Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 25 June 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 25th June 2026 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

.
Good evening, everyone.
Welcome to the first meeting of the Planning Applications Committee of this Administration,
and in particular welcome to new members on this committee, Councillor Acanola, Councillor
Craig, Councillor Barron and Councillor Wiles, who are at their first planning committee
meeting, and I hope they'll find the deliberations of interest.
Can I also welcome Ms Geegan, who is the head of planning now.
She's right at the end of the table there, and it's also her first planning applications
committee meeting.
So welcome.
I'm sure she'll find that we do business differently from other boroughs, but she'll soon fall
in line with our way of doing things.
I'm Ravi Govindia.
I'm Councillor for East Patani Ward and Chair of this committee.
I'll ask my colleagues to introduce themselves when they first speak.
I will ask the two people here to introduce themselves, and then the officers will introduce
themselves when they contribute to the discussions.
So...
Nick Calderon Good evening.
My name is Nick Calderon.
I'm the head of development management at Wandsworth.
Becky Hickey Good evening.
I'm Becky Hickey.
I'm the clerk for the meeting.
It's one of the things that my predecessors have always said, and I think it's a useful
reminder to everyone both familiar with this committee's deliberations but also members
of the public.
That we get the papers in advance, we prepare for the evening in great detail, and if you
feel that somebody hasn't spoken or somebody hasn't contributed, that is not because they
are uninterested, it's because they have actually done all their homework and they don't feel
there is further to add to it. So please bear with us as we won't go through the agenda.
Tonight is a particularly warm evening and I think that at some point I might do a short
deferral so that members can have a comfort break and a hydration break as this is becoming known.
Shall I move to the apologies first?
Thank you chair. So we have received apologies from Councillor Tiller. There are no other apologies.
Thank you. It's the apologies to Councillor Tiller noted and he has given a reason for it which I
think probably useful to reflect in the in the minutes. Minutes of the 15th of
April meeting I've seen them but Councillor Dalton you've seen them are
they agreed? Thank you. Declarations of interest are any
Councillor Cooper. Thank you chair. Councillor Cooper from the Fersdown ward and just a
declaration obviously because I also sit as the London Assembly Member for Merton and Wandsworth
and there's a bit of a crossover between planning issues here and planning issues there so just in
case anything comes up relating to the Greater London Authority, TfL or any other city hall
related matter I don't consider it to be a pecuniary interest but just for transparency purposes
just to have that recorded. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I mean I think it'd be useful to have it
recorded for now and for future meetings so that you don't have to repeat it every time.
So that might be a helpful way of proceeding.
I'm very grateful if we can proceed in that way.
I'm sure we can.
I'm sure we can find a way around that.
We're going on to applications paper, which is paper 26132.
I note that there is a group of residents who are in public gallery in respect to item
which is arch 79 and I am obviously going to start discussion on that but
before I do the council Belton. Tony Belton, Councillor Battersea Park Ward, in Battersea obviously.
Chair, we've only just about two minutes ago had the late items paper. I don't know what went
wrong normally of course we get them an hour or two beforehand. Now I'm not making a big fuss
about this. I know these things happen, but I would stress that if there's anything of
significance in these, we're relying on Mr Calder or other officers to point them out
because we've not had time to see them.
Thank you, Councillor Butler. I entirely agree. It could have been with you earlier, and I
think in the introduction and subsequent clarification from officers, they will pick up all relevant
matters to help us deliberate this evening. So, shall I in fact therefore start with Ms
Welcombe, whose first meeting it also is, to introduce the item.
Good evening, my name is Hayley Welcombe and I am a planning officer. The site in question
today –
I'm really sorry, because we've got the air con box making a lot of noise. If you
can practically swallow the microphone.
Otherwise, I for one won't be able to hear you.
Thank you.
The site comprises 194 square metre railway arch,
hereby referred to as Arch 79,
which forms a part of the viaduct
from Battersea Park Railway Station to London, Victoria.
The frontage of Arch 79 is set back
from the face of the arch,
creating an open area to the front of the premises,
which measures approximately 50 square metres.
The inside of the premises consists of an area
measuring approximately 145 square metres.
The site is located to the east of Battersea Park
and to the north of Queen's Circus roundabout.
It is bounded by further railway arches
to the north, south, and east.
To the west of the site, there's an unnamed access road
which joins onto Queen's Circus,
in addition to the bridge,
which is a 10 -storey building comprising commercial units
on the ground floor,
and residential apartments on the upper levels.
Further to the east is the former
Battersea gasholders' redevelopments.
The lawful use of the space within the arch is B2,
which is general industrial use.
However, the internal space has previously been used
as a fitness studio, class D2,
under a temporary planning permission.
This application seeks permission for a change of use
to class EB, which is food and drink,
which is mostly consumed on the premises,
class F2B, local community use,
and is a drinking establishment
with expanded food provision, sui generis uses.
It is part retrospective in that it seeks permission
for the retention of an aluminium framed glazed shopfront.
The planning statement sets out that it is proposed
that this space would be operated by a startup
social enterprise which aims to create third spaces
but the site operating as a multifunctional community asset.
During the weekdays, the site would be open as a cafe
and working hub and on the evening and weekends,
the venue would be used as a community centre,
Taproom and Kitchen, partnering with local independent
food vendors.
There's also proposed community use of the premises,
which would be used for fundraising and hosting events
for charities, as well as hosting weekly talk clubs.
The committee will be aware that a number of representations
have been received since the agenda was published,
including a legal note from Russell Cook, LLP,
which includes appendices of objection letters,
a peer review of the applicant's noise assessment,
which was prepared by Syntegra Consulting,
appeal decision and suggested conditions.
The late items include a response to these comments,
references to the officer report where appropriate
and comments from the Council's Environmental Health,
Noise and Nuisance Officer.
It is not considered that the comments raise any new issues
which would alter the officer recommendation
to approve the proposed development
for a temporary permission with conditions.
I would however like to take the opportunity
to clarify point 10 in the late items in respect of the consideration of antisocial behaviour.
Antisocial behaviour can amount to a material consideration, but generalised concerns or
unsubstantiated concerns over antisocial behaviour are not a material consideration.
Section 1 of the committee report, which can be found between pages 13 and 15 of the agenda,
sets out the planning policy context. The application site is located within the central
activity zone and policy LP 36 supports the use of railway arches within the
central activity zone for town centre uses, community uses and supports certain
sui generis uses as does policy PM 3 which encourages new cafes, restaurants
and drinking establishments which contribute to the placemaking and
creation of active frontages subject to the impact on adjacent uses. Officers
consider that in land use term the proposed uses are in accordance with
local plan policies subject to the inclusion
of mitigation measures to protect residential immunity
as discussed in section three, pages 16 to 19 of the agenda.
