Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 15 April 2026, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 15th April 2026 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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, ladies and gentlemen.

Excuse me.

I suddenly developed a frog.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, good evening, councillors, and welcome to I think the last

official meeting of the council of any kind of this particular site.

Try again.

Is that okay?

That's okay.

I won't repeat what I said.

Just to say that my name's Tony, good, my name's Tony Belton, and I'm a Councillor for

Battersea Park Ward in Battersea.

Other members will introduce themselves as they wish to make comment.

But first of all, I'd like to ask the people on the top table here to introduce themselves,

starting with.

Is that working?

I think this is meant to work in both ways.

That's still not coming.

I can hear it.

Good evening, I'm Nick Calderon, the head of development management and not very good

at IT.

Good evening, I'm Duncan Mors, I'm the external legal advisor and I'm even worse with IT.

Thank you.

Evening all, Becky Hickey and I am the Clerk to the Committee.

And after that reasonably shaky start, let's get on and not be shaky.

There are no apologies for the attendance.

Councillor Humphries, you saw the minutes the last time,

So is it agreed I can sign the record of the minutes of the last meeting is correct record

Thank you

Are there any declarations of interests about any council of India

Clarifications mors probably can help

Given that the third application. Yes, sorry council of India council for East button award

Perhaps mr. Moore's can help given that the third application is about

nursing home, those of us who are closer to possibly being members of its future

occupants, do we have an interest in the matter or not? I can safely say no

Chairman.

Perhaps, good joke, but perhaps we can restrain our jocularity on this

I would normally take, because the public gallery,

I think, are interested, I would normally ask

that we move that forward, but actually,

in the particular circumstances of this evening

and the rest of the agenda, I'll stick to the agenda

as it is now, because on application number one,

which is only here, really, because there was an objector.

It had been through the process, and there was an objector.

And can I say, does anyone agree with the objective, or

are we agreed to approve the application?

Approved, okay.

So item two, rather more substantial, item two changes

to application of a ransom's doc in Battersea with five extra units and

quite a substantial building, but

It has been approved in general principle previously.

Anyone got any comments about it?

Councillor, Councillor Coley.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Coley, Councillor for St. Mary's Ward.

I just had one question.

In the sort of introduction to this application,

it talks about one of the modifications being a green roof,

but then I don't see any mention of a green roof

throughout the rest of the paper.

So does this modification include green roof changes or was it just slightly changing the

layout of the previous one?

Because I couldn't see anything about that in the application.

Can anyone give us an answer to that is Mr. Granger.

Thank you chair, Nigel Granger, East Area Team Manager.

I've developed the same frog.

The opportunities for green roofs is extremely limited in this because of this very architecturally

dramatic sawtooth roof so I don't think that that's actually carried through

because there's mechanical and electrical plant over the roof of the

the new stairwell which is one of the elements that's actually brand new as

part of this section 73 applications so I haven't seen that and there's

certainly no other there are landscape opportunities but not green roofs

Councillor Tiller.

Thank you, Chair.

Do we have any clarification about how the refuse and servicing arrangements will work

in practise, given the concerns raised about proximity to residential areas?

Mr. Granger.

Yeah, so the part of this scheme is to modify the waste and refuse recycling store.

That is in a location that's too far away.

That's our SPD recommends for the council's refused collectors to as a reasonable track

basically when we've got these large euro bins and bulk with bulk waste.

So that's generally around 10 metres.

So we have a collection point that's closer to the Branson's Dock Gates and the refuse

will be presented on the day of collection by one of the management company and it will

be presented in a location very close to the gates that's allocated as a multi sort of

space.

I mean this is one day a week and it's for the domestic refuse only, not commercial waste

and it's collected on that day and then rolled back on the same day to the store.

And that cycle happens 52 weeks a year.

Councillor Gavindya.

Thank you, Chair.

I had asked whether, why was it that we don't have a response to BTSC Society's comments,

actually on this paper and in the next.

I mean, it was traditionally the case

that the comments from the society

were specifically identified and specifically addressed.

Now, they might be woven into the general paper,

but that was my question.

My real concern is about the reduction in commercial space.

Now, the argument from the applicant

is that that's because of the fire regulations and so on.

Firstly, is that so?

But the second thing, and more importantly, is a very, very substantial reduction.

Does it almost make it unviable, unattractive, and therefore in future something else will have to happen or whatever?

And I know that the applicant, because I've been in correspondence with the applicant, which has been copied to the case officer,

They haven't marketed the site.

They have no potential occupier.

They have no understanding as to what the marketability

of this site is.

And I just wondered whether they had explained any of that

to the offices.

And the second bit is about the roof colouring,

which has upset local residents and the society.

Basically, the question is, the condition,

AC whatever it is, AC 18 I think, does that cover the colour aspect or is it more about

the material itself?

So just those two points.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to the second definitely, but let's go turn to the expert.

Mr. Grainger?

So in terms of the commercial space, I mean, I've read a lot of material as part of the

application submission and I've also read the quite extensive document that's been circulated

to members as well.

There's a lot in there I'd agree with.

The original, it's quite an unusual situation because the original basement is a section

of five to six volts or they've sometimes been annotated as chambers within the drawing.

So they do exist, but they're nowhere near in any state or capacity that could be occupied

by a commercial entity.

So there would be investment.

I do believe that there would be additional excavation as well to actually make it a viable

prospect.

But the the application itself has retained. I think we've got 150 or 158 square metres of commercial floor area

and as part of this application, so

There was a in excess of 200 square metre reduction

But that space it I mean it actually it was it was the reuse of an existing space

So it does exist and the those bolts still exist

they are going to convert one of those bolts in the basement as storage space for the

the above ground commercial area.

So in terms of viability, a startup,

a small and medium enterprise company,

with additional storage at ground floor

with additional storage below,

I think it could be a viable proposition.

But the overarching premise on whether our reservoir

of employment generating floor space

would be materially harmed over the borough

or in that location, we took the view

that that modification to the application doesn't stack,

we don't agree that the reservoir would be harmed

insofar as what's coming forward in that location

in terms of the 2 ,000 odd square metres

of commercial floor space that would be provided

by the ransom stock development adjacent to the site.

And that's going through gateway two process at the moment.

I know the permission is 10, 12, 13 years old,

but it has been implemented, but that's finally going to actually happen.

