Interactive webcast player

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 14th July 2026 at 7:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

preliminaries to get through, first of which is the appointment of chair.

1 Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair

As noted, nominations have been sought over the past month or so for positions of chair
and deputy and the nominees as in your agenda have been received unopposed.
As such, does the committee agree to appoint Dr Michael Jubb as chair of the committee?
Thank you very much and I will now hand over to Michael to take us through the rest of
the agenda.
Thank you, Callum. So the next item on the agenda is, does the committee agree to appoint

2 Declarations of Interest

1 Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair

2 Declarations of Interest

Peter Farrow as deputy chair of the committee? Great. Thank you. Okay, welcome, Ben, after
those preliminaries to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
My name's Michael Jubb, and I am now chair of the committee.
I'm not going to go through the rigmarole of asking everyone to give their names at
this stage in the meeting.
I will ask you to give your names when you make your first contribution, if that is acceptable.
And just to note that Lauren Way is the principal conservation and something, officer.
Urban design.
Urban design, sorry. The words wouldn't come to my mouth. Sorry about that.
Then the next item on the agenda is declarations of interest.
I'll come on to other matters in a minute.
Are there any declarations of interest in relation to any of the items on the agenda?
No.
So, it's not relating to a...
My name is Councillor Barron, I won the award.
It's not related to a specific item on the agenda, but I'm a member of the Planning Applications
Committee as well as this.
And just to say that one of the things we have to take care over is predetermination
of applications before they go to Planning Applications Committee, if that indeed is
the case.
Thank you.
Apologies.
Thank you, Chair. Two apologies this evening.
Francis Fragfliff and Edward Potter have given their apologies.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Then we move on to the minutes of the meeting held some time ago now on the 10th of March.

3 Minutes - 10th March 2026

And can I ask, first of all, are they a correct record of proceedings for those of you who were there?
I don't think any of the three counsellors were there for fairly obvious reasons.
But are they a correct record?
In which case, at the end of the meeting, I will sign the record copy.
Thank you for that.
Matters arising then, could I ask Ms. Way, first of all, on the first page of the minutes,
the previous matters arising, what is that report on First Down Lodge?
Good evening Chair, there isn't anything to update on First Down Lodge for this committee.
There's still ongoing discussions with planning officers at pre -application stage on matters
that we can't divulge in this meeting, but we are continuing to review the condition
of the building and should it become deteriorated further than we can utilise our enforcement powers if it's listed?
I know that everyone has, all the previous members of this committee,
if I can put it that way, are in a sense,
I'm totally sick of this item coming up on the agenda of every meeting.
I think it's right that it does, and
we will give whatever strength is needed
to officers arms in making sure that
this very important building in the area of the common
is properly preserved from danger.
Mr Armstrong.
Yes, can we possibly know the particular problem that has arisen with this
and the reason why it's taking so long.
Has the building actually changed hands?
Is it now in the ownership of a third party?
And is there a particular planning issue
that is holding things up?
So it's still owned by the council.
It remains owned by the council.
It's leased by the owners of the,
it's in Ballum and it's come out of my mind
to the pub that I'm referring to next right next to Sainsbury's. They have a licence to
be able to provide food and drink. As far as I understand, the key issue is the fact
that it's situated within metropolitan open land, which protects the openness of that
land and therefore certain uses need to be given need to be demonstrated as special circumstances.
unable to give any more than that in terms of detail.
Okay, I think this is something that we are concerned about and the risks to the building
while it remains unoccupied.
So let me reiterate that we want this resolved sooner rather
than later.
And I hope that message can be passed on to whoever
needs to know in order to resolve the position,
because it's very unsatisfactory that it's gone on
for so long.
Council Osborne, did you want to say something?
Did you think I put my hand up?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
In that case, are there any other matters
arising from these minutes that won't arise in the natural course of the following agenda items?
No? Okay, in that case, can we move on to the applications paper?

4 Applications (Paper No. 26-156)

And first of all, this is page 11 of your pack of papers.
And the first application is 20262045.
the advertising structure at, in, on, I'm not sure what the right preposition is,
of ones with roundabouts, or ones with breach roundabout.
Ms. Way, I'm sorry, just before you start, can I emphasise for the benefit of any people
who are watching in that the slides that we're about to see were circulated to all members
of the committee in advance. And so we're reasonably familiar with what is now going
to be said, but there will of course be questions arising from that.
Okay, sorry, Ms. Way. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add, because
I noted in the minutes just before we start on this, I'm not sure if I did update you
all from the last committee about the appeal decision for glass mills. I'm sure I remember
you that that appeal was dismissed. This is not noted in the minutes, so we can just make
a note of that in the minutes in this committee. Because there's a note about Mount Clare
appeal which was also subject to a public inquiry in January, but then we had obviously
glass mills was dismissed as well. So start off with good news. Okay, so first application
is as Mr. Jupp has already mentioned,
is an advertisement application very close to us,
Wandsworth Roundabout, just at the entrance
to Wandsworth Bridge.
So this is the site location plan
at the interchange of York Road, Wandsworth Bridge Road,
Trinity Road and Swandon Way,
so quite an important location
and quite prominent within Wandsworth.
In terms of heritage assets that lie within the proximity of the site, as you see here,
you have Old York Road just to the south of the site, which includes Wonsworth Town Station.
And you have a number of locally listed buildings in that location, including the ALMA. Further
towards the south and rising up towards the east is Wonsworth Town Conservation Area,
which you see just outside, just on the edge here, given the location of the site and its
prominence in terms of height, it's worth just noting those.
And then we have the listed bus depot and the locally listed ship in towards the north.
So the existing situation of the site is the sort of interlooping hoops
with the advertisement screens that are located at the junctions of the four interchanges.
And they are proposing largely to replace the standing with a new type of standing,
which has a sort of lattice worse effect. It is within the same red line drawing as
you see here, it's slightly wider in terms of the canopy.