These measures would be secured by conditions.
Condition one, which relates to the temporary permission.
Condition three, opening hours.
Condition four, the management of the external seating area.
Condition eight, the treatment of fumes and odours.
Condition nine, operation and noise.
condition 12 external lighting and condition 13 which has been recommended
in the late items which relates to the noise management plan.
Thank you. Mr. Grainger, Mr. Calder do you want to add anything to that?
It's not really for Mr. Grainger so no I think Miss Wilkins covered it in
But if there's any further queries about the late items, happy to take any further ones.
You'll note that environmental services have reviewed the peer review, which in turn was
following on from the comments from the applicant.
And that's been well covered.
Can I first start with any questions of clarification of Ms. Wilkem or Mr. Calder?
Or indeed from our legal advisor who is not here, but is attending it remotely.
So points of clarification kind of only.
So I've noticed Councillor Belton, Councillor Sweet and then Councillor Leonie Cooper.
Thank you, Chair.
I think that there's quite a few points to be made, but in clarification,
treating your chairing very strictly, and just clarification,
I kind of missed what was said about condition 13.
As I said before, we haven't had these papers, and I'd be interested to know a bit more about that.
Also, and perhaps more significantly, I understand that this response
is to maybe a 50 page report,
maybe a 60 page report that I certainly haven't seen,
that the town hall received fairly recently.
So there's questions there of how well
you've covered all those responses
and what kind of reply are you going to make, if any,
to the objectors and the objectors consultant
about their particular report.
In 24 hours, I think you've had,
seems a tight time scale, especially for me,
who hasn't seen either the report or the response.
In response to your question about condition 13,
this condition, it was proposed to amend condition nine
to remove the reference to the noise management plan
and to add this condition.
and this was in response to environmental health comments
which were received following the legal note
from Russell Cook.
Condition 13 recommends that,
notwithstanding the approved details,
prior to the commencement of the years hereby approved,
a noise management plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the local planning authority.
This shall include details regarding the monitoring
and control of live and recorded music
and commit to the installation of a sound limiting device
to ensure that noise levels do not exceed
the specified maximum limits.
And it also requires that the development shall be carried out only in accordance with
the approved details and retained thereafter unless otherwise approved by the local planning
authority.
Yeah, if I can just say, yeah, as more of a general, yes, we received the Russell Cook
letter yesterday evening and that included the appendices with the peer review.
Subsequently, that went off to Mr. Moore's, the legal advisor, and also to our colleagues
in environmental services, and of course the case officer reviewed that.
So we have been through it in detail.
What I am probably slightly more concerned about is that you haven't had the opportunity
to read those in the late items.
I'm not sure the circumstances of the late items are rival.
Where is our legal representative?
Mr Mors, how welcome to meet you again.
He doesn't live in London, as you know, and was advised not to travel unless it was strictly
necessary and therefore he is joining us remotely.
Councillor Sweet.
Thank you, Chairman.
My question of clarification is around the difference of opinion about the noise,
the noise management plan and the noise reports.
I guess this is partly for residents benefit, but it does seem a bit confusing and
surprising that the council assessment and the residents commissioned assessment
have reached such different conclusions.
Would officers be able to just explain why that would be and
why we should accept the officer assessment
to be the correct assessment.
Comments from the council's environmental health
noise nuisance officer have been provided
in the late items, and they do note,
particularly referencing policy BS 4142,
the assessment of the seating area.
And they advise that they've been able
to identify where a predicted noise level of 57 decibels was presented within the noise
assessment.
They find that a paragraph within the applicant's submitted noise assessment refers to a figure
of 50, which is one decibel below the established background level and would therefore be expected
to result in no adverse impact on neighbouring residents.
Thank you, Chet. Yes, mine is also about the noise management plan and there's an awful
lot of commentary about noise and these two differing views. So the point of clarification
I seek is how did we get to the suggestion? It says application details and it says the
proposed opening hours are as follows.
Sunday to Thursday, 8 a .m. to 11 o 'clock,
and then Friday and Saturday 8 till midnight.
And that is then reflected in the recommendations
and then the conditions, and it says opening hours,
temporary use, and it uses the same hours.
And they do seem rather long,
particularly given the proximity to a lot of people
who've expressed fairly strong opinions about the potential for noise and nuisance.
And I just wanted some clarification about how do we get to 8 till 11 for Sunday to Thursday
and 8 till midnight for Friday and Saturday, because they do seem fairly lengthy hours
given the proximity to residential dwellings. Thank you.
With regards to the condition opening hours, these are less than would normally be accepted
for a borrower public house, but they have been reduced in response to comments received
by residents and these proposed hours have also been reviewed by the Council's noise
and nuisance officer.
Councillor Acunola, Councillor for Tooting Broadway, just a bit of clarification on that
question, that answer you've just given.
Are those hours, licenced hours, where they will be able to sell alcohol or are they just
opening hours?
The hours that would be secured by Condition 3 are separate to the licencing hours.
It is the understanding of offices that licencing was granted
earlier this year, which allowed for more extensive hours.
Let me With regards to the hours permitted for
the sale of, for the supply of alcohol by licencing,
these have been granted for noon until 11 PM,
Monday to Thursday from noon until 2 a .m. on Friday from 11 a .m. to 2 p .m.
sorry and apologies until 2 a .m. on Saturday and 11 a .m. until 11 p .m. on
Sunday so condition 3 does impose further restrictions on the hours that
were granted by licencing
There are no further matters of client, oh, Councillor Barron.
Sorry, just on a slightly different matter.
The application mentions...
Oh, sorry, yes, Councillor Barron, Wandle Ward.
Just on 4 .6 about the cycle parking spaces.
Obviously this is quite, the five cycle parking space is quite a lot less than
what is required in the London plan and it says rightly that it considers the
cycle higher options around the area to be significant. I know there are dock
dock spaces quite nearby but has there been any thought on the dockless bikes
that are used widely.
The proposed cycle details have been reviewed
by the Council's Transport Officer
who raised no objection to the number of spaces
that would be provided within the archway.
And in addition to this, there are measures set out
within the Transport Statement,
which is an approved document by condition,
where the applicant states that they would look
to engage operators to restrict them
the immediate access road.
Mr Tiddley, do you wish to add anything?
Yes, I'll add a little bit.
David Tiddley, the head of transport strategy.
So the site is, as has been mentioned, there are some cycle parking spaces proposed as
part of it and it does have a number of Santander docking stations relatively in close proximity.
As you also referenced the sort of e -bikes which are very common in the borough nowadays.
In terms of trying to manage that demand we've been adding and including adding and inserting
in dedicated parking bays for those bikes around the borough.
And there are then also places where if we think
that they cannot be adequately managed,
they can be sort of geofenced away from particular locations.