And in addition to that, the application for the glass mills, in terms of demonstrating

that the office space and its loss in that particular location and the documents that

were provided to justify that loss, they were very extensive and compelling in the entire

discussion that the location irrespective of its p -tail which is good

it is heavily reliant on access by busses and there's no real sort of competitive

relationship to for instance the the office coming on stream at places like

Nine Elms so it's it's within that scope that we are not objecting to that

relatively lowish reduction in floor area.

Over 50%, yes.

Colour of the roof as opposed to just the material roof.

Condition four covers that, it covers, it's everything.

We'll require samples in a situation like this

where it's visually, obviously it can be seen

from one particular angle.

It'd be seen for at both angles coming up and down Park Gate Road for a period of time

But the the scheme that I just talked about on the ransom stock redevelopment will essentially just cover one one flank of the entire

Relevation that from Selco Street, so it's important to get that colour, right?

we will get a

physical sample and

And or you know two or three options and make sure that it's not sort of Royal Mail pillarbox red

And that's it, say, an acceptable sort of chalky, dusty red that we can see on the CGI's.

One more point.

I, reading through it, I thought there was an element of value engineering going on here.

And I don't know whether that is the case.

So the material was changed and justification was that, well, you know, it could be like industrial.

I mean, you can almost hear an architect wax lyrical about industrial heritage.

But it essentially is value engineering in materials, is it not?

Well, we all know, but I think this proposal is a far better iteration over the previous

sort of sky gardens that had this reflective materials.

and the amount of glazing, the windows that faced directly south and ever trying to achieve

building regulations for overheating was just fantasy really, but we can't refuse something

on those grounds, but they designed it in such a way that building regulations marched

on with the sustainability agenda and this achieves policy compliance.

I didn't pick up actually, I should have done but I didn't pick up.

So in the bottom, on the eastern side of the site,

and the bottom half, there were three substantial trees.

You may recall one was cut down, another was poisoned,

but apparently not successfully.

I noticed the other day it's got green.

It seems to be doing okay.

And those two were given a TPO, I think,

or two TPOs to be precise.

Is that allowed for in any way, or is it just so completely outside of where the construction

was going, it's not mentioned, do you know?

I do know.

The proposal includes the remodelling of the, or certainly the upgrade of the existing car

park, which is pretty much just tamped concrete, so it's not particularly attractive.

But the car parking space is an additional landscaping.

The retention of those two trees, as you look at the side, they're on the east, aren't they?

So they retained an additional planting

and landscaping is also proposed

with much better surface treatments.

So the whole thing is a marked improvement

over what you see at the moment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, with those comments and queries,

people happy to accept the recommendation to approve?

Agreed, agreed unanimously.

And so we move on to Mead Bank,

which probably doesn't need much introduction.

We have a presentation from Mr. Sperling on this,

and so I can get out the way and people can see it,

we will move and hand over to Mr. Sperling.

If you'd like to introduce yourself, Mr. Sperling.

Hello, good evening.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is John Sperling.

I'm the Senior Planning Officer in the East Area team.

I'm going to present this application,

item three at Meatbank Nursing Home,

12 Park Gate Road, SW 11 4NN.

Okay, it's not changing screen.

Oh, there we go.

So the site is bordered by Park Gate Road to the north,

Battersea Bridge Road to the west,

and the Ethelburger Estate,

accessible via sales closed to the south and east.

The existing site is vacant and historically used

as a care home, providing residential dementia

and nursing care for the elderly,

totaling 176 bed spaces.

The facility is currently unoccupied and depending on the outcome of this application before members this evening

The current arrangement provides for pedestrian and vehicular access from Park Gate Road Park Gate Road to the north

Whilst the East a dedicated service area is provided and accessible by itself close

The site is not locally nor statutorily listed nor within a conservation area

Westbridge Road Conservation Area is located

approximately 20 metres west of the sites, just here.

This application seeks to demolish the existing buildings

to provide replacement care accommodation.

Use class C2 within a part four, five,

and seven storey building, plus basement level

with associated communal, wellness, and auxiliary facilities,

hard and soft landscaping, and associated car parking.

also servicing cycle parking substation and plant equipment.

The main body of the existing site is four storeys

with a part single two storey elements

to the eastern part of the site.

Just over here.

To the south of the site is a seven storey block of flats

which is part of the Ethelberger Estates.

And to the east, the two storey residential properties

along Sales Close.

To the west, on the opposite side of Battersea Bridge Road,

is a six storey block of flats called Musgrave Court.

To the northwest, along Park Gate Road,

are two to three storey terraced properties

with commercial ground floor and residential upper floors.

The proposal, sorry, to the east of these properties,

across Radstock Streets, is a part four

and eight storey contemporary Royal College of Arts

Roising Research and Innovation Building, just here.

This proposal was submitted in response to recent feedback

from the CQC, the Care Quality Commission,

who confirmed that the existing care home

would not meet current or future CQC requirements

for securing a new registration.

This is due to 80 % of the existing bedrooms

not having a full wet facility.

There is also insufficient communal space

for dining, recreation, and social activities.

For example, the existing average provision

is 3 .5 square metres per resident,

whilst the existing standard, sorry,

whilst the minimum standard is 4 .1 square metres

per resident.

As such, the proposal seeks to replace

the existing non -compliant CQC accommodation

with a modernised care village in a sustainable urban

setting whilst achieving a high standard

of sustainable design and architecture.

The care home use class U2 would be retained.

The built form is centred around a partial courtyard design with the main access being

from Park Gate Road.

The existing neighbouring properties at numbers 59 to 65 Battersea Bridge Road would neighbour

it as well as number 4, 6 and 8 Prince Albert Mews, so they neighbour the property.

The seventh storey element of the scheme would front Battersea Bridge Road and step down

to four storeys as the development moves eastward.

These images show existing and proposed views of the sites facing north along Battersea

Bridge Road.

The ground, first and second floor levels will be set on the boundary edge near the

public pavement with recessed balconies included at first and second floor levels.

From third floor level and upwards to the seventh storey, the main frontage will be set

back relative to the lower floor levels

to break up the massing along this elevation.

Wrap around balconies are included on the southwest corner

from fourth to sixth floor levels.