So here you see the large change. The actual advertisement structure that is currently
situated with the interleaping hoops was introduced in the 1990s. The actual digital display panels
that are proposed on the four consecutive sides to address the four roads are in fact
the same, largely the same size, but they are raised up higher because they take account
of the existing canopy of the trees. So you see here the changes here, but the actual
structure that's situated on it is to be changed. Again another view of the site with
the new structure. I'll go through these quite quickly because I think the visuals
are much more easy to appreciate in terms of the actual structure of the building because
it's largely similar in terms of the structure. So there you see a existing situation and
proposed situation. So the concrete bases that are the four concrete bases are
going to be utilised and the structure itself is going to be made of wood. The
proposed design of the structure is to take account of is is to imitate a kind
of canopy of tree canopy of with the signage introduced around it. I'm just
going to quickly quote from the design and access statement because it's quite
eloquently written and I think it probably is best to just directly quote it.
So the branching columns and lattice to canopy overhead create sheltered environment with
dappled shadow cast through the timber lattice, echoing adjacent tree canopies, creating a
moment of calm within a busy traffic environment.
The structure's organic geometry encourages the eye upward, framing views of sky and foliage
and giving passing pedestrians a sense of moving through something considered and crasset
rather than something incidental.
So the key premise behind the new design of this advertisement structure is to seek to
try to integrate it more successfully in its immediate environment of the roundabout with
the existing trees.
So looking straight towards views, particularly those views where there might be impacts on
the conservation areas, there is – the largely – the views are largely those interchanges
with those four roads.
So here's existing and proposed, and you see here how it sort of rises above the canopy.
So this is at the junction of the roundabout with Swanden Way.
And then looking towards from Wandsworth Bridge towards the site where you see the changes
there as well.
From York Road towards the site, showing those changes there.
And now you can see quite clearly the change in height of the actual advertisement panels.
I think it probably gives an impression that they are larger, but our understanding is
it is the same size in terms of the actual screens.
From Branford Garden, just north of the conservation area of Old York Road.
And then this is within the conservation area, Wandsworth Station, looking towards the site
where you see it peeking up above the above the walls.
And then again within the Old York Road conservation area towards the site with it just peeking
up above the railway bridge there.
See it just incidentally just here, whereas you see the two hoops interacting at this
point.
And that's that.
I'm happy to sit on this image because it's obviously the one within the conservation
area, but we would welcome the committee's views on this proposal.
Can I take Chairman's privilege in asking a question?
Is this application technically to be regarded as a structures application
or an advertisement application?
This class is an advertisement application.
And the can I just ask what the implications of that are just so that
everyone is on the same page before we start discussing.
It's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is where it would be helpful to have a planning officer here present,
is that there is the main issues to be regarded for an advertisement application is things like transport.
we can consider heritage if there's potential harm but there's it's more
limited in terms of what we can consider and why where it would be objectionable
say for example it would impact on the highway distracting the drivers more
greatly than the existing situation the key thing here is obviously it's an
existing advertisement so it's over and above what's the current situation
whether it has a detriment. Councillor Fisher at St Mary's Ward. This application is on the boundary
of my ward so I just wanted to cheque that I'm able to comment on it in this meeting and vote on it.
Yes you are. Okay thank you.
So mine's just a question just in some of the text that was used it had the term
dappling shade or something as to the structure over the top. How actually
preventative of light getting through is the structure over the top? Obviously
that's a nice phrase of putting it but is it going to block out some? I must say
it's difficult to say with some of the imagery exactly how much of the
structure will be providing dappled shade. So if I take you back to the image looking
up, if you compare it to the existing situation, there will be more dappled shade than there
was. So if you look in this, you see it's a very open structure with the, to the hoops,
but there will be some element of dappled shade here with the lattice work. How much
that will provide some level of shading.
We wouldn't be able to answer for sure, unfortunately.
It's not necessarily something that they need to provide more information on,
considering it's an advertisement application.
Are there any other questions before we move on to discussion of the merits
or otherwise of the application?
Question.
Mr. Catto.
I'm Peter Catto from the Partner's Society.
The question is whether it's stated anywhere
in the application that there's a need to replace
the existing structure because it's structurally unsound.
I mean, we're talking about a fairly old,
while still modern, if you so do mean,
a fairly old piece of metalwork that
may not have been as well maintained as perhaps it
should be.
Is it necessary that that be removed,
in which case we've got one way of looking at its replacement?
or is it that they just want to?
My understanding is that it hasn't been identified
specifically in the application.
The existing structure is unsound or unstable in any way.
This is purely an exercise to improve the visual appearance
of the advertisement structure
and integrate it more successfully
within its immediate environment.
Any other questions?
I'm underlining questions before we move on to discussion.
Mr. Armstrong.
Has any research been done as to the safety of these advertising
panels?
The whole idea of them is to distract motorists
who happen to be driving one way or another under the underpass
or wherever.
and it's now going to be higher and more visible and more interesting to look at
from the looks of things. Has any research been done or have we got any
evidence of increased accidents or whatever? Distracted motorists? Thank you.
Thank you. I did have a conversation with our transport colleagues before the
meeting to understand what their position was.
They would be principal officers that would be able to identify any of those impacts.
They're of the view that on the basis that there is an existing advertisement screen
or four advertisement screens, the slight increase in height is not going to have a
more adverse impact in terms of transport safety.
So they haven't raised any objections on that grounds.
Thank you. Can we move on to substantive discussion of this application?
Who wants to…? Peter Faro.
Yes, Peter Parry from the Wandsworth Society.
What we've seen looks like a wooden structure, but it isn't.
It's a steel structure clad in wood.
If it was a wooden structure, I would like it more,
but because it's pretending to be something it isn't, I like it less.
And I think that's a fairly fundamental flaw in considering it.