So a combination of provision of space for them
and technology is helping to manage that demand
and we'll move forward as well.
That's not really necessarily related to this planning,
but it's a sort of wider policy of the council.
I think there are no further clarification points, say, to move on to, in a sense, a
discussion of the item.
Councillor Belton followed by Councillor Sweet.
Well, there are some questions in it as well, but if I may, can I ask Mr Calder how often
we – you recommend applications to have a limited period approval?
It's very infrequent that we'll use temporary planning permissions.
It's more useful on a sort of temporary building where one's used than a use like this.
So would I be wrong to say that the fact that you've recommended, you collectively have recommended a limited period,
suggests a slight hesitancy on the officer's behalf,
a slight concern that actually a drinking establishment this close may get out of hand,
and that they want to be able to have a fall back in two years in case that's the case.
If some reason like that may be.
Well, I certainly wouldn't suggest that in case it gets out of hand, but
it's to assess the impacts of that location and the particular use.
Because it's been shown as being advertised as much a drinking establishment.
It's much more than that.
It's a community facility as well and has a variety of different activities.
Hence the early opening hours when there's not going to be drinking and things like that.
So it's a lot more than just drinking.
Sure.
Looking at this, certainly if you look at which page is it, page seven and eight, and
look at the objectives that the organisation has, it would be hard for any civically minded
counsellor to object.
There always seems to be good things, the kind of services we need.
But as a local resident, and it's clear local residents have their problems, have their
issues, a cynical local resident would say, and perhaps not so cynical, would say all
these good things, really at midnight, an application for a drinking establishment to
midnight sounds more like an ordinary pub and pretty uncontrollable.
So I think there's reasonable grounds for saying that the public have at least concerns.
What do we know about this establishment?
Have we, has actually, have they other operations that we can show and see and see that they're
completely as the words state, that's their intention.
Do we know anything about them?
I think we're moving into proposals which are outside.
We're giving permission for uses, which is a mixed use rather than an individual operator.
It's not a personal permission or anything like that.
Okay, it would be nice, though, if we didn't know that.
And I'm sure if we did, we would probably have said so.
But that's, because of this concern, which I think it's clear,
there must be some slight concern, you approved of yourself.
I just wonder whether we think a condition of opening till 12 o 'clock is the correct one.
I just think if we're going to give them, and we frankly are,
I hope that's what we're working towards, a two year test to see that the operation runs successfully in the way that they suggest.
Then that midnight is a bit late, a bit late for
if I was a local resident and maybe if you were a local resident.
So can we just bring that forward on Saturdays and Sundays?
I realise that that's a popular weekend time for
socialising, but that's not the main point of this establishment as I see it. It's almost
a recuperation, I'm not quite sure the correct words, but actually it isn't just for socialising.
So why don't we make it 2300 hours on the weekend as well?
Just intervene a little bit, Councillor Belton. I understand the point you're making, but
But I think, just to remind us of the point Mr. Calder made, essentially we are talking
about a land use application and the operator's methodology and purpose are outside our core
values or core responsibilities.
I understand the point you're making, but I just think that we ought to bear in mind
when we discuss this balance between what we need to do and what we would like to do.
Absolutely, and I think I would have said that in the last four years if I was in your position.
Nonetheless, it's not unreasonable to know what, we all take it into account, I'm sure.
I just wonder that perhaps we should limit the hours a little more.
I don't think it's too hard a penalty to have.
The hours are pretty extensive anyway.
And if someone's going to support me, I'd happily move that we make it 2300 hours on,
what is it, Friday and Saturday as well as during the rest of the week.
I'll come back to you on that.
In the meantime, I'll take Councillor Sweet, followed by Councillor Wilds and then Councillor
Worrall.
Thank you, Chairman.
One of the ward councillors for Battersea Park Ward, Councillor Davies, is unable to
attend this evening's meeting.
And with your permission, she's asked me to read out a few comments that she wanted to
make by way of deputation.
I just...
Just so that everyone is clear, it's not by way of a deputation because this committee
doesn't accept deputations, but it is her contribution that she would have made in person
if she had been able to attend.
So it's just that.
Thank you.
and I just clarify that these are not necessarily my views,
they're Councillor Davies' views.
I'll read as quickly as I can.
Dear Chair and committee members,
thank you for allowing this to be read.
I would have attended in person,
but I am required as a concurrent
Western Riverside Waste Association committee meeting.
I speak to represent residents of the bridge
and Chelsea Bridge Vista,
who strongly object to the planning application
under consideration.
Residents have raised numerous concerns
about significant deficiencies in the applicant's impact assessments and therefore in the adequacy
of the proposed mitigations.
Independent legal advice obtained by residents concludes that, quote, any decision taken
to grant planning permission would be unlawful based on the applicant's current information.
And that's the end of the quote.
Key issues.
One, noise, odour, and light impacts are inadequately assessed, contravening LP2, LP14, and LP45.
On noise, residents commissioned an independent specialist environmental noise consultant
to peer review the applicant's assessment.
Their conclusion is clear.
The submitted documentation should not be relied upon as evidence of acceptable acoustic
performance.
In other words, the assessment is incomplete and the proposed mitigations are insufficient.
Examples of omissions include failure to assess all noise sources such as waste collection
and deliveries, which will materially add to noise levels, and failure to assess cumulative
noise impacts, invalidating the conclusion that noise will not be harmful and undermining
the adequacy of the proposed mitigations.
Odour.
The applicant assumes that ventilation designed for a gym is suitable for a 250 -person food
and drink venue.
No assessment of odour impacts has been undertaken, and therefore no meaningful mitigation has
been proposed.
Two.
Harm to residential amenity and neighbourhood character, contravening LP2, LP14, and LP45.
Changing the use to a venue with a capacity of up to 247 people,
operating 15 to 16 hours a day, up to 365 days a year,
represents a fundamental shift in the character of this neighbourhood.
It would permanently alter the residential amenity of the area.
The proposed 8 PM outdoor curfew does not address
high decibel noise from live music and DJs escaping each time doors open, and
unlimited outdoor gatherings for queuing or smoking. Despite assumptions to the
contrary, the immediate area, including adjacent roads and alley, is currently a
quiet space. I have visited at multiple times and days and can confirm this.
Conclusion. In summary, this application fails to properly assess its impact on
residential amenity and fails to propose
sufficient mitigations for the risks it creates.
Residents, therefore, respectfully ask the committee
to refuse the application in its current form,
require full reassessment of impacts,
and impose robust conditions to ensure
any future mitigations are both implemented and enforced.
Thank you for your time, Councillor Clare Davies.