The breakup in massing is highlighted

by the change in materials,

which would be highlighted by condition

in the event of approval by members.

These images show existing proposed views

along Battersea Bridge Road, again,

facing a southeast direction,

which is the opposite view from the slides

we just saw previously.

Larger private balconies are proposed

at fifth and sixth floor levels.

Both terraces will expand across the width

of the respective flank wall.

The fifth floor terrace will project four metres deep

and the sixth floor terrace would project 2 .6 metres deep.

This elevation articulates a flat roof design.

The proposal would bring the built form in line

with neighbouring properties which would activate

the frontage at ground floor level,

albeit without entrances.

These images show existing and proposed views

of the sites from Park Gate Road facing south.

This section will comprise a mansard roof design

with dormer windows to lessen the visual impact

to the massing on this element of the proposal.

Landscaping and planting and associated boundary walls

with railings will be located on the pavement edge

along Park Gate Road.

This courtyard has been designed to be welcoming and a foliated space by providing a rain garden

and seating area accessible from the cafe and high quality landscaping including replacement

semi -mature trees.

Several private terraces to the units on the upper floor levels face the internal courtyard.

The proposal has an urban greening factor of 0 .42 which exceeds the minimum requirement

of 0 .4.

Within the courtyard, there are three proposed reception entrances, one for the care lobby

for the dementia care wing, which is this section here.

The two others within the element of the building, fronting Battersea Bridge Road, would serve

as the lobby reception space for the cafe bar area and the other leading directly to

lifts and stairs to access the upper floor levels.

In terms of the design, this aspect was assessed

in section two of the report.

As a summary, the site is situated

within a tall building zone.

The proposal achieves compliance with a maximum storey height

for this tall building zone of seven storeys.

The proposed care facility requires

additional ceiling heights to accommodate heating

and cooling and specialist equipment,

which is needed in order to provide the care required

by the applicant and the CQC.

Also, the increased height at ground level

on the Battersea Bridge Road frontage

creates a more cohesive continuation

of a more commercial aesthetic

within the immediately adjacent buildings.

A low level of less than substantial harm

has been identified to the setting

of the West Bridge Conservation Area,

which has been balanced against the public benefits

of the proposal.

All other heritage assets would remain unaffected.

As set out in the report, officers considered

that the proposal would not harm the local character

of the area in townscape terms,

as it sits in a transitional area

between Battersea Residential and Battersea Riverside.

It is considered that overall, the scale, massing,

and appearance of the development

would provide a good quality, sustainable design

and layout that would positively relate

to the prevailing local character

where other tall buildings are present

or within the development pipeline.

The overall domestic carbon saving is 68%,

and the non -domestic is 20%.

In terms of neighbouring amenity,

this comprehensive assessment can be found

in section three of the committee report.

In terms of daylight and sunlight,

the three associated tests,

Namely, vertical sky component, no skyline,

and annual probable sunlight hours

show that the losses have been identified

to number four, six, and eight Prince Albert Meuse,

as well as 11 Park Gate Road and James Sells Lodge.

These impacts have been found to fall

within acceptable parameters to offices

given the acceptable massing of the proposal

and the historic proximity, height,

and configuration of neighbouring properties.

With regards to privacy, outlook, sense of enclosure,

noise and disturbance, the impact would fall

within acceptable parameters subject to conditions.

In terms of the quality of the accommodation,

given the proposal is not a Class C -3 residential scheme,

the requirements of LP -27, which is the housing standards

in the local plan, do not directly apply.

However, policy LP -31 and section B -2

of the local plan partial review applies to proposals

for the development of specialist and supported housing

and states that there must be a high quality

and must meet best practise guidance

for this type of accommodation,

which is the CQC in this instance.

In this regard, the proposal would provide

an acceptable standard of accommodation

by reason of the proposed mix,

internal space standards, internal daylight and sunlight,

outlook, privacy and overlooking, sorry,

privacy and overlooking, and a means of space provision

which is considered acceptable to officers.

The future occupies will be supported by wellness

and communal spaces and auxiliary staff facilities

throughout the development.

This is aimed to foster interaction

and support emotional well -being of residents.

This includes a lounge of dining spaces,

auxiliary cafe and bar spaces, hobbies and craft rooms,

private dining room at ground level,

restaurant, communal dining spaces,

and at basement level will include a swimming pool,

gym, fitness studio, spa facilities,

hair, nail, and beauty salon,

male and female changing rooms,

therapy and treatment rooms,

and lastly, therapy and treatment rooms.

Clinical room and scooter station

is situated at ground level,

and there are consultation rooms

situated across the site.

The corridors at ground and first floor levels

have been designed in a form that supports

recognised dementia design principles,

prioritising clarity, legibility,

and ease of movement for occupants and staff.

The proposal would provide four kinds of care units,

including dementia care at ground floor,

nursing care at first floor,

reablement, which includes short

and long -term rehabilitation, also at first floor.

And lastly, domiciliary care,

also referred to as care suites in the report,

at first and sixth floor levels.

The dementia care units will be single occupancy,

include a bathroom and a desk.

16 units are provided in total,

but which two will be suitable for bariatric use.

The nursing bed units will also be single occupancy,

include a bathroom and a desk.

Both dementia units and nursing bed units

will be for occupiers who require specialist 24 -hour care

and support in short and long -term scenarios.

The reablement units would include a bathroom,

living room, and have single or double occupancy options,

as well as a bathroom and a living room.

These units would have the same level of 24 hour care

and support as the dementia and nursing units,

but be more provisioned for independent living.

However, additional support would be essential

due to the absence of kitchen facilities to prepare food.

The dementia, nursing, and reablement units

would be registered, reported on,

and inspected by the CQC.

And lastly, the care units would include

single or double occupancy options,

but include a living room, bathrooms,

and kitchen facilities for semi -dependent residents,

which includes 24 -hour care and support

provided on -site by an in -house team of specialists.

These units are designed for couples

where one or both partners require assistance

with their mobility or personal care needs.

Accommodation within these units would be available

on a leasehold or rental agreement.

Care services into the care suites are provided

by an onsite 24 hour operator managed care team

who are registered and inspected by the CQC.

All rooms have been designed to maximise

natural daylight and outlook,

while ventilation and heating would be individually

controlled for future occupiers' individual comfort.