And I too share concerns as to whether or not there is a need to replace it.
We have grown familiar with those hoops over the years, almost to the degree we don't see them anymore.
and I sort of welcome the application in drawing our attention to it.
But the more I think about it, the more I like them.
They are both inconspicuous
inasmuch as there's not a lot of fabric in it
and distinctive inasmuch as that they are...
Forgive me, distinctive.
The proposal, I think, could be really good.
But I don't think it is.
I think it falls short of being sufficiently high quality to merit our committee's approval.
I did try and look up before I came to this evening's meeting, I've seen timber structures
on holiday in Spain and France I think which are more more distinguished in
sort of architectural forms. My view is that I think it's unnecessary and I wish
it could be better.
Other comments?
Councillor Fisher.
Just to comment on the presentation, the display, the proposed displays are larger than the
existing displays.
It's fairly marginal but they are larger.
The representation I've received from residents who live near the roundabout have not been
positive about the proposal.
There's a concern, particularly from the residents
in Battersea Reach, which is the development
to the northeast of the roundabout,
that the fact that the proposed displays
will be higher than the existing displays
will impact on more residents' views from their flats.
I've not received any comments
in support of the proposed design.
There's not a huge amount of love for that roundabout,
and there's a recognition that it could be redesigned.
Some people do like the present design, particularly because it is far more inconspicuous than the proposal.
But I want to put on the record the representations I've...
The roundabout.
Go down that rabbit hole right now. Do you have enough, Calum?
Thank you.
In that case, can we move on to the next application, which is...
Sorry, Chair.
I think in the last five minutes there's been an internet outage.
It's just reconnecting.
So if you can just give us a couple of minutes.
We're just waiting for the Teams device to reboot.
Otherwise we won't be able to show you the presentation.
Sorry about that.
Okay.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Yes. Yeah! No, no. Exactly so.
Yes.
Okay.
Just for the benefit of those who are watching, listening online, I'm sorry that the IT system broke down.
We had an outage and I'm sorry therefore that you missed the final bit of our discussion on the Wandsworth Bridge roundabout.
we decided after discussion, just so you know, to object to the proposal on a number of grounds,
including questioning the need to replace the existing structure,
and concern about both the energy and the materials inefficiency of the proposal.
Okay, let us move on then, if we may, to the next application on our agenda.
Application 2026 -1951,
Brendan Valley House on Garrett Lane. Ms. Way. Thank you, Chair. So moving on
slightly towards the south of the borough, Brendan Valley House, this
has had a bit of a planning history here. When we had initial discussions about
bringing the cases to the committee, we were of the view, the Chair and myself,
that this has come to committee before. There's a familiarity about this
particular site. I did have a look through at the time of the previous
applications and couldn't see that it had come to committee for the two
previous applications. That said, there's no reason for that not to come to this
committee because I think it's relevant given the planning history that's
taking place on this site. And I'll go through that in a bit of detail for
the benefit of the committee at the beginning of this presentation. So,
Benton Valley House, Garrett Lane, as it says in the description, demolition of the existing
building and erection of a four -storey building to provide some commercial floor space at
ground floor and then nine residential units within the rest of the site.
So this is the location of the site to the southern part of Garrett Lane. It's at a
transition point, you're seeing some of the images here where you have the height
It starts to rise up towards the north part of Garrett Lane and it's much more domestic
low rise towards the south part of the Garrett Lane.
You have the worksite towards the south and it sits at that junction of Garrett Lane and
Benton Valley.
Now there is only one heritage asset in play with the site, but it's the Jolly Gardener's
Public House, which is a 19th century public house directly to the north, sharing the northern
boundary of the site at this point. So only this building and the Jolly Gardener in this
location. Now the Jolly Gardener has been locally listed for a number of years. 19th
century purpose built public house, two storeys. Originally it served the Dalton buildings
and the pottery factories that dominated the area, but the area has altered and has developed
over time in this part of Garrett Lane and we have got quite a change here with
Floriette Wandsworth Primary School directly to the north and some
of the awardee terraces towards the south and more industrial buildings towards
the west. There are remnants of its historic setting with the
Grosvenor Arms towards the north you see here which is slightly taller more
prominent public house and then you have some of these awardee terraces
towards the south, but it has changed quite considerably. So here you can see that change
in setting, but it does form still quite a distinctive feature on Garrett Lane and gives
them an understanding of what historically was the character of Garrett Lane at that
time as a remnant of it.
Assisting building on the sides you see here, three -storey building, red brick with rendered
finished to the ground floor with these two projecting bays that project over the pavement.
This is looking at it towards the north from the southern part of Garrett Lane where you
see that junction there with, you see the context of the jolly gardeners here and then
you have the Grosvenor pub further towards the north. And then towards the rear from
Lydon Street looking at the site as existing with the pub directly next to it. And just
one more view looking towards the south from Carrot Lane towards the locally listed public
house and the existing site. So this is just to give you an idea of the context to this
in terms of planning history. So the top scheme you see here with the grey fourth floor that
came in for an application in 2023. It came in by the looks of it around the time we were
just in between conservation and advisory committees,
or WCAC as we called it back then.
So it didn't quite go to the committee.
Unfortunately, it would have been one
that we would have taken it to committee.
That was refused by the council on a number of grounds,
including impact on the setting
of the Jolly Gardener's public house.
It was subsequently taken to appeal
and dismissed at appeal.
Just to give you a couple of pointers
from the reasons in the appeal,
Let me take you to the right point.
There was a concern about the proposed development.
We're looking at the top one here, does not preserve or enhance the setting of the
locally listed building or what we would call as the non -designated heritage asset.
In particular, the fourth floor element would form a dominant feature in the street scene.
