongruous internally with what looks like a very generous
floor to ceiling height and that were that to be reduced then the height of the wall
on the boundary could be reduced. That doesn't deal of course with the infilling of the open
area but could we ask that, well we can't, what can we ask, that the applicant be asked
to consider lowering the floor to ceiling height? Sorry.
And then Mr Catto. Could I just, just a factual response on that
on the figure you were grasping for used to be 2 .3
as ceiling heights, but currently,
and as we've seen appropriately,
put in the Alton application we looked at earlier,
the mayor of London requires 2 .5.
Okay, are there other points that people want to make
that haven't been made already?
Mr. Catto again.
Yes, I'd like to look at the roof form briefly.
They're trying to imitate the hipped roof end
of the estate, which is commendable in the same materials.
But actually, looking at the drawings,
they don't quite seem to have matched the pitch.
And it would, I think it might be preferable
if the applicant was asked to look at reviving the schemes,
revising the scheme so that the roof actually hung out
over the pavement only just with a gutter there
which would allow that piece of eaves to come down
considerably compared to the height of the wall.
That is a suggestion because obviously
that's not what we've got in front of us.
I think it's an excellent suggestion.
You can see on the elevation that the roof which is evident on the front elevation is
almost inconspicuous on the side elevation.
Perhaps it could at least come forward at the front, sort of go round the boundary wall
in such a way that it then did overhang, that little bit did overhang.
Okay, can I try and summarise?
Well, if I've got it right,
our main, we are generally,
well, we see some positives in this
application, but there are some aspects of it
that we think may merit further attention.
So we are commenting on rather than objecting
to this application.
And our concerns are really mostly driven
by the height of the brick wall along the pavement
with some reservations about the materials
used in that brick wall.
And we believe that there might be
some scope for reducing the height of that wall
with some modifications to the structure of the roof.
The only other concern that I have,
I've noted is the risk of a precedent
in the use of what I'll call for the moment buffer lands
on corners in the Totterdown estate.
I'm not sure what we can do about the risk
of a precedent, but we can express a concern.
Is that anything?
What about the treatment of the roof?
I think that does warrant some sort of comment,
I would have thought.
Sorry, I missed the first.
Sorry, there is an overhang on the existing house,
but that doesn't feature on the visual from the front
of what effectively looks like an extension,
and it makes it seem very incongruous,
if they could come up with some architectural way
of making that seem more in keeping and at the same pitch.
Could we say?
That was what I was trying to refer to
in revisions to the form of the roof.
Could we say that we would feel happy with the scheme
if the roof, the pitched roof, was more clearly expressed?
Okay.
Mr. Catter, I'll give you last word again.
I just want to add a word into that.
Can we invite officers to do what they all keep saying
they're doing under the MPPF and almost every planning
commission work proactively with the applicants
to see if they can make this scheme a bit better
before it gets approved?
Well put, understood.
I think that brings us to the end of the core bit of business, which is the applications.
We are asked to note paper 2686, which provides details of decisions made in response to representations
that we have made in previous meetings and I somewhat regret to have to say that in both
9B Chivalry Road that officers have granted planning
permission.
We were alerted to the decision on Chivalry Hall
at our previous paper presented at the previous meeting.
but I do think that both decisions are at least somewhat requestible.
Is there any other business?
In which case all I have to do is...
Sorry, there is.
Sorry, I was looking the wrong way.
No problem, it's been a little bit of time
since we made reference to the local listing consultation
which took place last year.
We did have to temporarily do a pause on that
in terms of officer time because of all the public inquiries
that have been taking place at the beginning part
of this year, but that is starting off again,
so we should be able to make some progress on that
with the view of going back out to public consultation post -election period.
So my apologies for the delay in that. Unfortunately, appeals took over the end of
2025 and early 2026, but we should see some progress now. Thank you.
Thank you, and I know at least one officer has been heavily involved in the glass mill
application, well Glass Mill inquiry rather,
which will be familiar I am sure to all of the people
in this room at least.
Okay, is there any, right there is one other item
of other business, Ms. Way.
Thank you, sorry Mr. Andrews had just reminded me
that as of today we did get the decision through
on the appeal for Mount Clare that was subject
to a public inquiry on the third week of January
and that application was dismissed.
So a good outcome for the council.
Thank you.
Right, is there any other business?
In which case, all I have to do is to remind you
that there will be no meeting in May
because of the elections.
And you have, I think, the dates for the rest
of the council year on the 14th of July,
10 September, 10 November this year,
and on five January, 12th night, I note,
my birthday, 16th of March and 11th May in 2027.
Get those in your diaries.
Okay, I declare the meeting closed.
Thank you.