Councillor Wiles. Hi, Councillor Wiles, St Mary's Ward. My
question is to Mr Calder. I wasn't completely clear if you could just clarify whether there
were one or two main issues that has caused us to put in the two -year mitigation time
period and sort of how they're being monitored and secondly were was there a
discussion about limiting that time period perhaps to like a year or 18
months and monitoring the concerns that you're going to flag during that period
Thank You councillor I'll hand over to miss Wilkin for that. I'd like to
I find that prior to comments being received by the council's environmental health officer,
planning officers were considering suggesting a two year temporary permission in response
to the concerns raised by residents. The council's environmental health officer agreed with this
recommendation subject to the imposition of the conditions as has been suggested in the
officer report and the late items. And the officer received, raised no objection with
the application and found the proposal to be in accordance with the with local plan
policies.
However, as sat out in section 3 .14 of the officer report, this would provide an opportunity
for any potential concerns upon the impact of neighbouring residential occupiers during
this period to be assessed before a decision for the permanent use is made.
And in response to your query about a two year period, our intention with recommending
is that it would allow time to discharge
the relevant pre -commencement conditions.
And if an application is to be prepared
in advance of the expiry of the permission, if granted,
it would ensure that there is a full calendar year
of information upon which to base the application.
The board roll.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor O 'Shaughnessy and Queenstown.
Just before I start, just to acknowledge that,
Like many of us here, I think we've been subjected
to quite a concerted campaign of lobbying
from residents in the area.
I know I have, my mailbox is full at this moment in time
from the people complaining about the application.
I also wish, I know, I also wish to state however
that I used to live 20 doors down from this premises
and actually I now live eight streets away from it.
So I actually know the area really, really well.
The area that we are concerned about
is already a mixed usage.
There are a number of restaurants in the area.
In the other arch, there is a restaurant.
There are companies such as Top Tiles.
There is gyms there.
So there is a lot of footfall that takes place
during the day, not so much in the evening,
which I acknowledge in terms of the noise concerns.
But we have to recognise that in terms of the concerns
about noise, traffic, and usage of the area,
it is considerably, there is a loss of usage in this area.
Having this in place is not going to add that much
in terms of traffic in its own right.
The other issue I also wish to bring up is that
we need to recognise that the establishment
and I know this goes slightly outside
what we're talking about,
is not a drinking establishment.
It is a community venue of which it will host
a number of different groups.
And the whole aspect is that,
Councillor Belton used the terminology,
it is not a treatment centre,
which I know some of the protesters,
some of the people I've mentioned,
it is an area where people can come and talk and gather,
much like the shared projects
that actually run across Wandsworth,
for people who have a number of issues
to come together and talk and support each other.
In terms of the noise on the issues that's been brought up,
is the issue of bottles being collected
in the collection times.
Now that can be, one, that can be mitigated.
But two, it's actually, the bottle aspect
is not gonna be that great
because they're using pumps most of the time.
So it's the local delivery, I come to understand,
would probably be a couple of times a month, if that,
in terms of the actual barrels actually being delivered.
So the noise aspect is actually very, very different.
One of the aspects, I've walked down there three times
in the last week, once in the morning,
once at lunchtime, and once at 10 o 'clock at night,
just to get a feel of the area,
just to make sure I had an understanding.
The area is very busy.
In terms of bikes, you've already acknowledged
that Santander is actually present on the corner.
There is considerable traffic that goes in the area,
and one of the objectives has brought up the issue
of people taking up their parking spaces.
Those, I do not believe that people using this area
would bring in any extra vehicles that add the pressure
that's actually indicated in the protests
that we have actually received.
I would actually also acknowledge that there are concerns
around the late light finishing time
and as Council Bill's and it's actually brought up
and I'd support him if he wanted to recommend
bringing down some of the opening hours
in order to actually meet some of the residents' concerns
about late night.
I live across the road from a pub.
I know what it's like when people come out and are shouting and screaming.
I do not believe that the clients help coming here are the same as a pub goes or people
going to a club.
I think it's a different group of people actually attending.
So what I'd like the committee to consider actually passing this.
My concern about the two -year aspect though is that it makes the establishment vulnerable
to people actually running a campaign of complaints
to try and actually close it down.
And so as part of the granting of the two years,
we need to look at mitigating aspects
to make sure that they are treated fairly
in terms of actually, in terms of how the residents
in the area actually might complain about
or engage with them.
Sorry, I also know that the owner has actually
engaged in a number of activities to try and meet up
with the local residents and to actually deal
their issues and talks about them.
So it's not that he's not actively engaging with the resident population.
I think we also have a group of people who don't want it at any stage.
We have to balance those two out.
Thank you.
Well, thank you very much.
Can I just simply say that I think when it comes to assessing applications, officers
will play as fair as they can and as even -handedly as they can.
So I don't think you need to worry about the two -year period becoming a kind of a Trojan
horse at one sort or the other.
Councillor Belton, you had previously indicated.
Very briefly, something that came out of Councillor Davies' written statement occurred to me
to ask our legal representative, because we all know that this is a very litigious area,
planning applications, his view about getting a 60 -page report.
Just to get it on the record, I'd like to hear his view about getting this 60 -page report
on one day, I actually don't know when it was,
but if it was just the day, one day,
and responding to it so quickly.
If he's happy, then either way,
I want to come back on my amendment.
Chairman, good evening members.
My name is Duncan Moore, I'm the external legal advisor.
Yes, I was sent by the case officer,
Russell Cook, letter, late yesterday afternoon.
My concern was if the environmental health officer hadn't had an opportunity to consider
that Syntegra peer review document.
Now, I understand that he has done so and the matter has been, sorry, his views has
been reported in the late items paper.
But what I am concerned about is the late arrival of that document to members and their
ability to consider what the Council's environmental health officer has said in response to that
integral report. I think the late items paper very clearly deals with the further objections
that have been received by local residents, most of which are covered well in the committee
report. But I do have concerns that members haven't properly had an opportunity to consider
the Environmental Health Officers views on this Integra peer review and my
view, Chairman and members, would be on balance that it would be a safer bet and
a better decision -making process if this matter was deferred until the July
Planning Applications Committee so that a full consideration of the Russell Cook
letter, that's Integra report, can be undertaken by members and officers if
any further scrutiny by officers required?
Sorry, we've all heard what we've just heard.
Can I in fact take note of Mr Moore's opinion
and say that we should as a committee defer this item
till the next meeting of the committee?
I am recommending, I mean I don't see how,
given Mr Moore's very clear guidance,
this committee could go anywhere else.
To speak, I had Councillor Sweet indicating earlier
and then Councillor Warrell.
Councillor Warrell and then Councillor.
Thank you, Chair.
I understand the direction that's been given to us
in relation to this.
My concern is that we, around this table,
have already had quite a debate
looking at the particular issues.
We've gone over the papers that have been presented.
We've had...
I agree we haven't had the chance to look at some of the other submissions today,
but we have had a full and frank discussion.