So the top floor would be only slightly recessed and together with its contrasting grey facing
materials would be noticeable against the skyline, emphasise the building's greater
bulk and scale relative to the buildings in its immediate context, and pair odds with
the more unified design and simpler roofscapes of other modern buildings which sit close
to the site, including the Floriate Primary School and 200 Garrett Lane, which is further
north of the site. And I'll show you some images of that.
So there's a number of reasons why it was refused. There was other planning reasons
for refusal in terms of loss of industrial floor space.
They make a note about the external terraces not being a common feature to this section
of Garrett Lane. And at the time there was terraces not just on the side elevation but
the front elevation that were considered that weren't in keeping with its context. It
says that the building's not well designed and not sympathetic to its immediate context.
So that's just looking at the top one.
Then the next one down is the scheme that came in in 2025.
Again, sort of split between conservation environment
committees that didn't take it through.
And officers raised concern that it
wasn't considerably different from the appeal,
and that was withdrawn.
So now we are at the bottom, which
is the scheme that you are looking at today before you.
So that's just giving you that context of how this is evolved from application
with offices have gone through pre application as well.
There's been a few changes to the scheme.
This is looking at it in its context with the jolly gardeners here directly
to the north there, and then the schemas proposed officers have remained
concerned about the fourth floor element of the scheme and that it needs to be
three storeys. That's the officers view of seats for the committee to decide
whether they agree with that. We don't want to leave the committee in any way.
South elevation view, looking towards the site with the jolly gardens just behind it.
This is the deepest part of the site and this is where you see some of that context with
the jolly gardenets and the floriettes. It does appear to take some similarities in terms
of queues from the floriette. East elevation as proposed, showing that quite simple fenestration
pattern. Again, site elevation as proposed, three storeys with that set back
fourth floor element. Ground floor, so you have got, it's largely residential with a
small commercial unit towards the rear part of the site to see, it's currently
commercial, it's currently industrial floor space, so they are retaining some
existing commercial use on the site, not the amount as existing as it is going to
be reduced. Let's see here. Let me just take that off the screen for you so you can
see it. Thank you. First floor is proposed in terms of units. I'll go through these
quite quickly because it's necessarily something for the committee to be considering in terms

4 Applications (Paper No. 26-156)

of heritage impacts. Second floor is proposed, so the unit's going in. And then this is
the third floor that is proposed to set back. We have sort clarification on the elevator.
it's not an elevator that would require an overrun so it is not showing an overrun as
proposed. That was something that was coming forward in the previous application was an
overrun in addition to the fourth floor and then roof plan as proposed. So there's a
slight sort of setback in this location away from the Dolly Gardiner in this location.
So it's slightly set back in this location and to take account of the setting and those
views from Lijard Road. So here you can see that slight sort of setback stepping
away from from the Jolly Gardener when you're looking at it from the rear. And
then that more easily see that step back again there. It's quite a modest
step back but so to speak there is a step back way from the Jolly Gardeners.
And then I mentioned about the existing context to give you an understanding of
how it's situated. So this is the floriette primary school across the roads. You see this
some similarities in terms of the design and the fenestration pattern that's proposed on this
scheme and actually an immediate foreground you see is the Grosvenor Arm. So one of those buildings
that forms part the setting but as you see here the Grosvenor Arms is three full storeys. The
there's some similarities in terms of the design
that's proposed for this scheme.
But as you see here, there is that emerging,
changing context where the height starts to rise up.
And we have a full storey building effectively
with no sort of setback roof.
And again, it generally starts to rise up slightly more
towards the north part of Garrett Lane.
So that's about it.
I'm happy to take questions,
but we really welcome the committee's views on this scheme.
Okay, can I start as usual with a request for any questions that arise from the presentation
or from your reading of the papers?
Mr Farrar.
You mentioned that you, I think, had queried the applicant on the lack of a motor room
or overrun on the lift.
Forgive me, I can't remember.
Did you get a satisfactory answer from them?
Yes, so there is no lift overrun.
So what you see in the scheme in terms of the visuals,
as far as we understand, correct,
so there will, the lift rises up to the fourth floor level,
so here, but it doesn't show a lift overrun
and they've confirmed that there is no lift overrun.
Well, there will be.
According to them, I think there's a type of lift
that avoids you having to have a pit
or an over run apparently?
You can push lifts up on a hydraulic ram.
They're relatively expensive, and I
doubt whether they would run to that
under development of this nature.
But even if they did that, you need a crouch room
or something above a lift car.
You can't take the lift car immediately
to the underside of a roof.
Despite their protestations, I think
the building will be a little bit taller over the lift.
Go back and clarify that with them again. That's helpful to know. Thank you.
Any other questions? Councillor Fisher.
Do you know the height of the proposed building compared with the existing building?
I don't actually have the exact details of that. That gives you the kind of heights of
it relative to the Jolly Gardener. So if we look here, the height of the third floor,
let's say the second floor if we go ground first and second, is just below the eaves
of the Jolly Gardener. And then if we take back to here, so it's, there's a slight
difference here because you obviously have a pitched pitched roof as opposed
to flat roof here so it's difficult I wouldn't be able to tell you 100 % I
might be able to find that out before the end of the meeting I could tell you
100 % just to give a context I think the eaves level just rises just above the
balustrade of the jolly gardeners it's I think it's ever so slightly taller
okay ever so slightly taller than the jolly gardener as existing but that's up
to the pitch, the ridge, to see the ease levels where you kind of really
appreciate that kind of human scale, which is just above the balance trade
of the Jolly Gardener.
Any Councillor Barron?
I should say that I am actually the ward Councillor for this ward and
regularly attends the Jolly Gardeners as well.
I don't think that's a conflict of interest.
I just want to clarify how many residential units are in the current
sites at the minute. My understanding is that it's in industrial use at the
moment it's not in a resident it's not a residential use at the present. I believe
So yes.
Again, I can clarify that, but that's my understanding.
Go on.
It may not be residential at the moment,
but I think it has been residential in the past.
I'm reasonably certain of that, yeah.