At fourth floor level, a communal roof terrace

is proposed to offer a multi -functional space

with sensory planting, pergolas, and a terrace bar.

An adjacent hard -standing area would also be provided

in order to maintain year -round access

to the terrace space and flexibility of activities.

Sorry, apologies, the terrace space is in this slide here.

With regards to affordable housing,

Officers are satisfied that all units of the development,

namely the care bedrooms and the extra care suites,

meet the attributes of a care home accommodation

as defined by the London Plan.

Paragraph 4 .13 .4 of the London Plan

makes it clear that policy H13

does not apply to care home accommodation.

As such, no affordable housing provision

is required for this scheme.

Officers are satisfied that the correct controls

are in place through section 106 agreement

to ensure that the operation of the scheme

would not trigger affordable housing requirements.

With regards to the trees impact,

the scheme would result in the loss

of two existing TPO specimens,

including a T3 Norway maple and T4 silver birch,

with a degree of pruning proposed to T7, the cedar.

This does not comply with the British standards,

nor the LP 56 are the ones worth local plan.

To address this area of non -compliance,

the scheme has been amended to provide

28 new trees on site.

Given the loss of the two existing TPO trees,

planting has been provided adjacent to Park Gate Road

to reinstate the lost contribution to local amenity.

This includes two red maple semi -mature trees

to a height of six to 6 .5 metres

with a girth of 30 to 35 centimetres.

One red maple is also located in the Dementia Garden,

which is also semi -mature.

Two beech trees, also semi -mature,

are proposed to a height of six to 6 .5 metres.

This would be adjacent to the Dementia Care Garden

and the T7 and T8 trees, which are here.

Three sweetgum semi -mature trees are proposed here,

to a height of six to 6 .5 metres,

and one Himalayan birch tree

to a height of six or seven metres tall

will be located more within the courtyard area.

Given the uplift in planting along Park Gate Road

and the total tree provision across the site,

no further objections were raised by officers

in this matter,

subject to compliance with recommended conditions.

Subject to these conditions and more,

officers view that these elements of the proposal

are acceptable.

And lastly, Chair, on this basis,

we're recommending the application for approval,

subject to conditions and Section 106 legal agreement,

and the application is still liable.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spalding, for that very comprehensive summary.

So many issues there.

There's issues of affordability of lights and lighting and scale and

how it fits with the general environment.

So many, many issues, but I know Councillor Ayres wants to make a particular comment anyway.

Councillor Ayres.

I read the design review panel's report, two of them, and I agreed with some of them but not others.

The design review thought that the massing didn't work, that the stepping back didn't work,

and the horizontal change of colours didn't work.

Well, I think they all work rather well myself.

I think it's quite a sophisticated looking building.

Although I would recommend that the finished colours of the bricks are a little less dark

and a little less cool, I mean along Seales Road, the colours of those bricks would be

quite oppressive I think.

So if they were lighter and warmer it might help it.

There are many things to like about this scheme.

I think it's fantastic it's got a swimming pool.

I know it looks a bit strange to have a swimming pool,

but I think it's fantastic.

And I think the basement facilities are very good.

But I do question the length of your arrival point in the basement to reception.

I don't see the point of it.

Why is it not right by the arrival point?

My overall feeling is that it's aiming to be a village.

It does not look like a village.

It doesn't. It looks like a bit of a lumpen urban design.

I mean, I think it's quite good urban design, but it's not a village.

And I think some of this is a serious missed opportunity

in the design of the corridors, not the lower corridors,

but the upper corridors, where you've got door after door after door.

No daylight.

It's very institutional. It's missed an opportunity to make those corridors casual

conversation meeting spots, minor meeting spots. And my other, my is it's very technical,

this is sounding kind of sound terribly boring. It's going back to waste management and parking,

But I don't know how many of you had the time to look at the swept path analysis drawings,

but there are five or six of them beautifully done, all different colours.

And it seems to be trying to prove that it's all all right.

But if you actually read the small print, it said that there are four or five different

vehicles, the fire tenders, box vans, DB32 refuse, whatever that is, which have to do

three point turns to get in and out. And that's all overlooking Seals Road, right off Seals

Road, which is the most threatened, I think, of the areas that we're looking at, the neighbouring

areas. And the other point about that is that all this manoeuvring is going to be by the

only parking, which is for disabled parking, seven spaces.

Is seven spaces enough, really, for all these people?

What about visitors?

I mean, even if you only need seven people,

seven spaces for the occupants,

there are going to be people that visit

that need to come by car.

And I don't even see a drop -off point,

there's a drop -off point, I suppose, if you're in a taxi,

but what do you do with your car if you're not a taxi?

So, I think this is a very valuable building.

It matters to the area.

What it provides is very good.

But it could have been so much better

and it's not a village.

I will, however, support it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, that raises a lot of questions.

I'd like to make sure that we keep to a certain structure.

I've got a number of issues.

I know that Councillor Worrell wants to discuss transport and construction issues.

So if we can keep on those kind of issues to begin with, Councillor Worrell.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Worrell, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.

I have major concern around the building and the timing of this building in relation to what else is happening in the area.

We've already agreed, I think, Howie Street, we've agreed within Westwood.

We've also agreed to run some stock now.

And now we're possibly agreeing this one.

In terms of the pressure in the area, in terms of building works that are actually taking

place, deliveries actually taking place, the environmental impact on people, the dust and

the noise, etc.

I'm just wondering, and I'd be interested in what the officers say, around the timings

all these taking place all at once, or in some of the time span, and the impact on the quality of life of people actually live in that area.

And how that such could be timetabled.

And in addition then, the knock on effect on the local transport routes.

The other thing in terms of picking up on that as well is, Councillor Ayers did bring up the issue of parking.

I have a member of the family actually in a residential home at the moment with dementia.

So I spend a lot of time visiting them.

And I agree with Councillor Erses that there is not enough car parking here for visitors,

never mind the amount of staff that actually present.

Care homes and this village are labour intensive.

And I cannot see here how that actually allows for people who want to visit and also for staff to actually come here.

The pressure on the local bus routes, and the bus routes are already under a lot of pressure.

I used to use the busses along there a lot,

and I cannot see how the added impact of this

will actually be compensated by the actual busses

in the particular area.