A number of us probably have made up our minds one way or the other,
so we cannot come back here once again saying that we are clearly objective
in terms of making a decision around this.
Sorry, Councillor Warren, I can deal with that.
I think you heard what Mr Moore has said and Mr Moore has heard our debate and despite our debate he's come with his view.
I don't see actually how we can disregard what is effectively his professional advice to us.
Councillor Dalton then Councillor Sweet.
Well the conditions largely, I think this takes precedence.
Chairman, I'm sure we'll be guided by you on this, but it seems a difficult precedent
that an applicant that doesn't like the recommend – or an interested party that doesn't
like the recommendation can simply submit a very long submission with a day's notice
and secure a deferral.
It doesn't seem right to me.
I think – can I just deal with this?
I mean, as I understand it, the report produced by the peer review commissioned by the resident
was delivered on the 18th of this month.
Am I right?
No, it was dated the 18th.
Dated the 18th.
We only received it.
And therefore made available to Russell Cook, presumably on the 18th or 19th.
It was sent by Russell Cook to the Council yesterday, and therefore they have had it
for a few more days than we have had.
Whatever, the point you make, Cancer Suite,
is a reasonable one, except that each condition,
each permission is in its merit,
each situation is unique, and each situation
will be determined in a unique way.
I think given that Mr Moore is on record
as having said what he has said,
I think it would not be advisable for this council
to proceed and that is where I am coming from without making any judgement about
the merits or demerits of the application or our debate and
deliberation. Come back.
Just thank you, just to speak to the point that Councillor Sweet made, yes it
is a relevant concern. It's very rare that I advise the committee that a matter
to be deferred. The subject of the letter and the peer review goes to the heart of whether
members will approve this application or not. I think it's very important that members get
an opportunity to fully understand essentially what the council's in -house environmental health
officer has to say about peer review. I don't think having the late items paper a few minutes
before committee is a sufficient amount of time for members to consider that. So, again,
I would recommend a deferral. Regarding Councillor Warrall's point, if he considers that he's
nailed his colours to the mask, then what he ought to do perhaps is then when the matter
comes back suggest that he ought not to boast on the matter or take part in the debate.
but members, as you well know, and as part of the recent training we gave,
are very, they're able to be predisposed to a particular view,
but provided they keep an open mind and consider all the arguments for and against
and make the decision on the day, then that's perfectly fine.
What isn't fine and what could put us in the realms of equal challenge
is where a member says something that shows a big predetermined particular application.
So I hope that's helpful, Chairman.
I'm not being further to add on that point.
Thank you.
So I'm suggesting that the committee defer this item, principally to digest the officer's
consideration of the Russell Cook letter and the attachments to it.
And we will deliberate on this item at the next meeting of the committee in July.
And I'm looking for a second to afford my suggestion.
Okay, thank you.
I think it must be fairly clear that this is an unusual set of circumstances and situation
made rather more complicated by the late arrival of very detailed documentation to the Council
and therefore in some difficulties.
but it won't happen on a regular basis, I can assure you.
Item two, which is on page 29,
the garage is to the rear of Coleman Court, Kimber Road.
The recommendation is to approve.
Is that agreed?
Thank you.
Item three, Aran Lodge, 147 Earl's Field Road.
Page 63, the recommendation there is to grant.
Councillor Barron, did you have any?
Have we ever had any complaints about the way it's operated now or the conditions there now?
I beg your pardon.
I beg your pardon.
Councillor Barron was not a name that immediately struck me.
No worries, I just had a point of clarification just around the access to the garden.
Obviously the gardens on these houses are quite significant and long and extend all
the way to the railway line which if they are improperly maintained can cause issues
around animals including foxes.
Can you just give some clarity on the access for the rear garden and how it's split between
the residents of the HMO.
Hello, my name is Ellen Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area.
We did ask the applicant in respect of this because certainly from the reconfiguration
of the building, although the main corridor on ground floor would run towards the rear
door, it would only be accessed by the person occupying the back bedroom.
So it doesn't offer full access to all the residents into the garden, which seems a shame,
but at the same time it can also throw up issues in its own way.
I understand that there's a bit of concern about the maintenance of the garden area.
And so it's not strictly within our gift, if you like,
to actually require that any such things by condition.
But we could suggest an informative if you felt that that would at least get the message
across to the management that the garden should be maintained better.
Okay.
Well, with that addition of that informative about the rear gardens, is that application
agreed?
Thank you.
Item 4, page 73, which is Spencer Court 140, 142, Wonsworth High Street.
That'll split, doesn't it?
Great.
Item 5, which is on page 93,
land at the rear of 2 -28 Bickley Street, STW 17.
Now I've had a request from Councillor Osborne to address this committee as award
Councillor, which I have suggested this committee agree.
But I just want to take the opportunity to say to the committee one thing about ward
members.
My two predecessors have had a very clear guidance to this committee that where a ward
is already represented by a member of this committee in its deliberations, then a second
and ward member addressing the committee is superfluous and unnecessary.
I would generally like to follow that guidance set by my predecessors, but I will take some
guidance from others and make it into a proper note that colleagues have.
But it would be my view that we follow that on a general principle across the remainder
of this Administration.
But given that we were nowhere near coming to that conclusion,
and I was nowhere near that coming to that conclusion,
I had said that Councillor Osborne could certainly address the committee.
Now, are you interrupting Councillor Osborne, Councillor Worrall?
It's just a point of clarification, Chair, in relation to what you've just said.
What would be the situation if one Councillor actually objected and one was in agreement
and so they had been approached by different people in their ward to speak.
It happens all the time, Councillor Worrall,
and we can deal with it in the usual way through common sense.
You know the rules, it's three minutes, you've done this before,
So, let me not have to interrupt you.
Am I on?
Okay.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
I suppose I'd start off by saying I think the development is too big and obtrusive and
shouldn't go ahead because it's in too small a space.
But I want to home in on two things in particular.
One is the alleyway that runs up the side, which I think is far too narrow for access
to the development at the back.
You'd never get a fire engine down, for example.
we're talking about using that as access for refuse disposal.
We're talking about including a private refuse company
in order to do that.
I'm unhappy about that, and I don't have confidence in it.
We have a fly tip hotspot at the dead end of that alleyway
and a fly tip hotspot where it meets Bickley Street.
And I think we should at least say something about,
if necessary, the council's refuse team should have
a role in what goes on there.
And I also think we should say something
about taking into account the convenience and access of adjacent residents and adjacent
retailers because that alleyway historically has been known as belonging to nobody. Council
officers informed people, including me, that it belonged to nobody. It's only in the last
year or so that we've discovered that it does belong to somebody and the developer has been
given access down that alleyway. So something that ameliorates the use of that alleyway
I think would be good.