Sorry.
I looked at the committee report for the previous application
that was refused.
And I think, but regrettably, when I try and recall things,
someone was in doubt, that the building was originally light industrial, but over the
years residential use, consent to change applications for residential use were made and approved.
And I think although it's zoned for light industrial, it's accepted that residential
use has been established, I think, regrettably.
Okay, so I think there are some questions here that need to be resolved but aren't going
to be resolved around this table now in relation to the lift overrun, the actual height of
of the building and about industrial versus resi use.
Okay, if there are no other questions can I move on to, sorry, Ms. Way.
Yeah, I can get clarity on this now. I think Mr. Farrow was right. So it is in a designated
light industrial area. Lawful residential use has been established within the existing
building. At the time of the appeal, it would have been an uplift of three residential units
over the present situation, which I believe is, so it might be only an update of two.
So I'll cheque.
The development that, yeah, so it's still be an uplift of three because it was still
nine self -contained flats as part of the appeal.
So it's still be an uplift of three residential units as opposed to lawful existing use of
the site.
Okay.
Can we move on to comments?
and I look particularly to Councillor Barron as the Ward Councillor and to Mr. Farrow as
representative of the Wandsworth Society.
So Councillor Barron first.
So I think we have to have a look at this from a point of view of what is there at the
At the minute the building is in very poor condition.
It's not particularly great to look at.
It's generally in a state of almost disrepair,
to the point that we weren't actually sure if people lived in it,
which is probably telling.
And this is probably not what you would expect.
I'm somewhat relaxed about the idea of the fourth floor, looking at the plans, it doesn't
actually increase the overall height that much because of the flat roof.
Is it the most beautiful building to put next to what?
The Jolly Gardeners is a very appealing building that does add to the character.
Is it the most beautifully designed building?
No.
but I think it could be a lot worse.
That's basically where I would start from.
I don't know if anyone else wants to.
Boo to Mr. Farrow next.
Thank you.
Council just said it could be a lot worse,
indeed it could. I regret that I'm relatively new to looking at this application. I wish
I'd had more time and to review the history. I think the building is commendable in as
much as that it doesn't frighten the horses and is a considered design. The problem with
I see it is that if the previous application was refused and it was refused on appeal if
I understand correctly, this building is not so different from it that it's likely to succeed.
It's a building that I find difficult to get enthusiastic about or one way or the other
to like it or to dislike it. That may be a virtue, but I don't think in conservation
terms that it is going to have a more adverse effect and possibly a beneficial effect on
the jolly gardens in the existing building. It's not entirely a conservation matter, but
the plans are incredibly convoluted and I think they indicate that trying to put residential
on a site of this size and ratio, the width, is likely to be unsuccessful. It's possibly
a convoluted way of saying it's a heritage matter to say that it would be much better
if it was not residential but it reverted to what it should be in the planning zone,
that is a light industrial building.
My guess is the site was made up of various buildings
over the years and eventually became light industrial.
I imagine it was terraced houses a long time ago,
a more appropriate form,
a more traditional form for the road.
I'm neither for it against it other comments
council yeah I'm quite sympathetic to the proposal on the basis that it seems
to be in keeping with some buildings in the vicinity of similar brick facade as
those buildings I take this various point on the on the fourth floor but
there is a recess against the other floors and their visual impact from the
road doesn't, at least from these designs seem to be all that detrimental.
Mr Armstrong, did you indicate you wanted...
Yeah this is a site that I'm quite familiar with and the building seems to
have been designed to be as bland as possible and reticent, almost the point
of invisibility in these drawings. I suppose they could have put
coins on the corner or something to make it blend even more, but I don't think
there's anything much to object to in terms of the facade.
I'm sorry I would just like to kind of build on one of the points that has come
up in that it by Councillor Fisher actually around it fitting in with all
the relatively new developments in the area the Flory at school is quite
similar and there is actually another building going, I'm not entirely sure if
we're allowed to consider this, but there is another building going up between the
Jolly Gardeners and the Grosvenor which is going to be along the same lines so
it will create a relatively coherent set of buildings. It won't be
and well as you say it is quite bland it probably won't stand out anyway but it
will fit in amongst other buildings.
Councillor Osborne.
Yeah, I mean, I really always hesitate
to sort of put an opinion, a personal opinion
on something that's so subjective in these meetings.
But I've always thought Garrett Lane's
rather an interesting street
with some interesting looking buildings in it.
And I was a bit disappointed
when the Floria building went up
because it is so bland and I would describe it as uninteresting actually.
And I'm not keen to be invited to say oh this will be all right because it's like the Floria
building. That puts me off a little bit. And actually the building that was there before,
I take the point that it may have become somewhat dilapidated and it wasn't actually built as a
residential building and all the rest of it.
I take all that, but it did actually look a bit interesting
with the two sticking out window areas
and all the rest of it,
compared with what we're now being asked to consider
in at least two and arguably three
local buildings on that spot.
I think that's a shame.
And I suppose I'm left saying I wish
that we could have refurbed the original building.
I do think, I mean, we're desperate for more accommodation
everywhere we look in this country
and certainly in London and Wandsworth,
but for the sake of three extra domestic spaces
in a building, I wonder whether it's really,
you know, that should be driving us
so much in this instance.
So I think I'm left with only really being able to say,
I think it's a bit of a shame that this is where we've ended up.
OK.
I'm Libby Lawson from Teating History Group,
and I would just say that the blandness of it all will only enhance
how very special the pub is, which is a shame, but a positive
and disappointing proposal.
Mr. Catto and then I'll try and sum up.
I'm just going to exactly support Ms Wilson on this one.
The existing pub reminds me in its architecture very closely of the hot pole on Putney Bridge Road,
which stands out as a distinctive building despite having a big yellow storage unit behind it.
So I think this one can cope just as well with whatever we throw at it.