So those are the two issues that I want to bring up

at this stage, and it would be useful to see here

with the officers a few points on those.

If it helps people, funnily enough,

the map associated with the previous application,

map on page 14, I think, page 15,

which shows the application that we've just considered.

The blank space above it has just started construction.

The space on the other side of the road from that

is where the Vivian Westwood construction

is going to go on very shortly.

And at the bottom of the page

is the site we're just talking about.

So we've got four major construction sites

that all could happen at the same time.

Mr. Tiddley, this looks like an interesting one for you,

and construction management and transport,

traffic, parking, all kinds of things.

Thank you, Chair.

David Tiddley, the head of transport strategy.

If I pick up the construction management issue first.

So yes, I mean, in fact, there's been a lot of development

there for probably the last 20 years I think ever since I've been here there's

been the college and the Fosters building and lots of things going on up

there and this is another one as you as you as you rightly say now the

development is there is a condition unsurprisingly a base the need for a

construction management to be sent to the council and approved prior to prior

that would be expected to include details of construction routine,

the types of vehicles that would be used, the numbers of vehicles and the timing of them.

And that plan would then be subject to assessment, not just by my colleagues,

but also colleagues within the highways teams and with transport for London.

Particularly what's called the network management side of those organisations,

which is about trying to ensure that the highway network is able to operate with multiple things happening.

And if that requires things to be reordered and re -changed and reallocated accordingly, then that is what will need to be done.

So for example, on things like making roads one way or parking suspensions and things like that,

there's a limit to how much an area is able to accommodate those sorts of things.

We're well aware of that and the development would need to accommodate any needs of any needs or

Constraints that we wish to put on it as part of that scheme. So hopefully that's that's covered

in terms of transport more generally I

Think it's it is the case that of course at the previous established use was a care home with I think

176 beds and this is effectively a smaller number of beds.

So I think we have to start with the position that there was a previous

development here that actually had potentially more people and had no actual,

as far as I'm aware, relatively limited conditions on how it could be serviced and could be used.

So this does give us the opportunity to ensure that adequate conditions and

obligations are placed upon the developer to help try and

ensure that there is satisfactory and safe arrangements.

Now the numbers of beds here is reduced,

but the numbers of parking spaces is reduced pro rata even more,

because at the moment there was space for 14 vehicles and in this proposal there's seven.

That does it have an impact then on the way the transport assessment is being handled?

Although, again, as you mentioned, there is also a drop off,

sort of quick turning circle drop set down position as well.

Now the assessment effectively indicates that consequently,

people are almost forced to arrive by other means because there's limited parking on site.

There's a red route on one side.

There's a housing road on another side.

It would be, and the assessment effectively takes account

of that and notes also the measures within the travel plan

that will seek to ensure that people arrive

by more sustainable transport forms.

And in fact, the assessment indicates that public transport

and walking generally would take the brunt

of most of the demand.

All that said,

There's also two other conditions here.

One's a car parking management condition and one's a servicing and delivery condition.

Try and ensure that those, again, satisfactory management is maintained.

And I think that what's not particularly explicit here is given the size of this development,

we clearly wouldn't expect anybody who was living in here or

anybody working here to be able to apply for parking permits outside the site.

Partly because there's a red route one side and there's a housing managed road the other side.

So effectively, I think we are broadly satisfied.

And the final thing I'll probably just say is that we are now within planning policy terms,

we are in a sort of vision -led approach to transport.

and transport is now effectively,

we are looking at what's policy compliant

and we are led by maximum parking standards,

a vision led approach,

rather than the old sort of prescriptive standards

and predict and provide type things.

And then finally, the MPPF does generally say,

you know, we should only be looking to refuse development

and transport grounds where we think the impacts are severe.

And then finally, I think getting back to the issue of the sweat path analysis, again,

that would be dealt with by the servicing and delivery plan to make sure that the numbers

of times that that happens is suitably managed.

And having looked at the sort of incidents, casualties and other sort of conflicts in the area,

again, we're relatively confident that we can make it work.

Thank you.

Anyone to pursue that point?

Yes, please.

Just to clarify then, in terms of the management plan that you talked about in your first answer,

we've got four different developments with our own management plans.

I then make the assumption that all four plans will be linked in order to make sure that

they, because this is a very small area in terms of the area, and that they will be linked

with each other and actually the impact of one against the other will be actually looked

That would be my first question.

The other one, the second question is,

I understand your assessments in terms of the parking.

Two issues that arise though is that,

yes, the number of beds are reduced,

but the type of role of the village changes slightly.

So there could be increase in actually visitors

actually coming there.

The staff ratio in terms of dementia care

is something that you need to consider.

We already have an issue of people using

the parking spaces on the Surrey Lane Estates,

then to park there and to come across.

So how would that actually be managed?

Because by restricting the parking in one area,

and I understand your argument about trying to force people

onto other forms of transport,

and there's distinct value in that,

is that inadvertently you push people then

across onto the Surrey Lane Estates area,

and then we have then a parking management issue

in terms of the residents that actually live there.

So it's the linkage between all those three that interests me.

Yeah, so the only thing I would probably add is that that would be addressed by anybody visiting this site,

being unable to seek a permit for that area.

Obviously, you could probably park on a metre and pay for a metered parking like any other visitor could.

But the eligibility for access to parking permits would protect the existing amenity of permit holders in the surrounding areas.

When you say Surrey Lane, I mean, Ethelburger State is at least as close, closer perhaps.

Same applies, same argument applies, isn't it?

If you just, Councillor Ayers wanted to come back, but sorry I do.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Did I understand you right that the trucks and things which have to do three -point turns,

Will they be banned from the site?

Okay, well then my next point is about the staff thing.

Because surely many of the staff will be people

like district nurses as well as the full -time staff.

They'll be visiting medical people.

They're gonna need car parking spaces, surely.

Not people who come there and stay there all day,

but people who come for a morning's clinic, say.

I mean I just I I suspect the parking is going to be a nightmare in that tight little border

where Seales Road is, they're all backing to and fro and there's all these people fighting

to get into the car park.

I'm not happy with the car parking and the traffic, sorry.

Do you want to come back on that Mr Sedley or?

I don't think that's your view Councillor.

Okay fine. Councillor Govindia and then Councillor Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair. I'm just sticking to the transport aspect of the discussion for the moment.