The second thing I'd like to draw people's attention to
is their heritage on the site.
Everyone's focused on the Granada building,
and that's reasonable, but what they're missing,
I think, quite often, and it doesn't come out very strongly
in the archeological report, is that the development
is smack within the curtilage of what used to be Eldon House
and before that, Salvador House.
Eldon House was a school run by Joseph Lancaster,
the great educationalist in this country, the Lancasterian system in schools,
what we were taught at school was a stepping stone in the development of education in this country.
And Joseph Salvador, who lived and worked there before when it was Salvador House,
was a great merchant prince in this country, one of the founders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews,
its first secretary, later it's a president, and the man who bankrolled the British government
during the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion.
Where the development is, is right where the wine cellar
probably stands from that building, that 18th century
mansion.
Indeed, the kitchen floor is still there.
The tiles of the 18th century kitchen floor
are still visible on the surface in the area
that they're proposing to build there.
Now, with archaeology, you don't know
what's there until you dig.
So I can't predict for certain what's there.
But I can make a guess that there is some sort of a cellar.
And we don't know what happened to that cellar.
It may have been cleared before it was filled in.
Or they may have left the detritus and then filled it in.
And there would be detritus in there,
which will be of historic significance
now two or three hundred years later.
Very important archeological site.
And actually, I've got no quibble at all
with the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service
recommendation for a written scheme of investigation.
As you'd expect, it's very good.
The only thing I'd say about that,
and having drawn your attention to how important the history
of the site is, is that we only know
that because of the work of the Tooting History Group.
And somewhere in there, I would have
liked to have seen something that said,
And on the end of what GLAAS have said, somewhere on the end, item D saying something like,
and the local immunity society should be kept up to date with whatever is discovered on that site.
Thank you for listening to me.
Thank you.
Councillor Acanola.
Don't we have time now to ask the deputation?
I think that the rules are that it is an address to this committee.
Councillor Osborne has done it.
I know we'd all like to know more about the Jacobite Revolution, but I think we can deal
with it some other time.
Councillor Canella.
Of the Jacobite Revolution, yes, I'm sure it is.
Councillor Canella.
Thank you.
Yes, so given the north -south elevation and the first floor and ground floor plans, which
would involve having closed windows that cannot be opened, I would like to know if an extreme
weather assessment has actually been completed.
Given the weather that we're having right now, it does seem a bit bizarre that bedroom
windows would be closed at a time like this.
Thank you, Mr Grainger.
you will certainly give us advice, but can I also say that this extreme weather doesn't
last 365 days and we cannot make planning decisions forever on the basis of today's
temperature gage. Mr Grainger.
Thank you, Chair. I'm Nigel Grainger and I'm the East Area Team Manager. So the first floor
windows, they're actually required to be, this is for privacy purposes, they're required
to be obscure glazed and fixed shut to a height of 1 .7 metres.
So that's from internal floor area to 1 .7.
So above there, they can be ableable for ventilation purposes
and cross ventilation.
So those rooms would be adequately ventilated.
But the bedrooms are on the ground floor.
Sorry.
They look onto the boundary treatment.
I thought you were talking about the first floor.
The ground floor windows look onto the boundary treatment,
so there's no controls whether they be obscure glazed or openable because they're leading to a courtyard.
I actually ask Mr Tiddley a question about the width of the passageway leading from Bickleigh Street to the site at which Councillor Osborne had referred to,
whether it is appropriate for a fire engine to traverse.
Probably pass the fire question to Mr. Granger,
but I can advise...
I mean, I can advise that the width is suitable
for an average car and van, obviously,
because it's used by lots of vehicles
to get to the existing car parking area, but presumably the fire engine could park at one
end and take the hoses through.
Yes, certainly, Chad.
If you look at power 14 .4 on page 136, it does talk about there in terms of the standard
hose length, which is 45 metres, excuse me, but there is a resident sprinkler system within
And also there is the option to instal an additional fire hydrant if there isn't one nearby in order to comply with the London Fire Brigade standards which we've reported as 90 metres.
So all of those eventualities are covered.
But a fire tender certainly would not be able to access the site.
It would be done from Bickleigh Street.
Sorry, Councillor, if I may also add that we've had this situation elsewhere in the
borough as well, where we've had five tenders outside and run in their foot, but within
a distance that allows them to run a hose to the property.
Not question, well, one's a question.
Two comments and one question.
I found the paragraph or two on waste disposal interesting.
I'm not sure how much private waste disposal
of domestic refuse there is in the bar
and just general circumstances.
Obviously the council is responsible for
and actually carries out waste disposal
on the vast majority of domestic properties.
Now we're talking about an arrangement
which I don't remember ever coming across before.
I'm interested in a number of things about it.
One is the long -term basis of it.
Again, perhaps I have to bring in Mr Moore's here.
But if we were faced in five years' time, seven years' time, with a contractor who had
gone bust and no private waste disposal contract there, and goodness knows what chaos concerned
how much weight will a planning condition given seven or eight years previously have?
Now I know Mr. Calder's going to say, well of course the planning conditions last forever,
and perpetuity I think is the phrase.
Of course we recognise that, but we also, most of us, live in the real world and
know what chaos sometimes happens as a result of this.
So I'm a little bit concerned, to put it mildly, about the private waste.
First, what happens if these three properties, what happens if it fails?
Who is liable?
Does the Council sue all three residents?
There are a number of issues there that I just don't quite get a whole lot.
Secondly, on the overlooking bit, can I just ask for a measurement from Mr Grainger, perhaps,
a measurement of the distance between the windows of Bickley Street and this new development.
I'm sure that probably many, many properties in the borough were of a similar distance, but I'm not sure.
And the comment, I know particularly that Councillor Osborn was really keen on this, but so am I quite.
We don't actually get any historical markers put down on the street.
Now I know this isn't the planning application particularly, but I did when I was in your position, Chair.
I did try with, and did in fact tackle Mr. Calder on whether we could put as a condition
that they actually put up a historical marker saying something about the history.
Obviously if Councillor Osborne was doing it, it would be a very big marker and far too big for anyone to stop and read.
But nonetheless, there's some interesting stuff there.
And I want to pursue the business of making our streets interesting to walk about because they say interesting to you tell us of the past.
That's just a comment. The other two are questions.
I would pursue your conversation. Obviously, you did not conclude with Mr Calder after
this committee elsewhere. Mr Calder merely said there are no laws.
Mr Moore could help with the questions you asked.