So on conservation grounds, I don't
think that anything whatsoever happening
next to that particular pub, which is locally listed,
because all the pubs are, is actually
going to harm it at all.
But yes, a boring building.
OK, let me try and sum up.
Well, in a few words, lack of enthusiasm all around, but lack of...combined with lack of
any sense that this is going to be a building actively harmful in heritage terms.
Is that a reasonable way of putting it?
We wish it, in a sense, it's a bit of a missed opportunity, but let it go.
Is that a reasonable summary?
Let's move on to 2026, 1913.
The replacement of garages 61 to 67th and Limes on Limes Gardens.
I'm sure lots of people have walked, cycled, driven past here a number of times.
This way.
Thank you, Chair.
An interesting one moving on. So as Mr. Jubb has mentioned, this is within the Limes Gardens,
which is situated within the West Hill Road conservation area. So this is the site in
question, a set of garages just to the rear of 117 West Hill Road, just at the entrance
to Limes Gardens, which includes three storey blocks of flats, which were built in the 1930s.
So you see here, here's the West Hill Road conservation area in yellow.
And then the pale pink is the locally listed buildings.
So the actual buildings that formed the 1930s.
One sec, bear with us while we get this sorted out for you.
There we go, hopefully that's sorted itself out.
Apologies for the sort of delay there, having some teething issues with our IT.
So the locally listed 1930s block that was locally listed relatively recently because
actually the conservation area appraisal doesn't mention the man's locally listed building.
So it's subsequent to 2008 that they were locally listed as quite distinctive interwar
blocks of flats with a distinctive character to them.
Site location plan which we've already seen.
And this is where you see that context with etched out in pink is the conservation area.
So three sets of garages as you see here in the foreground with the locally listed 1930s
flats just in the background here.
Now these are, I have added a few more images in for you just to give context because I
appreciate that there wasn't that many in the original presentation.
So these are the only additional slides that I've added in since they've been circulated
yesterday. So another image there to look at it in its context with the older Lake Victorian
buildings on West Hill Road. So this is sitting at rather a transition point at the end of
the garden and further site context there to show it in its context. The garages are
quite set back from the road so you really don't really appreciate them and they form
part of another set of garages as you see here that sit behind the limes. And one more
just to give that context in terms of its height. So existing elevation etched in red
is what is proposed that just gives you an idea of what the height will be in terms of
increase as existing ground floor self -explanatory sets of flat roof garages quickly through
and this is the proposed elevation. So the three garages are to be to be demolished and
replaced with a two -storey building with basement, single house, three bedrooms, but there is
also a study that could be converted to a bedroom. It's been a bit of pre -application
discussion. I'll go through that with everybody. There's some images from the design and access
statement shows that evolution in the design. Single storey at ground level, brick elevation,
quite traditional pattern. And then you have a slightly set in sort of mansides style first
floor plan, just slightly set in metal clad with windows towards the rear. There is a
terrace they have maximised the plots for really tight plots so they have really the
The developable area has really been maximised, including as you see here, some of that basement
will be actually situated below the pavement. It is assumed that that's something that
they can achieve or they've got permission for to build underneath the pavement. The
red line does include that. Side elevation, it's always easier just to show you the
because they're much easier to appreciate that. That shows the section there with, you
see that the outline in blue is the previous scheme that was presented at pre -application
stage. That's to give an illustration of how much it's changed in terms of height and scale.
So here you go, low ground floor level. So actually the patio here, that is, that's the
line. So the master bedroom part of the plant and the bathroom will be situated underneath
the basement goes out much further than the actual for low ground floor level, ground
floor level, bedroom, bicycle stairs. So you see it is really maximising that small plot,
quite tight plot with the, with very little breathing space apart from that night. Well,
first floor. So it's sort of upside down living with the living being at the top floor
and bedrooms being at the lower floors. So living room, kitchen, and then that's your
amenity space there with the terrace towards the back that is kind of an interesting shape
to try to achieve. Obviously this is in relation to impacts on labourly and overlooking. And
there you see the roof form. And this is a sketch showcasing those proposed views and
distances between the limes, the 1930s housing, flatter development which is locally listed,
and then you've got the tall, quite grand, toward you and buildings on West Hill Road.
So it sits sitting in between those forming a bit of a transition point between the two.
So as I've mentioned, it has been through a fair amount of pre -application stage.
Because it's included in the design and access statement, we can include it for you
to show that design evolution.
So figure 10 here on the top right hand side,
left hand side, this shows the original pre -application
that was proposed, that was identified.
With a first floor overhang to the building,
officers did raise concerns about two storeys
in this location being challenging.
And that's where they came to the second pre -application,
which is under figure 11 here,
where they brought the height down considerably.
And then you have this Mansard -Sai style roof form
proposed.
There was also concerns in the first pre -application
in terms of its design and it not really
sitting within its immediate context
and relating to either of the building forms and designs
either side of it.
So there has been quite a bit of change
since the pre -application stage.
And we are where we are under the formal submission, which
is under Figure 12 below. So some modest changes. There was concerns about this particular low
view looking towards the site and the sort of cut off of the roof form where you have
the terrace at the back. They've sought to introduce a screen and sort of give it
a little bit more solidity here as opposed to what previously it was quite open and it
was a glass ballast trade. So there's the main changes that have been proposed and I
there's some changes to the light wells as well between these pre -applications, but
largely the form is as it was presented in the second pre -application. And here you show
you can see it again showing some of those changes taking place from the first pre -application
to the submission application. We've got more traditional form, fenestration pattern
to with the sash windows within the first floor. And I think that's about it. Thank
you.
Thank you. Again, any questions arising from this application or the presentation? Councillor
Fisher.
