Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 12 March 2026, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 12th March 2026 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Good evening, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the March meeting of the Planning Applications Committee, last but one before

for the council election.

My name is Tony Belton.

I'm a counsellor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea.

I'm going to ask people on the top table here

to introduce themselves, and members and officers

will introduce themselves when they wish to speak.

But starting up here.

Good evening, Nick Calder, Head of Development Management.

Good evening, my name is Duncan Moores.

I'm the external legal advisor.

Good evening, everybody.

Colin Wernim, Democratic Services and Clark

to the committee.

Looking around, we appear to have a full house,

so there's no apologies, I take it.

It's good that it's good to have a full house.

Declaration of Interest, has anyone got

any pecuniary interests?

Any other interests?

I think there may be one in certain item.

Yes, Councillor Matthew Tiller, Councillor for Roehampton and I shall leave the room

during the Alton application since I've been involved in its development.

Thank you Councillor Tiller.

Has Councillor Humphreys seen the minutes?

Is it okay for me to sign them as a correct record?

minutes, good, just before I start,

or just before we start I should say perhaps,

Mr. Calder thought it would be a good idea,

I think it would be a good idea if Ms. Turner

could talk to the committee briefly

about the implications of having the recent

local plan review accepted.

So I hope can I ask Mr Turner to introduce for us?

Lovely, yes, thank you, Councillor Belton.

Yes, good evening, I'm Debbie Turner.

I'm the Principal Development Viability Officer at the Council.

And yes, just wanted to quickly provide an update on the Local Plan Partial Review.

So I can obviously confirm that the Local Plan Partial Review was adopted at the meeting

of full Council on the 4th of March, 2026.

and I'm sure as many of you know,

the council has been preparing the partial review

and the adoption of the partial review since 2023.

So quite a lot of work in the background

that's gone into this process.

This is focused on six policies as part of the local plan,

and this includes LP 23 on affordable housing,

LP 24 on housing mix,

LP 28 on purpose -built student accommodation,

LP 29 on housing with shared facilities, LP 30 on build to rent and LP 31 on

specialist housing for vulnerable and older people. So following the

examination hearings held in November last year the council received the

inspectors report on the soundness and legal compliance of the new policies on

the 20th of February 2026. The inspectors report confirmed that the new policies

are sound and can be adopted, subject to making a few minor modifications set out in his report.

So the six policies within the Local Plan partial review are now part of the Council's

development plan. These six policies directly supersede the policies of the same name

and number from the Wandsworth Local Plan adopted in July 2023. All other policies from the 2023

local plan remain in force.

So just a quick summary of the key changes.

So for example, we have a change in tenure split

on affordable housing, which now requires a tenure

split of 70 % social rent to 30 % intermediate, which

obviously previously it was a 50 -50 tenure split of social

rent to intermediate tenure.

There's now a new requirement on small sites,

so that's sites providing less than 10 dwellings,

to make a financial contribution towards affordable housing

and that's set out in the partial review

as 50 ,000 pounds per dwelling, subject to viability.

There's also a new requirement

for purpose -built student accommodation

to make a full contribution

towards conventional affordable housing,

which previously they were only required

to provide affordable student housing.

And obviously that's alongside

providing affordable student rooms on site,

again subject to viability.

There's also further requirements in relation

to co -living schemes on private sites

to provide 50 % affordable housing,

and that's up from 35 % or a late stage review

will be required as part of that.

There's also a further requirement

for build -to -rent schemes to provide social rent

in a separate block or if not feasible,

and obviously that has to be demonstrated by the applicant,

to cascade to an equivalent financial contribution,

which previously the cascade was directly

to discount market rent, which as many of us know,

is relatively unaffordable in the borough.

So the six policies from the local plan partial review

now carry full weight in the determination

of planning applications.

Members of the committee can expect to see applications

beginning to come to PAC, which directly reference

to these new policies and set out considerations

against them.

Implementation of the new policies may be subject

to a little bit of a degree of pragmatism

at this point in time, and in the short term,

particularly where detailed reassessments

of a planning application validated prior

to the adoption of the new policies

would be disproportionate and unlikely to yield benefits

justifying the delay of its determination.

Thank you.

I was wondering whether there was any questions.

Councillor Govindia.

Not a question, that was all very helpful,

but it's quite difficult to take it all in.

Are you gonna introduce yourself?

Oh sorry, Councillor Govindia, East Patna Ward Councillor.

Quite helpful, but it's a long introduction,

quite difficult to take it all in.

Be very grateful if Ms. Turner could turn it into a note

that we could all then have.

I'm sure that's possible, yes?

Yes, of course, that would be no problem at all.

Okay, thank you.

No other questions?

In that case, let's turn to the applications.

The first one is an application for development in a neighbouring borough, actually at Vauxhall,

adding to all the developments that are already there.

I don't know whether this is new for some members,

but actually there's nothing unusual about this.

It's a standard process right across the country.

Applications of any considerable size,

there's no doubt particular criteria to fulfil,

on the boundaries or next to the boundaries

are always referred to the neighbouring authorities

for comments.

So they're just comments,

and they don't affect what Lambeth, sorry,

let's reverse that.

Lambeth should take note of our comments,

whatever they are, but it doesn't affect their ability

to either approve or reject the application

according to their wish.

It's a very large application, but we are not

They're the deciding people. We're just here for comments, but I would like mr. Tucker to introduce it briefly

And show its impact on

voxel

Thank You councillor Belton

My name is Chloe Tucker, and I'm a senior planning officer within the strategic development team

I've prepared a brief presentation on item one

The London Borough of Lambeth has consulted the local planning authority in respect to

the proposed development of land known as Vauxhall Square, which is bounded by Wandsworth

Road, Parry Street, Bondway, Miles Street and the railway viaduct.

The site is adjacent to the borough boundary

on Wandsworth Road, the pink line down here.

And the nearest Wandsworth residents live

on the opposite side of Wandsworth Road

within the one nine Elms and the 10 city developments.

The proposed mixed use scheme includes seven new buildings

comprising plot one, a 69 storey, 230 .5 storey,

5 metre high residential building containing 500 residential units and flexible commercial floor space.

Plot 2, an 18 storey 7 metre high hotel building

providing 230 guest rooms, flexible workspace and flexible commercial floor space.

Plot 3 is a 61 storey

208 .8 metre high build to rent residential building containing

475 units and flexible commercial floor space.

Plot 4 is a 20 -storey, 75 .3 -metre -high building, providing 122 social rented homes and flexible

community use.

Plot 5 is a 61 -storey, 208 .5 -metre -high building, containing 1 ,164 co -living units, a gym and

retail use. Plot 6 is a 45 -storey, 151 .4 -metre high, purpose -built student accommodation

building with 699 rooms and flexible commercial floor space. Plot 7 is a two -storey pavilion

set between plots 3 and 4 providing a cinema or other community use. A total of 4 ,375 square

of public realm is proposed around the buildings.

The main pedestrian route goes here from Parry Street

to Wandsworth Road and there is a new road crossing

being implemented here by the developer

for the Thames City development.

The nearest Wandsworth residents live at 19 Elms City Tower,

One -Nine Elms River Tower and buildings N8 and N9 within the ten city

development. Phase three of the ten city development is currently at pre

application stage in respect to the reserve matters but will also be in

close proximity to the application site.

This visualisation illustrates the proposed development within the existing

context. At 69 storeys and 230 .5 metres high, plot one would provide a new

pinnacle to the Vauxhall cluster. The existing pinnacle, located in Wandsworth,

is one nine -alms city tower at 57 storeys and 200 metres high. This slide

shows a street level visualisation of the development from Wandsworth Road, taken

from the north of the site looking south.

This slide shows a street level visualisation

of the development, again from Wonsworth Road,

taken from the south of the site looking north.

These buildings are those within the proposed site

and this is the ten city development in Wonsworth.

The final slide of this presentation illustrates the

view of the proposed development

and surrounding Vauxhall cluster from Westminster Bridge.

The local planning authority has considered the principle

of the proposed development scheme

and the potential for impacts on ones with residents,

including with respect to daylight and sunlight,

air quality and transport.

As a result, we recommend three objections

to the application and six comments,

as set out on pages 25 and 26 of the agenda.

This ends my presentation.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you. I wonder what words were said about it. Interesting. Of course he wrote a famous poem about the view from Westminster Bridge.

I think he was probably thinking more about daffodils. I don't know. Any comments? Councillor Gavindya.

Thank you, I mean there are two obvious issues.

One is about the relationship of the public realm proposed here with the public realm already in existence in the linear park.

And the relationship is a bit tortured because you cross from Vauxhall bus station into this site but you don't actually get into the public realm of the proposed development.

you just go on the outskied of it

and then walk along the pavement to cross the road

and then you walk back on yourself

to link up with the existing linear park.

And it just seems to me to be a poor way

of creating the linear park,

which in the original thinking of the opportunity area

was to create almost a direct link

from Vauxhall to railway station

to the proposed then tube station at Batsy.

So this kind of desire line which was reflected

in the original thinking about in the opportunity area

documentation is just not being delivered here.

And I think it makes mockery of careful planning

for a large regeneration that this area is.

And the second point is about the relationship

of very, very tall buildings with other very,

and very tall buildings, and the daylight and sunlight

and so on issues, and the wind test.

And so I didn't see anything here about

whether there were sufficient wind tests being done

or what impact of that might be in the tunnelling effect

along Wonsworth Road and so on.

So that's a bit of a gap in my view in the report.

The other specific comment is that previous,

when the site came to us before,

on page nine, the council made a much more robust comment

about the issue of height.