So we're going to have visitors and we've agreed, well we've talked about it, the visitor parking is limited

and the P -Tel rating of the area is pretty poor as well.

And so has the applicant told us what is their expectation of visiting numbers?

And in terms of their responsibility towards their clients, have they sort of talked about how they would accommodate their clients, loved ones, visiting them?

Because presumably in a normal people's home, having a loved one visit you is part of quality of life.

and to make it easier and attractive for them is something that the applicant should have

taken some responsibility for.

So is that reflected in their application?

I don't see it, but in case I missed it.

The second group of people who will need transport are the staff.

And I, you know, again, Councillor Orell talked about

sort of the financial care needing more staff

than standard care.

And also shift work and 24 seven kind of cover,

visiting professionals and all of that.

And what's the traffic arrangement, transport arrangement,

parking arrangements and facilitation for being able

to come and go as they need to reflected

in the applicant's thinking.

And then the servicing side, and as I read the papers,

almost all the servicing is through the sales clause.

Quite a narrow road from what I've seen on the maps.

I mean, perhaps if you could help us see.

Standard council style of the road.

Yeah, but it's an estate road rather than a highway road.

And therefore quite tight,

and quite tight with properties almost on each side,

and therefore the volume and the scale of servicing could be a bit of a nuisance to the immediate occupants.

So again, it's a concern.

And then on the issue of construction traffic and so on, unfortunately, and perhaps planners could help us there,

Presumably, we are stuck where each one is merit, so we can't really deny this because

there are three adjoining sites under development.

So I just want clarity on that, that we can't penalise this applicant because others have

come before it.

But nonetheless, that puts us in a dilemma to how much this area can be loaded with both

disturbance and traffic mayhem.

Can I just interrupt, Councillor Givens, I think it's absolutely the case we can't discriminate against this one as opposed to the others.

I think the question was asked just to put Mr. Tiddly on the warning that he could have a problem timing all these developments and the results of the developments.

I'm just absolutely right and that's exactly what I'm seeing in a sense.

So in terms of agreeing a kind of construction development plan with them, how much input

has TFL made it because of the critical road there and what account is being taken of the

kind of the capacities of the bridges and where is the spoil going because that will

determine where the transfer was going.

All of those questions in my head sort of says,

well, nightmares ahead, really, or am I exaggerating?

I'm wondering, would Mr. Sperling and Mr. Grainger

are chatting to each other?

The one of you who's coming in,

or is it back to Mr. Tiddley?

Well, I'll just quickly clarify.

We've, as part of this, due to the proximity

of Battersea Bridge Road being transported

and the road network, we approached TFL's

special planning team and they came back

with no objections, so they don't think

that the actual end use and they were aware

of the construction phase was a particular issue.

And you're right, Councillor and Chair,

that certainly it's established law that we can't,

We can't regard granting or considering an application for permission in terms of its

cumulative impacts at construction phase.

That is simply something that we would be making a big error on if that was to be considered.

Council Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair.

I don't think I've said it yet, have I?

I think particularly the angle that I'm concerned about is the delivery aspect because as we've

heard from the presentation, this isn't just a home, there's all sorts of things going

on and it's part of the offer, isn't it?

All sorts of other activities and facilities and specialists coming in and all sorts of

stuff so that the impact of all that extra material that needs to come in, whether it's

or whatever or other people coming in.

As just the logistics of the delivery scheme

on that little road, I have concerns about it

if it all happens to coincide at a similar time.

I just had one specific question

about the general parking quantum.

Obviously, if this was just a purely residential scheme,

we see them all the time at this committee

with big, big schemes coming in for approval

that have been approved with no parking at all.

In fact, maybe one or two car club spaces or disabled spaces.

I think we had a big discussion about a very big scheme at Gasworks not that long ago where

there was a very, very small amount of parking for such a very, very big scheme.

So I just wanted to ask, does the category of a care home get any extra dispensation

from the planning laws about the ability to have any more spaces?

Because if it were purely just a residential scheme, it would be perfectly acceptable to

have it with no parking.

Any technical answer on that?

Yes, so as you correctly say, Councillor, residential development effectively is, because

it has maximum parking standards, is increasingly coming at zero or very low.

There is no specific standard for care homes, as I understand, so it's rather on its merits.

Just quickly interject as well, please, on servicing and other matters, is that the proposal,

we are in a London and we have a principle of private car vehicle restraint for residential

and across other methods and people getting to work and not expecting to be able to park

a car at work.

There's no difference between this in the practical sense and the actual application

of policy in terms of a member of staff accessing this facility as a job of work and not expecting

to be able to park within the red line curtilage of the site.

But there is travel plan, and this is the same with potential higher volume visiting

establishments like such as schools, where there is obviously a very big part of the

organisation that runs the end use of the proposal

to educate the people up front,

make sure that they understand before they take on a unit

what the parking restraints and the,

if somebody considers it's a challenge that

people who want to visit them won't be able to park,

then they would have to not choose to take on a unit

within that space.

So the educate and people, you know,

the way that travel plans work is very specific

between the employers and the end users

and what their expectations are

and how that is delivered and articulated

on a constant updated format to everybody to know,

to educate them that there are constraints with parking.

There's the other side of the equation, of course,

is that this is a facility for people,

particularly for people suffering

a particularly unpleasant disease.

which a certain proportion of us all will have.

And to solve all the problems of parking, et cetera,

we could park them all somewhere in the countryside in Surrey

so all their loved ones would have to travel a lot further,

and there'd be all sorts of other access problems.

It is of big value to have a service of this kind in London.

As soon as you get it in London,

you're faced with the planning constraints

that exist in inner London.

I think we have to take those factors into account as well.

Chancellor Givindya.

Claire, I mean, this is about sales close.

Presumably it is a housing estate road

and not a public highway.

And presumably, the applicant would need consent

from the housing director for using estate road.

road for accessing this development and so on. Is that the case and if that if so

has such an agreement or understanding being reached?

It's an existing access that's been used for X number of years and

the establishment would be okay painted all right any other any other questions

any other queries yeah Oh counsellor yes all right but I was a general science

gone counsellor I think in the introduction I mean like yes in terms of

In planning terms, the height is within the kind of guidance.

Planning indicates the height in the area

is within that tolerance.