Thank you, Chairman. I can assist with regard to the waste provisions. Yes, it is an unusual
scenario that we have here. We have had other applications in the past where we
have imposed planning obligations that require a waste management plan if the
site has been a backland site and we've required arrangements to be put in place
so that the occupiers put the bins out on the correct day and then retrieve
them once they've been empty. But I don't recall having a 106 obligation that
obligates the residents of the site to use a commercial waste disposal operator. As Councillor
Burton said, the council is under a duty to collect domestic waste subject to certain
exceptions. What is being proposed would be out with the council's supplementary planning
document, the licence of reuse, recycling and waste because of the distance that the
big bins would have to be taken. So as the local planning authority, the national guidance
suggests that you are to take a positive and solution focused approach to decision -making,
to use planning conditions or planning obligations to overcome issues and therefore make the
development acceptable. Now, I've considered what's been proposed in terms of the Section
106 agreement against the test that was set out in the National Planning Policy Framework,
and I'm satisfied that it meets those tests, that it's reasonable, necessary, and all those
other elements of the test. So, yeah, it is unusual. I think it can be done. In terms
of who, how that is secured, it's not going to be by way of planning condition. It's a
stronger control to have it within section 106 agreement.
Section 106 agreements not only bind the party
that enters into them at the date of the application
being determined, but they also bind subsequent owners
of land, I suspect that the owners of this site,
should it be developed if consented,
would form some form of management company,
and it would be your responsibility
of that management company to undertake
the waste management as well as any, you know,
maintenance or improvement of any shared areas.
So the section 106 agreement would be disclosed
in the local land charges register
when an applicant looks to purchase one of the plots.
And it's also the council's long -standing practise
to register the existence of section 106 agreements
against the titles of the land registry.
And so any incoming purchaser would have advanced knowledge
that this would be a requirement
to which they are required to adhere.
So in terms of what happens when it all goes wrong,
I thought of those scenarios,
but I don't think that's something that would prohibit
the members from making a decision.
There are significant powers that the council would have
under environmental health legislation,
should there be any issues relating to waste accumulation
or any other issues of that nature.
I don't think there's anything I can add to that, Chairman.
But if Councillor Belton wants to come back
with any points that I've missed,
I'm very happy to assist with any further questions.
The Mauds, Councillor Cooper next.
Yes, also on the issue of the waste management.
I mean, I hear what you're saying about
it could be secured through a section 106.
But if you look in all the surrounding paragraphs
before the section 106 is referred to in 1311, it's talking about the size of the bins,
2 x 90 litre refuse dust bins, 1 x 240 litre recycling bin and 1 x 23 litre food waste caddy for each proposed dwelling.
So that would be multiply all of those by 3.
and then it goes on to say that the current drawings mean that they'd all obstruct each other
so that all needs, we need a new layout for that.
But I think the thing that is really worrying me is in paragraph 13 .5 on page 134
it says that we would normally expect there to be the collection vehicle,
whoever it's from, the council or a private contractor,
should be able to wait legally within 15 metres of the dustbin and sack
collection point. The proposed bin store will be located approximately 37 metres
from the collection point on Bickley Street which exceeds the guidance.
A closer connexion point cannot be provided along the private access road
as the applicant doesn't control it. Now this sounds to me like an absolute
recipe for disaster. I can't be the only work councillor sitting around this
who has received complaints of the contractors failing to collect or empty a dustbin that
is one metre away from the pavement. I mean, you know, that happens on a regular... I can
see a couple of people laughing about it. But it happens in every ward across the borough.
Not 15 metres, certainly not 37 metres. I mean, I really think this could be... What
What we don't want is piles of rubbish down an access road leading down to people's houses
or somebody just never bothering to go down there.
They will then bring the rubbish out down the path themselves and leave it on the pavement.
I'm really concerned about this and I'd like one of the officers to answer the points I've
just made.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr Grainger, something on the conjecture, Councillor Cooper has outlined.
Yes, certainly, Chair.
If you look at the ground floor plan on page 97, so you can see to the right of the main
body of the three proposed dwellings, there is a dedicated refuse recycling and food storage
area within its own secure enclosure.
So that's where the requirements of our supplementary planning guidance has been effectively conglomerated
into using euro -style bins.
So traditionally dwelling houses would have 90 litre general waste bins because we don't
use wheelie bins in Wandsworth.
That is not what we do.
So we pick them up.
And it's a good thing because they're dreadful if you don't have an access to your rear area.
So this is a solution that meets those requirements outlined in 13 .2.
And the storage area that you can see on the ground floor plan is adequate in terms of capacity,
in terms of the cubic litreage in order to address the waste.
So that goes down in terms of the assessment quoting that you've so eloquently read out in para 13 .5, Councillor Cooper.
The reuse recycling waste SPD is Wandsworth's advice document.
So it's geared to, it has to obviously cover eventualities.
It covers residential waste and recycling and food waste.
And also there's a section in there for commercial waste as well.
but ultimately commercial waste, as long as there is provision, the council never collects commercial waste.
So the duty on us under the environmental act is to collect residential waste,
and within that we have a duty to our refuse collectors within our own document to try and keep collection push distances as low as possible.
So when that goes out of the hands of realistically who we're trying to protect in terms of our
own people collecting our own waste on behalf of the London Borough of Wandsworth, when
it goes out of our hands to commercial contractors, literally a view will be taken as to whether
the conditions, the location and the drag length is inviting or not acceptable to a
commercial contractor and they'll take a commercial view.
So that's the sphere in which we've assessed it and
ultimately how it would work if it's captured within a 106.
But ultimately, the pragmatic solution that we've identified through a planning obligation,
there is conflict.
It's there to overcome a degree of conflict with guidance that relates to an adopted policy.
So in that regard, we think that this could work.
We think it's acceptable because the 106 would be specific enough in order to be able to
target and collect all of that.
But ultimately, it's a matter for members to decide whether that arrangement is acceptable
or not.
I think, in fact, if we dealt with Spencer House earlier, the waste arrangements there
are not dissimilar.
The vehicles cannot get into the courtyard behind Spencer House, and the waste will have
to be wheeled down to Putney Bridge Road to be collected.
So these are unusual sites where unusual bespoke arrangements
have to be made, that's what is here.
I think we've come to a debate, Councillor Belton,
last time on this item.
Well I haven't had an answer to one of my questioners,
which was the distance.
The distance from the rear elevation,
because obviously the ground floor just looks,
it just fronts its own boundary treatments
between 9 .1 and 9 .4 metres to the rear elevations of the first floor and above of properties
fronting Bickley Street.
Can I, well the recommendation of approval, I just take a note of Councillor Osborne's
point about archaeology and the shooting and I'm perfectly happy to have an informative
added saying that the outcome of the archeological work
be shared with the Tuting Historical Society.
That, with that addition informative,
we will then all get a book about Jacobi Revolution,
you see, just think about the self -interest in this.
Is that agreed?
Thank you.
Oh.
In favour?
Those against?
Those abstaining?
Right, I think that's six, two, and one, if I'm right.
Thank you.
Back gardens, item 147.