And I kind of feel that we have mellowed our comment

about the height.

If you look at page nine, item three, it says

the council is keen that the visual impact

of tall buildings are fully analysed and assessed

against the backdrop of approved and emerging schemes

in the area.

And it's a much, much clearer expectation of what the council wanted Lembeth to do and

how it should inform their consideration of the application.

It's not here.

I wish we had taken the opportunity to be more clear and blunt in protecting our thoughts

and views about this development.

I know ultimately they are the planning authority and they might simply say, who are you to

tell us what to do and ignore it.

That's what often happens.

But that doesn't mean we should mince our words

when our protecting our interest is so much important.

Thank you.

I think there might be a few matters of concern on that.

Can I just first of all ask, Mr. Tucker,

do we know anything about any studies

or views they've taken about wind impact?

a city of canyons like that?

So they have undertaken wind testing. For the purposes of

our consideration of this, we've tried to look at the issues that will most impact on Wandsworth residents

as well as the principle of the development.

Of course, you're quite right. It's for them to decide and us to talk about the impact on Wandsworth and the wind there.

except as far as any of our residents

want to walk from Rock Sores to the linear park

to Battersea Power Station perhaps.

But they have done something you think,

but you're not, okay that's fine.

It's fine, they've done it.

I mean we are not informed.

And I don't agree with Ms Tucker in saying that

the issue of wind is not of much relevance

to our residents.

Well of course it is,

because they need to come out of their flats

and walk along this bit and blown around.

or will they be not blown around?

And that's an important thing for us to know.

I understand your irritation, I can see how that evolved.

Can we get onto the other element perhaps?

Councillor Apps.

Councillor Apps, Shastra in Queenstown Ward.

Just wanted to add my concerns about the height.

It's good kind of 30 storeys greater I think

than the previous applications.

and that would definitely have an impact

on Wandsworth residents nearby,

so we'd ask them to, if we could add that to the objection.

Councillor Worrell.

Councillor Worrell, also Shaftesbury in Queenstown.

I just want to take your attention to paragraph 6 .5,

which is about the bus trips.

I get regular complaints from residents already

around the busses, especially the 156344

and the fact that they are often overcrowded

during peak travel times, work times in the morning

and often in the afternoon with people going down

to the power station for example,

going up to Vauxhall for work or for transport.

My concern is that with this extra building capacity

that's actually there is that the already stretched

the Foxhorse bus station and the busses will actually be,

the bus capacity will not be suitable

for the proposed number of people actually living there.

I'm actually quite disappointed

the officers writing in here that they,

the way they've actually written it,

it almost feels like, okay, they've taken some account,

they say there won't be that much impact

and it would be useful actually to,

as part of the considerations and objections,

is to actually raise our concerns that the transport system, bus transport system, is

already stretched to its limit at peak times and this will add extra impact onto it.

Any further comments?

Councillor Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Guy Humphreys, Councillor for Southfields in Putney.

I just wanted to reiterate the point that planners obviously understand and we as councillors

as hopefully you understand, but civilians and people

out in the real world and residents aren't necessarily

so aware of where the borough boundary is.

There's a pink line on the map,

but there isn't a pink line down the street.

So it's that concept of us making our comments on things.

So referring back to Councillor Galbini's comments

about the unfortunate way the continuity of the linear part,

for example, isn't working out.

And I think that will make a significant impact

on people who live in the area.

And as Councillor Warrel said,

as a walk through the power station now is a big attraction

and that continuity from the main transport hub through

will have significant impacts on our residents

and all residents, but you know,

people don't necessarily know the lines are.

Now I understand it's just our comments

on the, another neighbouring authorities application,

it's their right to decide, but I think, yes,

I think I agree that we could strengthen our objections

because it's not just gonna impact on our residents,

but their residents as well, their enjoyments

the ability to use those spaces.

I think I recall a council officer expressing to me when we were considering the agenda

item a slight frustration with the linkage between on the parking side, that's the, on

the parks side, that's the first point that Council Committee made.

I certainly would share with him views about the wind and I think lots of members share

views about the height being a little bit excessive.

Having said what I said earlier about it as far as to make observations, certainly we

could object on the height grounds in a way that I don't think we have because of the

and so forth on Wandsworth residents.

Indeed, one of the members pointed out to me earlier

that there's a reference to the height being a major factor

in the daylighting position.

I think I'm really saying to Mr. Calder,

there's a number of objections here.

I think you're gonna say something like half of them

are not relevant to us because we're just making,

but we would all like to put all those in.

How do you suggest we do it?

Well, thank you. Thank you chair in terms of the the linear park

item two of our objection pro sort of covers that I think we talked about the

desire that wanting the clear clear desire lines and

That it loses that for the opportunity to to extend the linear park

So I think that is that is covered by that in terms of the the height

we haven't expressly referenced the height

in our sort of objection one,

but there's no reason that we couldn't add that in

if members felt inclined to do so,

because that refers to the unacceptable impacts

on daylight and sunlight,

so we conclude that by virtue of the,

or by reason of the excessive height,

and we could also add in, as part of an informative,

you see there's a sort of various parts of inform

that detailed information regarding the wind impacts

should be fully assessed before any decision is made.

I think that might cover most of the issues.

I'm not sure if Mr. Tidley wants to come back

on Councillor Worrell's point about the busses.

Thank you, David Tidley, the head of Transport Strategy.

I think I would just refer members to paragraph 68 and 69,

which say that we have no objections

subject to the carrying out of a full assessment

of the impact on proposed bus services

in conjunction with TFL,

who clearly will be the strategic authority

responsible for assessing the impact on the bus network.

And then also, really towards the end of the paper,

there's also the list of underneath

the reasons for refusal.

there's also the inform the London Borough of Lambeth

that the council has the following comments

in respect to the proposed developments.

And again, number three is recommended for the assessment

of the impact of the proposed development of bus services

is carried out in consultation with TFL offices.

So I think that's suitable.

Okay, so if Councillor Worrall accepts

that the busses are covered by that kind of comment

and Councillor Gavindya accepts that the clumsy connexion on the park side is covered,

then that leaves us with height and wind and we're accepting, I think, am I right in saying that most members would accept that?

Maybe something else as well, but most members would accept that that is to all to be covered.

Yep, Councillor Humphries?

Thank you, Chair. I just have to come back on Mr Calder about condition 2 or comment

2. I don't think it does say it correctly, actually, because it says, the last sentence

is, it's considered that the proposed scheme has not capitalised on the potential for the

application site to connect to Nylons Park. That isn't the point that we were making.

The point is that it expressly said in the master plan in the previous iterations that

there was that wish for it to connect through, and they've specifically gone against that.

It's not a question of not made the best of it.

They've gone against what was the agreed relationship

between the boroughs and how that was going to work.

So it's a bit, I think again,

it's stronger than what it says there.

Right.

That's really helpful.

And now we're deciding by committee

exactly what we're going to say.

I think I'm going to come up with some kind of compromise.

I think I got to come up with some kind of compromise

in a moment, but just before I do, Councillor Galindo.

I'm sure we can leave Mr. Calder to reflect our views

rather than us draught it till midnight.

My final point really is about the elephant in the room

in terms of this application,

because the future of the bus station and that site,

which is quite a critical part of how this site

fits in with the other sites,

both on our side and Lambert's side,

and that we don't know anything about that.

And I just wish that for completeness sake, we had had some sort of an insight into what's going to happen next door,

or what's at least in the offing next door.

Because at Council of Warrels busses may not exist, who knows, depending on what the application of the bus station is.

Clearly we could say we don't know the full picture until we've heard the whole of the Lambeth Plan,

and then this and that and the other.

I think we've probably got enough on our plate

at the moment, if that's okay.

Well, having heard this conversation,

is it acceptable that perhaps slightly tougher words

on things like the park and the height, wind,

would be drafted and agreed by Councillor Humphries

and myself, is that acceptable?

Okay, have you got all that?

Yep.

Okay, thank you for an interesting discussion.

Move on to the application at Dainbury Avenue.

Councillor Tiller, if you...

And this application is obviously pretty substantial, one of the biggest we've had in recent months

anyway.

So I will ask Ms Ferguson to introduce it and give us a presentation.

Good evening Councillors, my name is Janet Ferguson, I'm the Planning Manager of the Strategic Development team.

I'm going to give you a brief overview about the proposal.

The first slide really shows the location of the site

in the middle of, sorry.

This first slide shows the location of the site

in the middle of Alton East and Alton West

with the location of Roehampton Lane in the centre.

You've got Roehampton Village to the south on that image.

and you've got Richmond Park and Golf Club in the distance.

The site is actually provided in three parcels,

parcels A, B, C1, C2, and C3.

So parcel A is the largest parcel,

which is fronting Roehampton Lane.

Parcel B is the ground floor of Albrooke House,

which is the existing library.

And parcel C1, C2, and C3 are green landscaped areas.

The scheme is part of the Alton Early Improvement Works.

Alton Activity Centre and Dyer fields works

are currently being implemented on site.

The bottom image shows the linear block

along Dainbury Avenue, Whitelands College

on Lava Stock Gardens and Holleybourne Avenue Junction.

Albrooke House is in the foreground

and the slab blocks of Alton East are in the distance.

Parcel A includes the GP surgery fronting Roehampton Lane

and behind which is the adjacent four -storey

and two -storey empty blocks to the rear in Holleybourne Avenue

The next slide shows the relationship

between the two buildings with the community hub building

being a total of 23 metres in height,

provided over four storeys,

and is set back from Roehampton Lane and Dainbury Avenue

to provide a widened public realm.