So I'm just struggling to understand the differences between pre -application two and
formal submission application apart from the open more open balcony and the
windows on the first floor going down to ground level due to the
floor level
is it is the height the same of the building is the is the
slope on the roof the same that's right so i am
up i went through this with the case officer this afternoon
and so i am sort of relaying back from that case officer
The second pre -application is there is the only real change between the two is as you
say the fenestration, the more traditional fenestration pattern, well not so much pattern
but the actual windows have become more traditional. There is no difference in height. You see
it does appear to be a brick wall surrounding the light well here, whereas it was glazed
before. So there has been they have encased the the boundary. They've
included a boundary wall around the light well. And if I take you to here
so in this location they have brought the they've changed the terrorists to
make it more enclosed here. There were some issues with overlooking from the
gardens to the rear of the site. And the only change I can see from my
understanding of talking to the case officer is there's a slight change in
here see here they've changed the eaves level slightly here so the windows have
been brought up slightly whereas they were right on that on the line of the
brick says it's slightly different but the heights not changed it's largely the same.
Okay, any other questions? If not, who wants to kick off with comments? Mr. Farrow, is
I think you opened your remarks with the observation that when the application was first put,
that there were concerns whether or not a two -storey building would be appropriate on this site.
And I think those concerns were justified.
This is a three -bedroom, three -bathroom house, I think, on the site of three garages.
I think it's over development and I think it doesn't work.
They exploited the site to the extent they were proposing
a basement three metres deep, I think the storey height was.
Don't understand why.
Extending on the pavement.
I'd be curious to know whether or not that is practical or indeed permissible, permitted.
If there was to be development on the site, I think the concerns about its height should
be preeminent.
If they wish to dig down, are reluctant to encourage basements.
There's a lot of opposition to them on sustainable grounds and a variety of other practical causes.
But I think digging down half a storey so that it was maybe one and a half storeys above ground
would be an acceptable scale of development.
But I think this is just way too much.
The problem they've sought to solve by making it appear as though the first floor is a roof,
I think indicates the weakness of the approach in trying to put two storeys on this site.
I go back on myself and contradict myself in as much as when you showed the pre -application
discussions, the one on the top left I thought had the much greater potential to be a satisfactory
building on the site. It is not making any attempt to match the adjoining buildings.
There's no reason why it should. And if that building was one and a half storeys above
ground, then I think I'd be much more willing to entertain it as a potential development
for the site. Thank you.
Other comments? Mr Armstrong, you.
Yeah, it doesn't look very buildable. There's no onsite storage. How do you build it? You've
put all the spoil somewhere and constructing residential accommodation underneath the pavement
like that. I think they're going to require a stopping up order for start off
because they're going to have to stop up part of the pavement and I think
you know, like others, I think it's just too much on the site.
It's too greedy.
Other comments? Mr Catto?
The other side of the coin is of course that the borough is full of little groups of garages like this,
that nobody parks a car in anymore because modern cars are too white
and don't need keeping out of the rain.
No, it's width that does it.
By the time you've got your fat thing with its big doors
and tried to open those, you can't get out
of them in modern garages.
That's why they're not used anymore.
And we do need a solution to this problem.
And yes, from personal experience,
I've got permission out of the council
to replace a block of four garages elsewhere.
And I've just been commissioned to look at another two pairs.
So it is something we have to accept meets a need.
There are these near -derelict buildings all over the show,
some of them in interesting settings,
and automatically saying, oh, no,
but they do need sympathetic design.
And I'm sorry to say what I see now has been watered down
to the point that it is neither distinctively modern nor sympathetic.
I live in Roehampton Close, which is a block of flats of a very similar style and age to the Limes.
We have a porter's lodge at the entrance, which is made of the same materials as the rest of the building,
and has one and a half storeys because it has a proper roof made out of the same materials as the rest of the block
that the upstairs bedrooms are in and it fits.
This doesn't.
Are there any other comments people want to make?
Okay, if I can try to summarise,
we think this is inappropriate
over development of a site.
We're concerned, as the case officers were right at the beginning,
about the height of the proposal.
We're concerned also about the development under the pavement,
which seems inappropriate and fraught with building difficulties, I would imagine, though
I'm not a civil engineer.
And overall, in trying to deal with the height problem,
and I think that I agree there is a height issue here,
trying to make the upper storey look like a roof development
just doesn't work, I would agree with those comments.
But is that a reasonable summary?
Well, I hope it's a reasonable summary of what's been said.
Does anyone want to say anything contrary to that?
No?
Okay, let's move on.
To the final application, the one that was, I confess, added to the agenda at my request.
It's in Battersea, obviously, which in a sense, I suppose, makes it my patch, along with Councillor
Fisher, but I'm not going to say anything about it other than that it is, has been to
this committee a number of times in the past and has been reported with temporary approval
most recently back in 2024 for a period of two years, which will expire next month.
Hence this application. But this way.
Thank you, Chair. I was going to reiterate that. The planning history on this one, it
came in in 2017 for a temporary permission of five years.
Then it came back in because that permission had already
lapsed.
Came in in 2024.
The actual description of the development in 2024
was five years.
It went to Planning Applications Committee.
And in fact, they only agreed two years.
Hence why it's coming back again.
It was agreed at two years at Planning Applications Committee
under condition.
So exactly the same site as we've always known it, Clapham Junction Conservation Area
in the setting of quite a number of listed buildings and locally listed buildings, the
locally listed building of the station itself being one of them right at the entrance to
the one stop shop, so the main entrance towards Clapham Junction station. Everything is remaining
as is in terms of the proposed dimensions. There is no changes to it. It will still remain
igloo flowers as far as I'm aware. So again, 3D drawing I'll go through this relatively
quickly because everybody does know this already. These are the views of the building or the
structure in front of One Stop Shop in its current situation. So it will remain or is
proposed to remain as such for a further period of two years. These are taken from their application,
so this is looking at it directly from the exit of Clapham Junction Station and that's
about it. The images of everybody, anyone that's been to Clapham Junction Station
will know it. There is no change to its dimensions or form. They are seeking purely to extend
and its extant permission by another two years.