But it's the way in which the development fills the site,

which is what is the concern, both from the residents

and also looking at the plan.

It almost completely fills the site,

if that's basically what's happening.

Building right up to the edge and creating an Apart Gate

particularly, quite a canyon effect given what's on the northern side of Park Gate Road.

And that is a concern in the sense of the volume rather than the height is causing a bit of concern

which then leads to some of the loss of trees and the pruning of a rather fine cedar which I

guess you have to prune and it may not survive as well although it's not settled or it might look

like not a cedar after it's had a prune.

So that's a potential risk as well.

I mean, I am concerned that once the facility is desirable

and necessary, and we are all going to need that help.

And then of course, it is right that people

who age in SSI in the community live in that community

and continue to live in that community.

We saw that's agreed and all that is fine,

but it's just about the impact of the development

on the neighbourhood and the way in which

the neighbourhood can cope with it.

And that's where I think the site is over -ambitious

in terms of the way it fills up the entirety of the site

and presses itself hard against its neighbours.

Thank you, Chair. I was actually going to say something slightly similar to what Councillor

Green has just said, that the proposal itself I have no doubt will be an admirable place

to live for people with needs and all that kind of stuff, but part of our job here as

the planning committee is to balance those needs of the applicants and the business and

of future residents of that facility with the immunity and the impact on the neighbours

around and the surrounding areas and all the rest of it.

And that's where I think this neighbour has got slightly out of kilter with – I have

no doubt that the facility itself will be excellent.

It sounds great.

I'll keep an eye on it myself in not that many years' time, perhaps.

But I do think there is an impact on neighbouring residents and the place generally.

A specific question came up in the consultation objection comments, and I've seen it before,

but it was on this one as well, about a lack of consultation as far as for this specific

application.

Yet on, what is it, page 133, 14 .7, it lists the steps that the applicant has made to do

that statement of interaction with consultation.

I just wonder that those two things as they stand stand in stark opposition to each other

so I just want to give us a little clue as to how that balances out because it seems like from the

Responses we've had from residents and neighbours. They don't seem very impressed with the consultation, but officers seem to think what was done was

Adequate could we just square the circle on that one perhaps to start off with?

Any come here council great mr. Granger I

I think with the best will in the world, and we've all been around, you know, for a long

time doing this, I don't think, I think there will always be one person or a set of people

that will criticise the scope and nature and degree of a consultation, whether it be pre -application

done by the applicant themselves or the statutory process that's conducted by the council.

there's always an expectation for us,

particularly to cast a wider net.

But in looking at what we considered

to be a logical consultation area

that was centred by the application site

and not just spinning off in random directions

in order to get a degree of coherency,

I think that 682 addresses is pretty good,

pretty good considering that the Royal College of Art would get one letter.

So, you know, there are a lot of addresses in there and a lot of organisations and obviously

there's blocks as well. So, yeah, certainly what the applicant did behind the scenes is

within parameters and we've obviously fulfilled our duty as well.

I should put that a little bit stronger, I think.

I think that since I've been here,

it's quite a long time,

there is of course no laid down legislative format

of what consultation should be

and how much should accept that there should be consultation.

I would say that the amount I've seen

from the applicants here in terms of consultation meetings

is greater than most I've seen.

So I think you could hardly accuse them on that fault.

May not be sufficient for many of the public, but greater than most, I would say.

That's reassuring to hear, and thank you for that.

As we know, it's not always the case, you know, because you say it isn't prescriptive,

so what one applicant thinks is acceptable isn't necessarily what another one does.

So that's somewhat reassuring.

Thank you, gentlemen, both, for that.

Could I move on somewhere else?

Indeed.

Thank you.

Shall we get down to a bit more of the number of the impact on the neighbouring buildings?

I think it's particularly James Earl Lodge, isn't it, that has a big impact, the BRE guidance

on page 100 on that one, it says it's a significant impact, daylight, sunlight and all the rest

of it.

Obviously, as we heard in the introduction, there's perhaps not quite a severe but also

severe impact on some of the other smaller surrounding properties.

So, officers obviously in there, summing up, think that's acceptable, but forgive me, I

can't remember exactly which page it is.

Maybe it's in 3 .6 or 365.

The sort of justification in layman's terms, shall we say, is sort of, well, that's a smaller

building.

It might get developed in the future.

It's kind of like it's their fault that they're going to be impacted, which I'm sure that's

not how it was meant to come across, but it's kind of how it reads on paper.

And you can understand residents concerns that they're going to have a significant impact

It's described in the report as having a significant impact on their

Daylight sunlight just one of our officers are completely happy with that on those specific examples

Yes, thanks yet, yeah, we we

We are

given the

circumstances of the sites and the nature of the separate the existing separation distances and the open aspect

It's unusual the relationship the physical relationship with the proposal that steps down to four storeys

so the reason why the

Highest points of this proposal is is on the western side of the site on the pavement edge on Battersea Bridge Road

Is because that's where it's it is tolerable and least impactful

especially in the context, in the urban

townscape context of Musgrave Court being

six, seven storeys and the Ethelberger

slab block behind being seven storeys,

so it makes total sense.

But policy LP4 and D9 does talk about

tapering away from sites, and this is,

in this instance, in townscape terms.

And also, the knock -on effects of that,

the corollary, if you will, of the urban

design principles also seeks to assuage the impact

on daylight, sunlight, and reducing the overall mass

towards the other sensitive users.

I'm trying to avoid saying receptors a lot

because I've had a lot of that recently,

but anyway, the human beings in the building.

But,

but having said that, because the piecemeal nature

of the elevation that faces James Searle's lodge,

and the piecemeal progression of that over years and years,

and it being single storey, then two storey,

then eventually go out further away.

There's a 20 metre separation distance

to the four storey element,

which in this location is very unusual,

and that degree of separation is rather generous.

So placing a new obstacle in a similar separation distance

at 20 metres away from that, but in a more coherent pattern

has had or would have an inevitable impact

on the received daylights at ground floor in VSC

in vertical sky component terms.

The NSL calculations have also been done.

They would be impacted, but the bedrooms,

the guidance tells us that they should be assessed,

but are less important, but certainly,

this is not something that is completely new

or distinct to this site and this proposal,

because the Randall Close proposal over,

literally to the west, there's a nursing home

next to Butler Court, which is the old

Battersea police station, and the blocks were placed

much closer, 17 metres closer at 567,

and storeys in height, and had in that instance,

because of orientation and other factors,

had a very similar impact to the occupiers

of that care facility.