The main access to the community hub

is on the corner of Dainbury Avenue

with separate access to the GP surgery

provided from Roehampton Lane.

And then there's additional access to the youth club

and council offices at the rear of the building.

The community hub will be serviced by a loading bay

on Hollybourne Avenue, where one blue badge space

is located.

Refuse and cycle storage is in a single -storey

pavilion building on the boundary with the church.

The GP surgery would have a blue badge space

in a car parking space fronting onto Roehampton Lane.

And the refuse store is the smaller brown element

of the pavilion building that serves the GPs.

Short stay cycle parking spaces are provided

in the public realm fronting Roehampton Lane

and in the civic space between the two buildings.

The civic space is being specifically created

to also include access by the children's library

as a spill out space.

The residential building to the south

is 32 .8 metres in height,

provided over nine storeys.

It's got a staggered footprint.

The residential building would be serviced from the street.

Two blue badge spaces would be provided

alongside the entrance with access

to an internal refuse store, again shown in brown,

and an internal cycle store providing 103 cycle spaces.

Private communal amenities space is provided

to the southeast of the site,

and a publicly accessible play space is provided

on the edge of this plan,

which benefits from a change in levels

to inform the play provision.

The next slide really just shows you internal floor plans

of the community hub.

So the top left hand plan shows the children's library

in yellow, adjacent to that is the adult,

part of the adult's library,

which continues at first floor level.

On the ground floor area just shown in pale blue

is the GP surgery provision.

And then at second floor level,

the space is divided between the youth service in green and the council offices in brown.

The final floor has a community hall in the centre of the floor plate and bookable meeting rooms as

shown in orangey colour. There is access to an external terrace that fronts onto Danebury Avenue.

This next slide just really shows the mixture of materials

that are proposed.

It includes precast grey concrete panels

with a faceted design and textured finish.

Pale cream bricks and green corrugated panels

which are also the colour of the windows and fins

that provide solar shading.

The next slide shows the internal layout

of the residential building,

which has been specifically designed

to meet the needs of people living on the Alton Estate

on the housing waiting list.

At ground floor level, a four bedroom,

seven person unit is provided,

and adjacent to that is a two bedroom, four person unit.

The rest of the accommodations I mentioned previously

is the cycle refuse store with additional provision

for plant.

The upper floors have a mixture of housing sizes

with a wheelchair unit provided on each floor.

The next slide really shows again a mixture of materials

with proposed on the residential building

with a dark grey base creating a plinth

and then lighter grey and beige brickwork above

with bands of smooth and ribbed textures.

Again, there's also use of concrete string courses

throughout the building and grey powder coated windows

and balustrades for the balconies.

This slide really shows the impact of the scheme

when compared to the existing situation.

These three images have been taken from the heritage

and visual impact assessment, with the first view

at the top facing towards Medfield Street

from Treville Street.

The second view is taken from Medfield Street itself.

And the third view is from the junction

of Medfield Street and Roehampton Lane.

The final slide really summarises the scheme

and the benefits, which is the provision

and 55 affordable housing units,

community hub with co -located services,

including a re -provided library, GP surgery,

youth club, council floor space,

and a new community hall and bookable meeting rooms.

As mentioned already, there's the provision

of four blue badge car parking spaces,

30 short stay cycle parking.

There's an urban green factor score of 0 .49,

which exceeds the London plan target of 0 .4.

BNG score of 29 .73%, exceeding the 10 % minimum.

And the proposal at 59 % exceeds the required

35 reduction in CO2 emissions.

Communal air source heat pumps are proposed

and PV panels and rainwater harvesting.

And a BREO outstanding rating is targeted

for the Humic community hub and the BRE home quality mark

for the residential building.

The scheme does involve the loss of 11 trees,

including a lime street tree,

but 51 trees are to be replanted as part of the scheme.

There are a number of section 106 contributions

that are set out in the heads of terms.

Since producing the lights this afternoon,

we have received a further objection

that's not referred to already from a Roehampton resident

concerned about the existing building being demolished

and that residents want a supermarket.

And also mentioning the impact of the residential building

upon St. Joseph's Church.

However, this objection together with other objections

raised, including the impact on heritage assets

and the loss of the lime tree,

are not considered sustainable.

For these reasons, it's recommended that the application

be approved.

This completes my presentation.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Ferguson.

Comments.

One thing that occurred to me, by the way,

which I hadn't occurred to me before,

I must apologise about that,

is the community building is obviously very important

in that slightly disappointing element

of central Roehampton.

You come down the old village, High Street or Medfield Street and it has that village

and then you hit this central square and it flops.

Therefore the community building is important that it's striking and indeed it is quite

striking especially from the view up Dainbury Avenue.

But looking at the picture on page 33, it seems to me that the wall facing Roehampton

Lane doesn't seem, it's in the shadow in this picture so it's a bit difficult to tell, but

it doesn't seem to be as striking as I think I would like it to be given it's facing Roehampton

and a lot of the through traffic and through traffic

pedestrians and cycling as much as Carol

that go through Hampton.

Is that just a game with the image

and it's just the same as the other faces

or could it be stronger?

I think it's the perspective

because it's got the same number of bays

and it is a cube building so it's the same design.

Oh is it okay, fine.

In that case, forget what I've got to say.

It was actually, Councillor Colkley caught my eye first,

and then Councillor Apps and Councillor Ayres,

and Councillor Govinda.

No, I.

Thank you, Chair.

Please go.

Councillor Colkley.

Thank you, Councillor Colkley for St. Mary's Board.

I noted that in part of the application

is the conversion of the library unit to a more flexible case.

So a company perhaps retail or a launderette.

And I was just wondering why we're sort of changing

the use case of the building.

Because I imagine if it was going

to be converted into a retail unit or a launderette,

we'd need a whole new permission because you'd

need plant equipment to facilitate

that kind of change of use.

So I was wondering why we're doing the change of use now.

This is the application that's being presented to us

by the applicant team.

It is the outline element, so there

is a condition that expects those details to be secured

at reserve matter stage.

So I think if you go to condition number two,

there's a reserve matter standard condition.

and condition four.

So what exactly does that mean with the reserve masses?

Does that mean that the whole application can't proceed

until there's plans for redeveloping the library?

No, it just means that that part of the scheme

on parcel B, we need further details on those

before the conversion of that space can take place

and any external changes.

Okay, so it's outlined.

the concept of converting it, but you need to investigate

if you need a full application to make it appropriate

for a retail unit.

It wouldn't be a full application.

When you've got an outline application,

it's approved it in principle,

and the basis and understanding that the reserve matters

will give you fuller details of the floor plan,

arrangement for refuse, plant, and so forth.

At the moment, it's not known how that space

is going to be used.

So I think the thinking is not to be too prescriptive at this stage

It's going to have a flexible use and it will be explored later on by the council housing

Teams applicants, but then that would come back to committee

It wouldn't just be or is it us approving this concept of it being turned to a retail unit would mean that

it's sort of given the council team carte blanche to sort of

conversion to a retail unit, whatever, where they seem to fit without asking the reserve matters?

The application is to grant the principle of using that space for something other than the library use that's there at the moment.

Reserve matters, the details that are required don't usually get reported to committee because it's almost like a condition.

so unless of course it's asked to go to committee by a member.

My suspicion Councillor Kelkley, my suspicion I don't know in detail but this is a matter

of fitting all the bits into the jigsaw by building the library here now it means

that you can free up the old library site and shuffle things around just as

indeed have to do about the surgery.

I'm absolutely sure that it wouldn't have got the approval

of an overwhelming majority of the residents

if there weren't shopping facilities provided

somewhere in the whole plan,

bits that we haven't actually seen.

If you can understand that.

Yeah, no, I do understand and I support the idea of retail

because it's clear from the residents' comments

that they're really supportive of it.

I just find it interesting how it's gonna be

sort of outlined, converted into retail,

but then those plans don't come back to committee.

This is something.

Council Abbs?

Thank you.

I was very taken by the central building as well,

and I think we have to see it as part of a wider context

of change within the Alton Estate.

this is obviously a key pivotal moment of that.

But what really struck me was reading the comments

from children's services and from adult services

and other agencies who could see the possibilities

that this was gonna open up to all the communities.

And I think that is a very, very strong point.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new library.

I noted the suggestion that it would be good

to include some of Wandsworth's heritage within the new library and I'd like to see that and

would support the idea of an advisory to have that included within the future displays on

a permanent basis. But all in all I think this is a first step in a much broader reform

which I think could be a very positive thing for this area. Thank you.

Councillor Ayers.

Yes, Councillor Ayers, East Putney.

I of course have a lot of tiny detailed objections and comments, but overall I think this is

a very good scheme.

I think the hub building does have a certain stature and grace.

I think it needs a bit more work at the ground level as most buildings seem to.

I think the top with the terrace at the top and the domed roof on the common room

in the meeting room is very gracious and urbane.

I hope that the interior of the common room has the domed ceiling,

there's a domed roof over it.

Is there a domed ceiling in the common room?

Yes, that's the plans and it takes references to the current library, so it's got the concrete

domes and the reason the pillars come up and the shadow gap and it's for the dome so when

you're inside you have that space which reflects back to old Don.

I'm very pleased to hear that, thank you.

The housing is not perfect, but then what housing is, but it's very much better than

most of the housing that we've seen while I've been on this committee.

There are a few clues you can tell whether the planners really care about how people

live.

One of them is that the halls have just a bit more space than they actually need.