But if colleagues want a break, I'm happy to have one now,
or we push ahead.
Push ahead.
Page 147, item six, two, Alton -Baggartens.
Item 7, the Bright Horizons Batsy Day Nursery.
Mr Grainger, can I ask you for a few words on this?
Certainly, Chair.
I will try and keep it brief.
Excuse me.
Item 7, page 187, Bright Horizons Day Nursery at 18 Latchmere Road.
So this is in essence for demolition of the existing nursery building with its replacement
with a three -storey plus basement building providing nine self -contained units and reprovision
of the day nursery.
Of note for members' consideration this evening is the decision from the Planning
Inspectorate in July 2025 in determining the Council's refusal of the application 2024
slash 1461 and the relevance of the Inspector's decision.
The Council refused permission on two grounds.
One, daylight and sunlight impacts and two, loss of outlook resulting in a sense of enclosure.
The Inspector's conclusion was that the daylight -sunlight impacts were acceptable while the appeal failed
on outlook impacts that resulted in its dismissal. To this end, Members' consideration would
be best focused on the outstanding outlook impacts in arriving at your resolution and
whether the degree of redesign and setting back of the first and second floor of the
proposal are sufficient in order to result in assuaging the harm as previously identified.
To this end, the main differences between the refused scheme and the scheme before members
this evening have been outlined on page 192 of the agenda.
The assessment of the setbacks and how in officers' opinion they address the concerns
of the Implanning Inspectorate and neighbouring occupiers alike is contained within paras
3 .41 to 3 .61, and that's pages 219223 of the agenda.
Officer's recommendation is to approve the application subject to conditions.
Councillor Wyeth.
Thank you. So a couple of questions. I don't live in the road directly impacted by this development, but I do live in the area,
and I'm aware as Ward Councillor of some of the concerns of the neighbours and residents.
I appreciate you going through and highlighting
the areas of appeal and how that was addressed.
Do we feel that the, I think, could be argued
fairly limited setback changes address
all of the concerns that were raised in that appeal?
As you noted, the loss of outlook.
Is that setback now deemed sufficient?
Yes, we are of the view that the varying degrees of setback because the elevation isn't the
rear elevation, the rear wall isn't just flat and the properties opposite the rear elevation
are also not just flat. They have projections, extensions, all sorts. So what this proposal
seeks to do, the degree of setback, is to reflect as a continuation of the linear mass
of the properties that are already on Latchmere Road and continue that to the corner of Abercrombie
Street. That's the idea and we think that this proposal has succeeded in that regard.
And a couple of other points. There were some concerns around the installation of the heat
pumps and the noise issues that may cause. I'd just like to understand how that was considered
and how that has been mitigated if it has.
And I understand that it's a car -free development,
but I think I'm right in saying
that with the nine flats proposed,
the residents can apply for parking permits,
which is another one of the concerns
of the local residents there,
as well as obviously the issues with ongoing traffic.
appreciate there was an issue there before, etc.
But those points on the heat pumps and permits, I just would like those to be addressed.
Thank you.
So as part of the proposal, we get a degree of information on the locations and the technical specifications of air source heat pumps.
And any manufacturer will give what they have as the manufacturers of the equipment will give tolerances in decibels as to the future operational performance of that machinery.
So we've got an idea, we have an idea of what the actual tested performance would be.
But to take that stage further, we have imposed condition 6, which relates to air source heat pumps.
and that requires further information specifically for that equipment over phases two and three,
so that we can include specific information, including noise impact assessments on the future performance.
So that is a very successful condition in obtaining information to precisely know what the future operation would be.
And you were quite right on your second point.
It is a matter of planning policy that we can only automatically withhold CPZ permits to future occupiers for schemes over 10 units,
apart from obviously disabled badge holders.
Nine units are under, they are capable of, future occupiers are capable of applying and obtaining permits,
But given the nature of a scheme like this being largely a flatted development,
it does actually reduce the sort of like the typically or demographically or modal split,
if you want to use other transport planner terms, the likelihood of every unit owning a car on
on Latchmere Road, you know, it can be unlikely.
Sorry, can I ask one more question now I'm here?
And please explain to me, maybe this is slightly side question, but in terms of if we approve
this and the development goes ahead, will there be clear restrictions around the lorries,
traffic, building, like is that sort of, is that part of our approval and one of the conditions?
Certainly, I mean I think we've got a three pronged approach here because there's stages
throughout this so there's a construction phase where we would get specific information
relating to the construction phase and that phase and that goes through deliveries all
sorts of other elements all to do with the construction phase and then we go on to the
sort of occupation phase the functional side of the the life of the development which obviously
the residential requires serving you know deliveries we've got servicing management
plan and the nursery would require deliveries to service it so that's encapsulated within
a management plan that's subject to a condition and also in order to encourage active travel
and sustainable means of accessing the nursery that would be subject to a travel plan in
its own right as a sort of educational establishment so all bases are covered yes.
Mr. Grainger, thank you, Chair.
Well, the recommendations are to approve.
Is that agreed?
Those in favour?
Those against?
One.
Okay.
Thank you.
Item 8, which is page 251, Yukon Road.
The recommendations there are to agree.
Is that agreed?
Thank you.
Well, that concludes planning applications.
We then move on to the enforcement items on page 267.
28 Elmshaw Road.
Enforcement agreed?
Yes, thank you.
118 Upper Pooting Road, Enforcement Agreed.
Sorry, Chair.
Yes, Councillor Bell.
I apologise for missing the training earlier,
and I did that in my previous years.
Can I ask whether enforcement was covered in the training?
Yes, indeed, Mr. Ray Bull came along and did a presentation.
You should be able to access all of the recording if you.
I'm sure, I'm sure I can.
But I just, just in case people didn't know that enforcement is not a statutory responsibility.
Discretionary.
It's very important that once the council keeps up carrying on, it's a fairly good record
on enforcement action, I think.
Merely to say.
I'll agree.
I'll agree.
Okay.
118 Uppituting Road, Enforcement Agree. Thank you. And then 41 St. John's Road on page 291,
that Enforcement Agreed. Thank you. Which then brings us
Paper 26134.
Just want to draw your attention on the late items that there is some amendment.
Perhaps Mr. Calder could draw that out.
It's not an amendment, it's just a clarification.
In the paper, it's used both months because obviously we didn't have a committee in May.
So, we report these monthly normally, but it was put together.
So, just in the late items, we've just separated them back up into the previous months again.
So, paper 26 -134 is for information.
Is that noted?
Thank you.
The following paper, paper 26 -135, that also is for information.
Thank you.
And then finally, paper 26136, which is about appeal outcomes.
And is that noted?
Thank you very much for your forbearance. It's a warm evening.
And if you want to walk across the road with me, I might even see you in the garden there.
.