So, you know, and that's each on its own merits,

but that arrangement has been found

to be acceptable before, and that was closer.

So this instance, we think that the,

by maintaining those separation distances,

it is a space, when you put a place in your obstacle,

there is an inevitable impact because of the open nature

of the environment, but we think that this is tolerable

and within acceptable premises.

If I could just come back on that.

I accept what you're saying, Mr. Grainger.

My point perhaps was more about the perception

of what's been said, and we sit around this table

and officers particularly are obviously much more aware

the nitty -gritty and the technicalities of these things, but for the residents being

impacted to be, I just wanted to say perhaps for their understanding of their listening

or watching the committee that on the one hand we're saying there's a significant impact

on their homes and on the other hand we're saying but it's okay then.

So it's just I don't want them to feel that they're being slighted by the fact, and it's

helpful for you, thank you for explaining the context so they understand that and they

don't feel that they're just being ignored and sidelined.

and it has been taken properly, as we should and as we do,

into account in the decision that we're making.

I would just interject there,

the Randall closed development, which I know pretty well,

do you know it?

I think it's worked very well in the circumstances.

So to make comparison with that is quite an interesting one.

Go on.

I had one other specific question,

which you can probably help me with.

So it fails on the greening factor for this, so there's some offset contributions, aren't

there, to the – and it doesn't say.

So I was just perhaps curious or interested to do – where will that offsetting be?

Because if it's in Northumberland, it's not really going to help any of the residents

in Wandsworth at all, is it, particularly?

I just wonder if there's any factor.

So if we do – no, just as a parallel, if we do an offsite contribution for affordable,

We know it's going to be somewhere else in the borough.

At least some residents in the borough will benefit from it.

But, you know, much as I love the folk in Northumberland, I'd much rather us get the

cleaner air than them.

So just until we've got any idea, can we specify that it could be in the borough?

Yeah, this has come up before, I think.

It does meet, you did mention, I think you mentioned the urban greening factor, which

it does actually meet at 0 .42, and 0 .4 is the standard.

in terms of its biodiversity net gain that we're talking about.

I mean, I think I skirted around this as an answer before with Mr. Colder eventually assisting,

but the way that this works is that there are companies,

this has generated a whole new industry in terms of creating these places that you can green

and that are flower meadows for at least 30 years and things like that at a cost,

but at least it's a flower meadow and not very, very low grade agricultural land or

something like that if it was in the first place.

But there isn't a facility I don't, I'm certainly not aware of that we can be locationally specific

on where those areas are at the moment.

Right.

I think it's important that we at least make our own view clear that if it's not a facility

an offset is offered, that the offset should be where it benefits our residents.

Now, they may not be able to provide it, but at least from what we want, we should be very

clear about what we want.

And I say that more so because the central government's thinking about the whole area

planning is that whether our, you know, environmental impediments to a planning application, then

there are ways of overcoming it by sort of levying a fee and that fee could be spent

anywhere. Now we just make our point clear now that if such things are going to be there

put into the system to encourage development, the offset fees should be used in Wandsworth

for the benefit of Wandsworth residents. The law may not allow it but at least what we

we want, we just need to be very firm and clear about it.

Well I think you're absolutely right on that,

absolutely right.

Mr. Calder, you got any comment?

Absolutely wrong about that, I'm afraid.

Yeah, it's a nationally prescribed standard,

so it can be anywhere in England, so I'm afraid.

As much as we'd like to, if we had sites we could put it in

and put those forward, then we would,

but you then neutralise that area.

So even trying to adapt, we were looking at ones

with common or some of the commons,

but you can't use common land,

so it has to be somewhere else,

so it ends up being private fields.

So it might be in Surrey, or it might be nearby,

but it could be in Northumberland,

for the benefit of all those geordies.

Just to pursue this, Chair.

I think that it's about actually,

I know what Mr. Calder just said, but it is about what is it that we as elected councillors

of this council want for our residents. And whilst that's what the government views, maybe

we should be saying, well, to make it very clear to our members of parliament that this

is our view and they should support our view.

I think we certainly should make it very clear to our political colleagues elsewhere that

This is not an acceptable situation.

I agree with that entirely.

Councillor Apps.

Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.

I actually, this is one of the points I wanted to come in on,

because what we'd actually like to have is zero carbon buildings,

passive buildings, and not have to offset.

But I do recognise, having visited care homes before,

that they are very intensive use buildings,

and so that might be difficult to achieve.

So my question for officers really was,

how does this 68 % carbon reduction

compare with other care homes?

Is this considered reasonable, or do we think,

are we wanting care homes to go further

in terms of their carbon reduction?

There's some very bad climate news

that's just coming through at the moment

about the impact of our global warming,

and the kind of likely long -term impacts

on all of our lives.

So I do think we need to take it seriously.

Thank you.

Any comment again?

How does this?

I guess it's to comparing with the last care home

that I think that came to committee

was the one up the road near the Huguenots burial ground.

And I have no reason to look at the,

I think that the carbon saving at 68 % would be much greater than what we achieved four

years ago or five years ago.

So that, by way of comparison, I don't think is a comparison.

But yeah, this also has a – because it's mixed between achieving a baseline carbon

saving and then offsetting the rest of that with a per tonne payment as a financial in lieu

payment that is spent on sustainability projects within the London Borough of Wandsworth.

It's ring -fenced.

Along with that is a BRIAM score, which is targeted towards more commercial functions,

but that has achieved a targeted rating of outstanding.

So this building really stacks up in terms of sustainability and is an environmental

benefit.

Yes, I think what I was hoping for was more regional and national comparators rather than

just within Wandsworth.

And I understand that's sometimes difficult to ascertain, but I think it would be good

if we could try and set the highest standards we can for our buildings and do make these

national comparisons.

Thank you.

I've got a feeling some of that is a little bit outside the realms, but there's very important

stuff.

I agree with that entirely.

Councillor Humphries.

Can I go off on a different tangent, just one last thing?

Thank you.

Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 15 April 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeWednesday, 15th April 2026 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 15th April 2026 at 7:30pm