There's just a bit of elbow room in all the entrance halls.

The doors are not tight up to all the walls,

so you could put a bookcase behind the door

and not have the door handle scrape the walls.

There's all sorts of tiny little details

in that which have been attended to,

and I'm very pleased to see that.

I'm a bit sad that one or two of the upper flats

are single aspect, but I can also

see that that can't be helped with a mixed development. So I'm very impressed with the

amount of thought that's gone into this and congratulate all those involved.

Thank you. And Councillor Galindya?

Thank you. I got lots of comments, but at the moment just a couple of questions from

Ferguson really from her presentation.

She talked about parking for disabled people.

Just want you to find out how many of the larger units

are going to be wheelchair accessible.

Because often we think about a disabled person needing a flat,

but often they are part of a family,

and sometimes are part of a large family.

So I just want to know how many of the larger units

are going to be wheelchair accessible.

And then in her judgement, does she think

that the amount of, the number of disabled persons

parking places provided, both for the surgery

and the residential uses and the community uses,

is adequate?

And what is the kind of measure that says

this is the standard by which adequacy was judged?

In terms of the residential, there's a requirement

for 10 % to be provided for blue badge bays,

but that's over the entirety of the development.

At the original, at the outstage,

at the beginning of the development,

there's a requirement for four spaces

and the further spaces to be provided later on.

So there is the two residential blue badge bays and then there's the two other ones.

Sharon Millow, Principal Urban Design Officer.

On the wheelchair homes, 10 % six dwellings will be...

you notice how close they are to the mic. It's very, very much closer, easier for

all of us to hear if you speak really close to the mic like I am.

Okay, excuse me if I shout. Sorry, apologies, I didn't realise it was so quiet.

Sorry, 10 % of the dwellings, a total of six units will be wheelchair user dwellings

and they'll be part M43. The proposed mix is four two -bedroom,

two bedroom, four person apartments,

one three bed, five person apartment,

and one four bed, six person apartment,

so two large family dwellings.

And I pursue the point on the disabled person's

parking spaces is because

Roehampton Lane is not an easy place to park

and get in and out from.

And neither is Dainbury Avenue when you think about

the particular at that end.

Which is why I'm concerned that

that the spaces provided for disabled drivers

and disabled passengers are both adequate

and appropriately located.

The number of disabled parking spaces

do comply with policy.

All of the spaces are within 50 metres

of the front of the building,

and in fact the two on Hollybourne Avenue

is within about 12 metres of the front entrance. Obviously the disabled bay next to the GP

surgery is right next door and the community hub disabled bay is a little bit further but

still within the 30 odd metres but that's still within the 50 metre requirement.

Councillor Humphries. Sorry to chip in but on the same point about

the number of spaces, so on page 88, 10, 10,

it refers to 10 spaces.

So is that, because we've got four, I think,

is it four we've got up to so far?

So where's the other six?

Go on, Mr. Tiddley.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

So there will be provision for six spaces

relatively close to the residential development.

And in addition to that, there are 10 spaces proposed

a little distance away, which wouldn't be ideal,

but nevertheless, there are 10 additional spaces

that could be made available in the future as well.

But the six spaces that are proposed

are relatively close and compliant with policy.

I think the other question as well,

just to deal with the GP surgery,

that the provision there I think is better now,

because it would have a couple of spaces

specifically for people going to the GP surgery.

So the number of spaces available

is slightly higher than policy, very slightly.

Six instead of 5 .5.

Yes, quite.

Okay, any other questions?

Oh yes, indeed.

Councillor Jeffries.

Thank you very much, Chair James Jefferies -Tempsfield Ward.

I had two queries in particular.

One was around the size of the youth space.

It'd just be helpful to understand what's going on.

I think at one point in the paper,

it's referred to as 780 square metres.

In the table, it's 317.

I suspect officers will have a perfectly rational explanation for that, but I think we might

just need to be a little bit careful about what we present and to whom to make sure that

it's all accurate and not misunderstood and oversold.

The other question, just around the GP service, will there be any functionality

or provision of GP services whilst this construction is underway or are

residents going to have to wait until it's completed? Thank you. I'm sure

they're not going to have to wait, I'm sure about that. I think if you look at

Condition 21, I believe, in the papers on page 113,

there is a requirement for a GP practise delivery plan

to be submitted to and approved

by the local planning authority.

This is to set out how the needs of new

and existing residents will be met

by not only the new health facility,

but also during the period when the site

is under transition.

So that condition is hopefully to make provision

for the residents not to be without a service

during the construction work.

Thank you, and if I could just double cheque on that point

then, it's one thing to put the condition forward.

Presumably we wouldn't put the condition forward

without being fairly certain in advance

that that would be met.

Are we confident on that point?

I think I know a little bit here.

There's an arrangement for somewhere

in Roehampton Lane itself already.

So the GP services is prepared and ready for it.

And then there was just the query

about the amount of space for the youth.

Yes, I think perhaps if I start by saying

that perhaps the table on,

table four on page 51,

and I think table five on 52,

that probably aren't as clear as they could be,

because in actual fact,

what I think you're probably most interested in

is understanding what the existing usable floor space

of the youth facility is in the vacant building

compared with the proposed.

And the simplest way to explain it is

in the existing building there is provision

for 219 square metres.

And in the new youth provision there's 317 square metres.

So there's an uplift of just shy of 100 square metres

between the existing and proposed.

I think in the tables there's been reference

to including ancillary kind of accommodation

and that's why the figures look different

but in pure simplistic terms,

there's an uplift of 98 square metres.

Did Councillor Pridham have his hand up at one point?

No?

Oh, well going all round again.

Round again from Councillor Worrall

who had a bit for and then Councillor Goldgeier,

Councillor Humphries, Councillor of India.

Great, thank you, Chair.

I just want to bring up the issue of trees in terms of this.

Trees are mentioned quite a few times in the documentation,

and I'm just wondering in terms of the replanting aspect,

is the plan to have a diversity of trees or replacing like -for -like in terms of those that are removed?

The reason I'm asking is that there tends to be a process of what I call lazy planting,

of falling back on plane trees as the replacement

for anything that's actually replaced.

And plane trees do have their own problems

in relation to leaf fall and seeds and everything else.

And in a place like this, which has a rich biodiversity

in terms of the tree coverage, it would be good

to have reassurance that there would be a diversity

of trees being replaced rather than just,

as I said, the odd fallback of putting in plane trees

to replace everything else that's removed.

Condition 24 on page 115 secures landscaping details.

That includes species and height of tree planting and shrubs and other plants that's going to be incorporated within the scheme.

I think it's standard for us to consult our ecology

and our cultural manager to make sure that the species

that are chosen or that are submitted are fully reviewed

by those experts to try and get a variety

of diverse planting and trees.

Council Caulfield.

Thank you, Chair.

I looked at the view of the community hub frontage

from Danebury Avenue on page 64.

And I think it looks nice specifically

because it's got a nice low sun

and sepia tone on the side of it.

But I was wondering if you take away the trees,

which I'm glad that there's a good amount of trees in it.

I was just wondering if you look on ground level,

there's quite a lot of concrete.

It's sort of the road and quite wide concrete pavements.

And I know especially I've seen it in my ward,

a development on Sphere Walk in which there was,

it sort of leans heavily on concrete

and when there were chances for maybe more planters

or some other form of,

some form of suds to sort of like break up

the amount of grey and to sort of add in some green.

And that's just my concern mainly from this front

that there's a lot of concrete on the ground for level

and I was just wondering if this sort of landscaping is set

or if we could possibly put an informative into sort of say,

you know, try and do best efforts for the frontage

on today and re -avenue to sort of incorporate more green

and on the ground level so to break it up a bit more.

Hi, the planting where it's proposed is fixed. The planting and the visuals have been done

by the architects, around the landscape architects, there's possibly not the species and the density

that would have been if they were done by the landscape architects. We have got expansive

concrete outside the opening of the hub, but that's for the future phases, so we can make

a really strong connexion back to where the existing library is and through that green.

And at that part of Alton there's a lot of services underground particularly the

Roehampton Lane frontage and around there so you can't actually put a lot of

larger planting species in the ground so there are constraints on the site around

that vicinity. But the planting that we have I think is a biodiversity net gain

score of 29 .73 and the urban green in fact is 0 .49 so it's considerable so

the planting will be substantial and as Janet said, Miss

as Ferguson said, has been conditioned.

Yeah, yeah, and I'm definitely not disagreeing

with that, the urban green in the biodiversity net

gains excellence, and I'm really happy

with the application as a whole.

It was just more sort of, I know that there's been cases

in the past where we get like a good hitting of our target,

but then there's just a slight potential to have done more,

and again, I've been the example of the sphere walker

gaining my ward, and I just wanted to make sure

that sort of we're doing best efforts and I'm not saying we obstruct the road

with planters and I'm just saying that if they just want to see if there is

sort of best efforts to make sure that sort of the the it's just not explicitly

mostly concrete it's not just a concrete sort of square outside the on the front

edge of it. Mr. Calder you wouldn't you wouldn't be expecting this application

to cover all the landscaping of the junction

that's down to the highways department later, I guess,

is it?

Yes, exactly.

A lot of this is conditioned so we can look at that,

but part of it has been a lot of detail

has been put into the landscaping

and it's part and parcel of the larger applications

that are coming forward, so it needs to fit in with that

and we'll ensure that that happens

and take opportunities to look at further greening if they arise. But there are a lot

of constraints on the site. So your point is noted and I think that's probably where

we'll take it.

Okay, if the opinion's noted, and then that would be sort of taken into account for the

further development, I'm happy with that.

Thanks. Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. A couple of things, but maybe the first one because it's kind of relevant

to what Councillor Colgate was just saying.

On page 103 -04, we're talking about the BRIAM outstanding

for the community space.

And I was just slightly concerned,

particularly as this is the council's own application,

because it says at the bottom of page 103,

the energy statement confirms that the community hub

is seeking to target an outstanding BRIAM rating.

That just sounded a bit vague to me.

and as I say, this is sort of a flagship application

for the council.

I think myself and all members would be very disappointed

if we came back later and going,

oh, it's not outstanding, it's just excellent.

Can we be reassured, especially when we're starting

from scratch on this building, that it will be outstanding?

That's every intention.

I mean, at this stage, you can only target

what the building has been designed,

and as it goes through the various design iterations

before construction, you'll have more idea

of whether it will kind of hit that.

But the intention is we want it to be

an exemplary building to be proud of.

And I know that housing colleagues

are keen to hit that target as well.

That's good.

It's just, yeah, it would just be nice

if it was a little bit more precise

on the fact that we are gonna get there.

When we are starting from scratch,

I understand there's always compromises as we go along,

but we get this from private developers all the time.

And it would be really nice if we can lead by example

and make sure that it does hit the outstanding.

because if we can't do it, who else is going to do it?

Yeah, I mean, it's always difficult

when you're writing a report,

you don't want to mislead and say,

it's definitely going to meet it,

so I mean, it will be kind of,

there are conditions there to get the information

submitted to us for us to review.

And that is the objective.

Yeah, great, that's helpful, but it's, yes,

we often hear that, oh, well, if we'd done this earlier,

we could have hit it, and we didn't

because they didn't know about the paperwork,

and it's often a kind of technicality,

just to, if we're absolutely sure

on top of all that kind of stuff, which I'm sure you are,

it would be nice to know that we get the report back

that it is outstanding indeed.

And then if I could, Sherry, go off on a different tangent

again, I wanted to go back to something we were talking

about right at the beginning, so the outline application

and the old library building.

And again, on, where are we, page 49 I think it is,

where we're talking about the existing retail use 2 .3.

And then again, and it's just,

again, and I understand we're trying to keep it vague

and keep it open to possibility,

and this is partly what Council Belson was talking about

at the beginning where when we're kind of

salami slicing the regen into chunks,

you can only do one bit at a time,

and it's kind of like everything interacts

with everything else, and it's difficult

to cover all the bases.

But again, on 2 .4, on page 50, it says,

the application is safeguarded, an opportunity for retail floor space to potentially be re -provided.

And in the previous paragraph it says it recognises that the current library building could offer scope for a high -profile innovation community or business, blah, blah, blah.

And I just think, as I think it was Councillor Colton said right at the beginning, one thing that's come across to us, and I'm sure it has to use through the consultation process for residents is,

We're talking about building a community and a community hub and a key part of any community

is the retail offer.

It's something that lots of residents have commented on that we're losing the co -op and

are we going to get significant proper opportunities for shopping, retail development in the area.

And again, it would be nice if that was a little bit more convincing that that is where

it's going to end up rather than something completely different.

I think it would be a big gap in the development if we didn't have that opportunity for more

retail space.

Councillor Humphries, can I just be mildly cheeky and ask how long you've been a Councillor?

Quite as long as you've still have Councillor Felton.

I know, for how long?

Since 2010.

Have you, over 16 years, haven't you noticed that local authority written papers are always

very cautious?

A bit frustrating, isn't it?

But they're always very cautious, which is possibly slightly better than, say, the American

president who declares it's definitely this

or definitely that and finds out he's wrong

in the next minute.

So I think that understandably cautious in saying

we will be doing our best to.

I know, I know, but the point is,

it's a serious point that we referred to earlier

and what Councillor Colle has said is that

we're kind of signing that off now as its potential thing

and unless we can put in a request now

for that reserve matter to definitely come to committee,

I think we're signing off on the unknown, aren't we?

There's a big question mark.

And we're making a decision on something

that we don't know, seriously.

Well, as Mrs. Ferguson said,

that's what we're aiming at.

But if anything happened, and they'd been definite,

and then they discovered there's a gas pipe underneath

that meant X, Y, and Z,

then we'd be the first people to jump on them and say,

it's not what you achieved.

Come on, I think we're arguing about angels

on a pinhead here.

They're attempting to achieve these targets.

If you want to say it, they will achieve these targets.

The retail, I'm not talking about the BRIAM stuff now,

I'm talking about the retail offer,

which is a key part of what residents want to see

out of the development.

Councillor Galindier.

Mr. Chair, I just want to be very clear

before you carry on.

I've got several areas I want to talk about.

I don't want to ask a series of questions

and then get them lost.

I don't want to explore the situation

about public transport.

I want to explore further the conversation

we already had about trees,

also about the GP practises.

I also want to touch on the issue of viability

and then the construction management plan,

the air quality management plan, and various other plans.

So either I do it in one go, or I do it in bits.

I don't want you to turn around and say,

you've spoken enough times,

because this is an important application.

I don't have, let me just make it easier for you,

I don't have a problem with the substantive proposal

on the paper.

So if you think I'm against this development,

and I think you're on the wrong wicket.

But I want to get it right,

and I want to explore various things,

which I think are gaps in the paper and in the drawings.

But I hope I get your assurance I can explore that.

But before I do that, I want Mr. Mause to comment

on what I have read in the local press

about the potential of daylight challenges

challenges to the loss of daylight, both from residents as residents, but also from leaseholders

as in a sense property owners. The documentation or the press report talks about legal threats

being issued or will be issued or whatever. I just want to be absolutely clear that we

understand issues about daylight, sunlight,

or the loss of daylight and so on,

before we go further with the things.

And Councillor Belton, I just want to be able

to have the chance to explore the various areas

I want to explore.

I think over the last four years,

you'd find it fairly difficult to point to many cases

where I have shut you down.

I don't actually take that into good spirit.

I know that you meant it okay.

I virtually never stopped the debate

and I'm not gonna start now, so okay.

So we'll take those as long as you like,

but we'll take them, you won't get interrupted.

But Mr. Moore, can you help?

Yes, thank you, Chairman.

I haven't actually seen the press article

to which Councillor Givindji refers, but in terms of right to light, that's a private

law matter, an easement that can be set out in a lease, it can be set out in a transfer

of freehold land, or it can be an implied right from 20 years plus user.

It's not a matter that falls before this committee to be determined as part of the planning application.

It's very closely aligned though to other matters which are germane to the planning application such as daylight sunlight

overlooking

An amenity impact all those matters are dealt with within the committee report

but in order for this scheme to move forward and be implementable the

Developer would have to be satisfied

That they can deal with the rights to light if any do lawfully exist. So yeah, it's

Okay, I think that's.

Thank you.

Can I just start with the issue of GP practise?

I mean, it's quite helpful that you alluded to

the possibility that in the meantime location

for the GP practise could be somewhere on Rownton Lane.

It's unfortunate it's not in the paper,

but particularly when the Patney Society

had specifically raised the need to have a way

GP practise without a break of continuity.

Can I help?

Yes.

I think you would know, you would respect the fact

that the council would always wish to move GP.

I heard that very informally if I told you,

I had heard that it has been arranged.

but I couldn't stand up and give officers advice on that

because I've just heard it socially, if you like,

so I couldn't say that's definitely the case.

That's helpful because I mean in the past,

there was some conversation about the car park

behind Albroch House being used as a potential location.

So fine, I mean I'm assured that that GPS practises

will be able to function during that in -between period.

The public transport issue around here,

the assessment I read in the transport assessment

actually makes an assessment of just this application,

55 units, the hub, and the traffic generation potential

of those units, and therefore judging the existing

poor PTO rating of three against that.

And yet we know that the overall area of Rhampton

is undergoing change in bits and bobs

and the pressure on public transport increases

and in fact since the withdrawal of the

kind of short term bus service with university

which has not been replaced, the problem continues.

And yet, we have a condition somewhere,

because I think it's 117, where there is an impact,

let me just get there.

So the travel plan will include targets for reduction

of car mode share and an increase in sustainable

transport modes within the first five years.

Without the applicant being able to actually deliver

additional public transport, I kind of struggle to see

how the applicant can deliver on such a transport plan.

We all know the area has poor transport accessibility

and it just seems to me that we're not addressing

that challenge adequately either in the paper

or kicking it into touch for the longer term.

So I can stop there or I can carry on to my next point.

Carry on to your next point.

Just on the issue of trees,

I was kind of concerned about T1 and T2,

that's why I then went on to read

the Boricultural Impact Assessment.

And it's quite an interesting document.

There is a paragraph 6 .8 which will amuse all of us.

It reads, currently, this is about T2,

currently this tree is situated adjacent

to the eastern curb line of Hollybourne Avenue

and the immediate surrounding surfaces

have been displaced by extensive surface rooting.

This context, its retention would not enable

the necessary repairs to public footpath

to mitigate any foreseeable risk to the trip hazard,

given that many of the roots are above

an existing surface level.

There is no clear manner within which the footpath

could be redesigned to bury these roots within the sub base.

Therefore, the tree must go.

I can point out thousands of trees in this borough

which failed that test.

I mean, I just think it's not a criticism

of the report necessarily, but our body culturalists

make these strange statements without any

reference to reality.

I can point out on trees down my road

where the suckers of a lime tree just make life

very difficult and somebody has to come down

and get rid of them.

We're not talking about let's pull the tree out.

I'm not making a bid to save T2, by the way.

I'm just saying that some daft comments get made

to justify things when they don't need to be made.

And that's why I just thought it'd be something

worth commenting on and I wish officers would call out

these guys who get fat fees and write reports

which are often meaningless.

I'll move on to my next point.

I think you should bear in mind,

I mean it depends what the points are,

but on things like that, I am sure that officers

have had complaints from Council X and Council Y

about that, and from Council A and Council B,

they've had the opposite complaint,

and all sorts of issues of that kind.

So it's just, I think that's a little bit pernickety,

frankly, but carry on.

Well, it's a documentation that was put in support

of the application and removal of the treatment.

Sorry, just one moment, just one moment.

Just one moment.

You're all right, okay.

I was just wondering whether, no, no, no, that's fine.

Carry on.

Okay, I'm concerned about the construction management plan

both for the demolition bit and then construction

subsequently, air quality and dust management plans.

Given that this is in the middle of a large council estate

and quite a busy road and lots of movements around,

I'm kind of concerned about whether people who live there

will get any looking on what those plans say

and whether they will be consulted.

I just want some sort of clarity about

whether these things will be done unto them

or will they have some sort of saying,

saying this is good enough or not good enough.

Can I ask Ms. Ferguson, I don't actually know,

but is this more or less along the lines

of what we just had a public consultation on

and more than 80 % were in favour of it.

Ballot.

Sorry, they're not in favour of a particular

construction management plan which is yet to be written.

They were in favour of the proposal.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about,

you managed to go on so long about it.

I thought you meant about the two buildings themselves.

You're talking specifically about

the construction management plan.

Let me help you, Chairman.

Let me help.

As long as it's not too great a length.

If you kept it a bit shorter, it'd be easier to understand.

If you stayed awake, you might have understood it too.

I mean, sorry, Chairman.

I mean, I'm trying to make as -

You are being a little bit offensive.

I've been very awake this evening,

and particularly to you, but please, try and be -

On page 107, the Demolition Construction Management Plan

is referred to, and then on page 108,

there is the air quality dust management plan,

and then there is the PM monitoring.

All of those have yet to be written and yet to be agreed.

I'm saying what sort of input or what sort of engagement

will the local residents have about it?

Mindful that the Danbury Avenue masonettes

about the shops are right next door.

What will they be able to say

about the dust management plan, for example?

and just question whether they have a say

in this matter at all.

Can I perhaps jump in on that one

and suggest that it wouldn't be through the planning process

but there's obviously been a build up

with the relationship with the council,

occupiers and other surrounding properties

that the housing team would pick up

and make aware of before

and we can perhaps highlight that

through an informative on this decision.

There's just a fairly large development that's taking place in my ward, thanks to the housing

department, which asked for, demanded, there was a lot of cleaning of vehicles, a lot of

dust and noise control, and it was very well done.

that was in the contract that the housing department

actually put through.

And I imagine the housing, if we approve this tonight,

which I hope we will, then it would be up to

the housing department in their contract

to arrange some of this.

Sure, I accept that things will turn out okay,

but as it says, the construction management plan

would have to be agreed with the local planning authority.

What I'm saying is that before the local planning authority agrees, what sort of input

or consultation or engagement will there be with the people who are most directly going

to be affected?

Sorry, I thought I just answered that question, but perhaps I'll repeat it.

It wouldn't be through the planning process, but through the housing team would have that

liaison be able to express that.

and I suggest that that could be added as an informative

if that would assist.

So just to understand, Mr Calder, therefore then,

that in local planning authority approving it,

will it seek from the applicant, the housing department,

in a sense, evidence or proof that they have engaged

with the people most directly affected?

We can't insist, but we'd advise,

and as the council, I'm sure that they would be,

as has been expressed in other sites

and we've done that on numerous sites across Wandsworth.

Mr Calder, we've said this before,

this is our application as a council.

We are the regulatory authority.

We can stand behind Chinese walls or we can not.

But if we are to stand behind Chinese walls,

then the informative that saying that the applicant

shall show to the local planning authority

adequate engagement with the local residents

would be one way of getting around the problem.

Well I could answer that by saying

I'd need to be consistent on all the decisions

that myself and the team make and the consultations.

And on an application which was maybe by a private developer

and had a similar thing, we didn't consult

and then we did on this, I would be open to

a local government ombudsman.

because I've not been consistent,

I need to be consistent on how I deal with the conditions.

So that's why I would suggest we push this to the applicants.

There's no requirement to consult

on approval of details applications.

Can I ask Mr. Tiddlytide?

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to just add that over ABA,

the consulting engineers have produced the draught

construction management plan, which is actually

uploaded on the website with the documentation.

So that is already available for people to see.

And they would be required to update that

in the light of the decision that the council makes.

Just looking very quickly at some of those.

So that already includes things like the routines

of the proposed routine of the vehicles

to get to and from sites, the locations off site

where they would be parked and would work,

and also discusses the profile and numbers of the vehicles

as they estimate them at the moment.

And so for example, the peak period would involve

around about eight heavy goods vehicles per day

in for some months.

So that information is already available.

I'm happy to share it with anybody who you think

should be shared with and the local team.

Thank you.

Is there, sorry Mr. Tiddley, since you opened this,

is there any reference to dust suppressants

and also monitoring of the particulates?

Because I'm concerned about the immediate buildings

around there, whether they will have to keep

their windows closed when something's coming down

or whatever, or whether there are ways in which dust can be controlled and suppressed

adequately.

I'm looking through detailed documents, I couldn't particularly answer it.

What I would say is that they normally as a matter of course include things like dust

suppression, wheel washing, to stop vehicles dragging dust out of the site into the street,

and all that sort of thing is standard requirements.

I just wanted to add that condition 7, that's on page 108, requires a submission of an air

quality and dust management plan.

Can we move on, Councillor Galindy?

You're not going to get any further on this, I don't think.

If you're not satisfied, I'm sorry about that, but can we move on?

My final point is about the EDO talked about a lighting strategy, particularly in reference

to the kind of the late night people relying on, people working overnight and so on, and

for them, a late night lighting strategy was important.

Is there such a thing for the area and if not, will there be?

Now I've got a lot of sympathy with that,

partly because I'm concerned about there being

too much light for all sorts of reasons.

And I know lots of people disagree with me fundamentally,

so how you square those particular things,

I'm not quite sure.

Is there such a thing as a lighting strategy we're going to?

This reference to external lighting in condition 42,

but that talks about details of any form of external illumination on the buildings and around the site

and means of preventing light spillage. It doesn't specifically say from the building

but I just want to cheque the landscaping condition because that often also has provision for lighting within it.

I think there's condition 22, but that's more about bat -sensitive post -construction lighting

plan.

We could adapt condition 42 if you want to have that referred to lighting emanating from

the building.

Sorry, but on page 53 and paragraph 2 .20,

the EDO comment says that there should be opportunities

to improve the nighttime experience,

including work on a lighting strategy

for the alternate state.

So therefore my question was,

is there such a strategy either in existence

or in the being, and if it's going to be in the being,

then it should be reflected in the conditions.

The lighting strategy that is referenced is from the Economic Development Officer who

has been involved in that. It is not part of this scheme.

I'm sorry I'm now a bit confused. Are you looking for a lighting strategy that covers

the whole of the borough or specific to particular sites? Because I don't...

Stop at the borough, let's go for the world.

Well, not quite.

So we are talking just about this.

And I thought Mr. Ferguson answered that.

The EDO has made a request that says

that there should be one and so on.

That's all I'm saying.

If there is one, fine.

If there is one in the offing,

then let's make sure that it's reflected

in the conditions that be delivered.

I think the EDO is talking about work on a lighting strategy for the whole of the estate,

not specifically for the buildings that form part of this application.

I think you're gonna have to take this up if you want to take it up. Other members seem to be quite

happy with the general intent.

So you said that was the law, you'd covered everything.

Have you covered everything?

Okay, that's perfectly reasonable to reflect on now.

There was one point outstanding that Councillor Apsley raised actually, which I took a note of somewhere or other,

Councillor Apps, you asked for an advisory somewhere

or other on...

About the heritage in the library.

Is that covered?

It's not covered, but we could probably add something

along those lines.

I think we've got an informative added to the,

I'll just find the page number,

but at the request of the heads of arts and culture,

we recommended...

condition, I'm sorry, informative number seven

on page 124.

So I take that back, apologies.

Okay.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a couple of things, if I may.

On parking again, on page 87, 86, 87,

we're talking about the, as we've heard,

it's always an issue parking in this past world.

And again, this is part of the issue

of it being split up into chunks

with we're talking about one block at a time.

But am I right, it says at the top of page 87,

so it's not in a CPZ now.

So residents might move in and have cars

and be able to park wherever.

But it refers to a design and implementation

of a resident's parking scheme

on all roads within the regeneration,

which would be managed, blah, blah, blah.

It says it's envisaged that new occupants

of the proposed buildings would be precluded from obtaining permits to park on street within

that RPS.

So how does that square, so say if people move in and they can park and they've got

cars, do we know will the RPS be put in place before the completion of the scheme?

Mr. Tiddley, sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Tiddley do you think you can tell us a little bit about

the RPS?

I'll try, it's quite complicated and you may recall that there have been previous consultations

on introducing control parking in Southampton

and they generally haven't been supported.

As part of the wider sort of master plan in,

the ballot and all that side of things,

there was a clear desire amongst the population

to sort out the parking.

And so we do anticipate some form of control parking

going in but we can't particularly say

what that might look like at the moment

and it would be subject to statutory consultations,

traffic management orders and things like that.

At the moment, because this development would exceed

10 units, which is the threshold at which an application

is normally excluded from the controlled parking zone,

then it would be the expectation that it would be excluded

from a future controlled zone.

That's a standard policy that's applied across the council.

or the other element of this as we've discussed before,

that's why we need to ensure we've got adequate facilities

on site for disabled people,

which is the key issue there.

In the event that there was not a controlled parking zone

because it would be subject to its own process,

the analysis that we've done has indicated

that there would still be adequate parking space

on the street nearby because we've counted up

the vacant spaces, so that's really where we are

with that one.

But to the point that if people moved in

and they did have cars and they were parking,

then they were told they couldn't have a parking permit

for a future scheme, what would happen in that case?

Well, I can't really comment on what would happen,

only that that's the environment we currently work in.

Thank you.

A question about viability, if I may.

So on page 59, I think it is, isn't it?

It says on 3 .18, the viability assessments, the build cost information service indices

were used to do the scheme rather than specifics.

I'm just slightly concerned because we're running at a, well, what's the least number

we've got so far?

12 .6 million gap, as it were, deficit on the scheme.

So, and again, with the best interest of, as we've all said,

and welcome the fact that it's going to be a quality scheme

and a high standard, if the costs rise

when we have the details of what we're going to be building,

it goes more.

Have we got any comments to make

on how that might impact the viability,

which is already in deficit?

So I think those are almost two different elements

that obviously the viability is basically looking at,

has this site maximised the level of affordable housing,

and obviously what we wanted to do is,

as there is still, as Ms. Ferguson mentioned,

there are still obviously unknowns as part of it,

so doing a very, very detailed build cost plan,

which is incredibly costly,

and there could still be subject to change.

That didn't really seem appropriate at this point in time,

because realistically, the point of the viability now

is just to assess, have we maximised

the level of affordable housing,

and does it meet the policy requirements

when you're basically demolishing

existing affordable housing?

Basically, if you are demolishing

existing affordable housing,

you have to use the viability tested route.

So we felt that that was the best approach to use

at this point in time.

I completely accept that things may change,

but we didn't want to obviously go through the expense

and et cetera of doing a very, very detailed bill cost plan

when really that's not required as part of the viability.

That's a different element, obviously,

that the estate and regeneration team will be looking at

in terms of their grant application

and those specifics as part of that process.

I do think it's very interesting, Fiat 5, 310, sorry,

319 and 320.

You just adjust what you take into account very slightly

and something that's costing 300 ,000 per unit

is suddenly costing 220 ,000 pound per social unit.

How we consider members of the public

if our house was quite sure.

I agree with you, it's 550, 550,

I've been reading it in the writing board.

Yes, it became a number, right?

I just wanted a separate question,

I'm not sure if that's a good idea.

and the way that the industry is being run is a way of raising

the risk to the infinite source of what comes through.

It comes through in 20 years, in 50 years,

it's all sorts of things that you very well know.

Thanks very much.

I think it's important to note that this is really part of the scheme

and this is how much of a big community factor plays in it.

So we really need to look at the 5 .5 -tier TV,

y h

Uhm, I, so, I'll put you gently, perhaps there were footprints too

and fo I I'll put you into a constant conversation

give it a second please, just, just incline it

more conscious of that

Okay

Thank you, thank you

Alright

I have another fairly lengthy discussion on Twitter.

I hope that the opinions of people who have worked with

much more than I can possibly think of.

There's quite a million things we can manage.

Is it in general or is it just in the first place?

Can we send some updates?

Sorry, sorry, Charles.

We did some really good work.

You've got a great day.

I just want to say that it has come to my life

that there's all sorts of things that have been done

and stuff that we just don't know at this stage.

I'm thinking that in the nature of such a significant amount of evidence, as Cal Tolly

said, it's so important to get this right.

I'm worried that the university is going to have to defer to get details on some of these things,

because this is so vague.

We're very, very different to make decisions on some of these things, but it's just things

that are still undesired.

So I'd like to impose that we have a deferral of this, and I'd like to engage with the talks

on some of the characteristics of these hotels.

You can see it's more unknown when some sorts of adaptations will be improved, like

back -to -seat eyes -a -junction, and then it was also improved when some sorts of things were unknown,

like the whole time, since we're now in our normal brain, like the million -dollar line -up

of adaptations is still here, if you remember, but that's so unknown.

We think it's a change from its own marriage, after all, but it's very well known,

and it will not constitute an outline of the application

without an outline of the EBS.

I am very, very interested in that,

but if you have a seconder.

The association is perfect.

The association is quite great,

I think we're very poor.

There's no against, no voting.

Five.

So we're going to head on on to the actual

application six plans.

My criteria for the amendment is removed.

Agreed.

How many do they favour?

Is it against?

More core abstentions.

Okay, thank you.

The applications are approved.

Is anyone on the break?

Anyone on the break?

We've been killed and loaded.

Last one was in game deck.

Oh, he's already gone.

He's already gone.

I should have said it by the way, thank you for the

gentleman in the back of my hand who was working to the tune of

to the pretty well known and detailed report.

Thank you.

Let's get this started.

Councillor Laurel?

Thank you.

And thank you.

Item 3, Riverside Yard.

Is that a 3?

I can't recommend a 3, because I don't want to say hot and clear, I think.

So I recommend it.

So someone could help me with accessing this assignment.

I'm going to get the advantage of that man.

So the strength's also there.

I've got a car I could get in.

This is a real car park.

I'm just going to give it up for that.

I'm going to get the advantage of that.

Mr. Richardson, any idea?

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

My name is Helen Richards.

I'm the T2 leader for the West Area.

And first question, the point about access, that was to do with the name of the street,

Batsford Way.

Initially, the plans had proposed some form of access from the site into that road, but

It's a private road and that's what the objection was

that was raised by the Wimbledon Football Club.

And then in terms of the coming in and out,

I have to admit it suddenly dawned on me

as I was looking at the plans, they haven't got any room.

And then I looked at the plans more carefully

and actually there's a roller shutter

facing the access point and so the cars are intended

mainly for the workers and some visitors probably.

and when there isn't a lorry in the loading bay,

they can drive through the other shutters as well

into the car parking space, but yeah.

Can I answer that, Colclay, sorry.

I had one question, one of the objections was saying

that part of the boundary wall had a old stadium,

you know, which AFC Wimbledon would consider stolen,

and so have there been discussions with the club

or like what's gonna happen to the wall?

Is it gonna get knocked down?

Is it gonna be restored?

Again, this was, again there was concern

about demolishing any part of that wall

just because it isn't, you know, it's onto a private way.

The mural actually referred to,

Councillor Humphries did also question this point,

is actually located further north

along that street on Batsford Way.

And it is to be retained.

I don't think there's any intention for it to be removed.

But it doesn't actually bound this site.

So no works on this application would impact

on the mural that exists.

Okay, is the application approved?

Agreed, thank you.

Move on to the next application, which one is the next one?

Sorry, I've lost the page.

Manfred Road.

Right.

Any Quest queries or is that one also straightforward?

Well, actually it should be noted that it's a slightly different recommendation, slightly

different perhaps I can ask Mr Calder just to explain the slight difference

and why it is we're approaching it in a slightly different way. Well I can get

Miss Richards to answer this. She'll see what she gets paid for. Okay Miss Richards, sorry.

Thank you. No there was just a slight changes in the late items of the

confirmation of the actual floor area for the additional storey and that it is

below 100 square metres in area.

And so that's been updated as part of the late items.

That's not what I meant actually.

The application, although it's just for,

well essentially one development,

it's over two houses, it's subject to a section 106

agreement to tie them so they're built together.

Because if you only built one or the other,

it would look terrible.

They're quite a nice modern building.

I'm an aryan about the actual design of it,

but it works in terms of the amenity.

And so we've put on a section 106

to make sure it's built as one operation essentially.

Okay, then page 161, 62A and B, Laminar Sweep.

Any comments about that?

Is that approved as well? Agreed.

Sorry to interrupt. Did we take a vote on that one?

Then on to Rush Hill Road which there's been a few objections today. Comments or any comments?

Councillor Pridham it is your ward.

Thank you chair. I've obviously had a number of correspondence from residents on this and

I just if possible would like to just reflect a few of the comments that have been made.

So the first point that's been raised extensively is that the gardens on Rush Hill Road are

already quite long and thus the existing extension, the sort of single storey extension that's

already there, has already had an impact on a number of residents. The second point that's

been raised is that there is what many residents feel is a degree of close over, there would

be a degree of close overlooking from the proposed roof terrace on the first floor,

citing that as the reason why actually that policy that generally speaking prevents terraces

on the first floor, that sort of is the reason for that.

The third point which has been raised with me is that a number of residents on Gowrie

Road have put in similar applications and had them rejected on the grounds that first

floor roof terraces aren't allowed because of that possibility of close overlooking.

Another point that's been made, because obviously a lot of the recommendation to approve as

I see it and as they see it is grounded in it being a reinstatement of a terrace that

was there previously. So it's reinstating something that was there before and that's

the basis for the application being recommended for approval. The point that's been made

to me is that obviously the circumstances have changed somewhat since then in that there

has been a single -storey extension. So the circumstances aren't quite the same and residents

feel that the application should be judged differently, not purely on the basis that

it's just a terrace being reinstated.

Then also another couple of points.

So there were previous applications made with a roof terrace included but were then withdrawn

and there's a question over why that happened.

And then one individual emailed me with a few very specific points which would be great

if we can get addressed if possible.

The first is that they regard it as a misapplication

of policy LP2, which requires development

not to adversely affect neighbouring amenity.

Then the second point they raised is that it's a failure

to properly apply the housing SPD guidance

on roof terraces to avoid overlooking

of neighbouring gardens and windows.

and they also sort of feel that there's an incorrect planning baseline by treating the proposal as a reinstatement,

that point I raised earlier, and also that there is a change in height, albeit of, I think it's 0 .7 metres,

but more importantly, the altered extension beneath it, and a number of residents also have pointed out the irregular consultation process as well.

Thank you for that, Councillor Britten.

Councillor Ayers?

I would support what you said.

I think it's an overlooking is a serious point here.

Sometimes it isn't, but I think the fact that it's really quite large for a roof terrace,

you could actually have a medium -sized party on that.

I think it's a bit like boiling a frog, you know,

these things where you get this creeping,

getting a bit bigger, getting a bit bigger,

so you don't notice and suddenly you've got building

all over the earth and no ground left at all.

It's got large gardens.

They can play about in the garden,

and have the party down the end of the garden.

I think, I mean, I'm against this.

I think it's too much.

I don't think that the raising the height

of the obscured glass is gonna be enough.

And one of the photographs sent today

by one of the objectors really did make me think again

about it because it's a shot off from her bedroom window

of the terrace.

And it is just appalling.

I mean, I think even just for one resident,

we should refuse this.

Counts Slaps.

Thank you.

At the risk of repeating some of what Councillor Ayres said,

but of course, there's been a lot of repetition tonight,

so I shan't worry too much.

Just on the, it says in paragraph 2 .11,

you know that it's, the size of the terrace

and just restricts the numbers of people

who can comfortably occupy it at one time.

And I wondered if there'd been an assessment

of how many people that would be.

But it also led me to reflect the fact

that sometimes when we have parties at home,

over 100 people fit uncomfortably into our small cottage.

And that is the nature of parties.

So I do think it's a problem.

I think it could potentially be a real issue

for all of the kind of neighbours.

and I don't think these kind of back garden terraces

are a route that Wandsworth should go down.

Well, better be slightly careful about that

because we've got quite a few of them

in one way or another.

I'm sure they're a nightmare for a lot of our residents.

Maybe, but you're gonna hardly say we shouldn't go down.

It seems we clearly got them.

But, Countess Kelkley did have your hand up.

I still got a point.

I was just a bit concerned by the sort of wording on paragraphs 3 .13 and 3 .14

because it kind of gives the opinion of it's bigger than what would normally be allowed

but because the neighbours got away with it, we feel like it's supported because the neighbour does it

then that kind of, if it was slightly against

judging the application by its merits,

and it was the Simlin 3 .14 that sort of says

a 16 square metre terrace could cause a lot of noise,

but because the 16 square metre terrace next to it

is making noise, then it's not as much of an issue,

but then it feels like it'd be a combined

30 metre square terrace,

and both of them have a part in the same night,

so if anything, that compounds it a little bit, so.

I just wanted maybe officers to come back on that word

and because normally we do say a lot like judging the merits

of the individual application where it's referencing

the neighbour quite a lot in that.

Now I'm not gonna take any more people who are against it

unless they're also going to say what their specific grounds

are because if Councillor Humphries is moving something

that would be helpful.

Could I get a response on my point?

Well I'm looking for the words as well.

Well I was gonna move that we refuse it instead,

but I wanted to say why specifically,

because it is a particular reason why.

Can I say that?

Thank you. Is that right to say why specifically? I think that the key reason, one of the main

key reasons why the officers are recommending the approval is that there was a terrace there

before but in fact, particularly if you look at the photo that's included in the documentation,

it wasn't a roof terrace. There were two separate flats and it was a landing out of the back

door to allow a staircase.

Now you're breaking what I said.

I said I wasn't going to take anyone else speaking against it

unless they provided some words.

No, unless I had something specific

to say that was different to what anyone else had said.

And that's what I was saying.

So anyway, so yes.

So that's why, because it's not a roof terrace.

It's a landing down to stairs.

And it's not two flats anymore.

It's a house.

And we wouldn't normally allow a first floor terrace.

So we shouldn't in this case.

And then therefore, I'd like to move

that we refuse the application on those grounds.

I think normally we use words like unneighbourly or...

Unneighbourly, overlooking, etc.

Overbearing, close proximity to the neighbours, etc.

Right, thank you.

Is anyone going to speak in favour of this application?

No, it doesn't look like they are.

I have a question for how everybody...

I think Councillor Humphries identified why we got to this position but we're not going

to be swimming against the stream on this one. Mr. Granger's getting a great level of

experience in planning appeals and public enquiries so maybe he might want to think

through the actual reason for refusal which would stand at appeal.

How many days do we, how many sitting days do you think we need for this?

Okay, what would, in my view, I think what would stick in this particular scenario is going to be amenity based.

You could construct an argument that due to its low level heights that there is, and the Gary Road properties being, you know, elevated views, especially from first floor,

would overlook and the effectively,

the 1 .7 metre screening wouldn't be effective,

so there would be perceived and actual overlooking.

I think that's something, a matter that could be,

an argument could be put together to defend that.

I mean, this is a tiny terrace.

It's 4 .78 square metres.

We normally look at 10 square metres around there,

but even so, it's outdoor.

We could try and also construct an argument about noise and disturbance.

So that's two reasons.

I really don't think that it's an overbearing structure.

I think that is a little bit of imagination there.

But certainly overlooking noise and disturbance would be my angles of attack.

We agreed? We agreed. Is that unanimous?

Just unanimously. Okay, thank you. Move on pretty briefly I think to tree preservation orders.

There's three trees there. Is any... Councillor Humphries is going to vote against them.

Go on, Councillor Humphries.

Seriously, because we just go TPOs, oh yeah, fine,

and often, to be brutally honest,

we rely on the officer's report

because we don't know a lot about the context specifically,

but the first one on the list, the clue is in the name,

Southfields Lawn Tennis Club.

I have actually got a bit of knowledge of this site,

and the specifics on this one is that I feel rather sorry

for the tennis club, because any reason this came

to the notice of officers was that the tennis club

putting an application to build a new clubhouse and facility

for the ever -growing and popular club.

And in pre -app discussions with officers,

it came up that the trees were there.

And they went, well, hang on a minute.

We want to put a TPO on it.

And it scuppers their plans for development.

And I just think we have to be a bit judicious

in our use of where the TPOs go.

Because the only place on the site

where a new clubhouse could go

is the footprint of the existing one.

And to make it a bit bigger,

to make it do the job of serving bigger numbers of people,

it would have to go over where the T2, I think,

is, the big sycamore tree on the corner is.

And we can allow these things to go.

OK, how do I understand?

There's an agriculturalist's report from the applicant

saying that those trees are the disagreement

between their advocate, I can never say that word,

the tree people, their tree people,

and the council's tree people about whether it's diseased

or not or whatever.

Considering in, for example, the application

we've just done on Danebury Avenue, where we're quite

happily going to take out, I think,

three significant trees that have got on the site already.

There is a precedent for not necessarily putting a TPO on

to stop development.

So I would put a plea in on this one for us

to not do a TPO at this stage, because it will impede

their potential to do a development of a club which

has been there longer than the trees have been there.

There have been over 100 years that club's been there.

And I think it would be unfair at this stage

to put a TPO on something that hasn't been TPOed up until now.

and it's only because they want to do some expansion to deal with the popularity of their club that they're facing this hurdle now.

Mr Calder, it is not quite...

I mean, a tree preservation order does not mean to say you can't put in an application to do something which involves removing the tree, does it?

That's the point I was going to make. They could put an application in to remove the TPO.

They would need to put a replacement in elsewhere on the site.

it's something we can negotiate, but it puts us in a stronger position to that negotiation

if we've got TPOs on those trees that do provide a real strong amenity value, regardless

of how long the trees have been there compared to the club.

I take Mr Calder's point and yes, we have to be pragmatic in these matters and yes,

of course we want to encourage the greenery and all the rest of it, but I would like to

think a pragmatic solution can be reached to keep everybody happy.

When the club comes in with an application

and we can discuss having an alternative site

for an equally magnificent tree, then great.

But meanwhile, is it agreed that we agree

these three tree preservation orders agreed?

Thank you.

So there's a decisions paper, is that noted?

and investigation files noted, and closed appeals noted.

Thank you, thank you and good evening.

By the way, just before we all disappear,

can we all wish Mr. Grainger the best,

because on Tuesday, is it Tuesday?

the planning appeal on the Glass Mills site.

And Mr. Granger wants to say something about it.

It's all in your diaries, I know it is.

10 a .m. is the first sitting day on Tuesday.

And it sits for Monday, sorry, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,

those four days and then resumes on the following Tuesday

for four days, so eight sitting days,

which is pretty hardcore.

In here?

Correct.

So anyone passing by, if they just wanted to, could just pop in and watch for as long as they're interested in watching.

No banners are allowed in the chamber.

Can I also add that it is also being streamed as well at great expense to the planning service, the requirement of the pins.

So you can always, if you can't make it into the town hall,

you can always have it on in the background

and watch the whole, the events evolve.

But it's gonna be quite an interesting one

with even just the KCs.

They have Russell Harris who's quite big planning one.

We've got Douglas Edwards who again is a very good one.

So it should be a really interesting case.

Sorry, selling it now, isn't it?

Okay.

Thank you and good night.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 12 March 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 12th March 2026 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 12th March 2026 at 7:30pm