Okay, thank you.
Having said, I wasn't going to make much comment on it.
Certainly in design terms, I'm not going to.
But just a couple of rather important background facts.
In their design and access statement, they say that the reason for this application is that they understand that a major redevelopment of the area around the station is planned.
and that since there is no date for when that redevelopment should take place, they are
taking this opportunity to apply simply for a two -year extension while the redevelopment
takes place.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the actual position, which I think it would be
helpful if I outlined. Over the past two years, Council officers have been working with consultants
on the development of a master plan for the Clapham Junction Town Centre. And originally
it was envisaged that that exercise would have been completed by now.
And that it was even earlier this year,
thought that a supplementary planning document would be issued last month.
setting out design parameters for the redevelopment of the station area
and the Falcon Road shopping area where Asda and Boots and Lidl are,
together with the area, with building a raft over the carriage sidings to the west of the station.
So a supplementary planning document was the aim of the exercise.
It can only be, from the council's perspective, a supplementary planning document
because the council doesn't own any of the land in the area.
So they are wholly... the council is wholly dependent on the current landowners,
mainly Network Rail and DTZ, who own the shop -stop shopping centre,
as well as the landlords of the Asda Boots Lidl site.
So what the council was trying to do was to set, if you like, planning parameters for that area.
There is no proposal at the moment, no design work has been done,
or is immediately in the offing for redevelopment of the site.
crucially it depends on network rail, who are the major landlord, landowner on the site.
So in a key sense, this application is based on a misunderstanding and a misperception
of what is going on.
There is no inherent need
for a decision to be taken now.
Other than that,
the temporary, the current temporary permission,
which the Planning Applications Committee awarded in,
I think it was July 2024, but the letter was sent in August.
So, if nothing else changes, then the permission expires,
and that would imply removal of the current stall.
One other thing that they have presented in their application is an attempt at an
exemption from the fire safety regulations because they think it is
fire regulations simply are inappropriate, are not needed for the
stall. That of course, again, is a misperception and a misunderstanding. If there were to be
a fire on the site, the danger obviously would be to people in the immediate area. The added
danger, would be for evacuating people from the station, because that entrance and exit
from the station, the main exit from the station, would be inoperable in the case of a fire.
So again, I think there's a fundamental misapprehension.
There's a long history of opposition to the sighting of this flower stall.
I'm not going to say any more about the reasons for that, but they are multifarious, which
is why only temporary permissions have been awarded up to now. But if I can quote the former
chair of the Planning Applications Committee, Councillor Humphries, back in 2024,
if you go back to the archive of that meeting, he said they should be told two years and that's it.
No more. I will say no more, but do other people have any questions or comments?
I'm sorry about this.
On the site there is a metal box, 10 metres long, 2 .26 metres high and 2 metres deep.
And they sell flowers from it.
It's described as a flower stall.
Well it's not a flower stall, it's a flower shipping container.
It's never had planning permission.
Up until about 2012 there was what you would think of as a flower stall was there.
It was fairly shabby but it was a flower stall.
A tin box, possibly not this one but one very much like it, appeared on the site in 2012.
After a little while, enforcement action was proposed and the Council's planning team
were investigating taking enforcement action to have it removed.
When they did that, they put in a retrospective application to retain the building on the
site and they received permission for five years, in 2017 I think it was.
I think it was three or four years after it was put there.
That expired and nothing was done about it until a fuss again was made and they made
an application after the expiry of their temporary permission for another temporary commission
in 2024 and that's expiring in a few weeks time. So another application is being made
to retain it. It's never received permission in the way that you would expect a structure
of this type and size to have received planning permission.
I think they're abusing the planning system.
I mean, I think it's every, this is the first time they've ever applied
for something before they've had to.
And they've only done it a few weeks before they've had to.
In the words of, what's his name, they're having a laugh.
I think in conservation, sorry, in a way that's neither here nor there.
In conservation terms, it is clearly not acceptable.
The committee report in 2024, I think it was that recommended refusal,
describe the building as a bulky, unsympathetic and incongruous addition to the area.
It blocks the entrance into the station visually externally and it blocks the exit from the
station visually as you are leaving the station.
The image that was included in their application and which was put up on the presentation showing
the front of the stall was sort of quite coy. It was taken from one side on a sunny day
and it gave the impression it was all light and airy. But if you walk down from the ticket
barriers to the station it's just an impediment to the exit.
In conservation area terms, I think we should soundly condemn it and recommend that the temporary permission which they are seeking should be not granted.
There's the one. A shabby, thank you very much, 2008 I think that was.
It's shabby, but it's a flower storm.
And what we have is not.
And they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it for any longer.
A shipping container?
Well, at least two shipping containers.
Councillor Fisher...
I said at the beginning, Clapham Junction is despite its name,
as you well know, in the centre of Battersea.
Do you have anything to say about this?
Not in my ward, this bit, but,
so my apologies if this is out of the arena of this group,
but coming out of Clapham Junction Station
is often quite unpleasant because you have a bus stop on,
as you come out to the left,
you have the flower containers in front of you,
and it can often be very claustrophobic, particularly in rush hour.
I appreciate that's not a comment on the visual impact of the store,
but I'm not sure whether the Network Rail have made any representations for the application.
I think it's even more of an impediment at night because there are people in various
conditions lying on the pavement in front of it.
There are regularly bicycles and dismembered bicycles also adding to the ambiance.
And I go past it quite often in the evening, and apart from being accosted by people asking
for money, you have to sort of dodge round the mess and everything else that's happening
there.
So in the evening it becomes an attractant for other stuff and makes the station look
even worse than those lovely jolly pictures.
Is there anyone who wants to make a case for this application?
Is it the case, therefore, that we, I think it is worth saying that the basis on which
the application has been made is completely mistaken and that all the objections that
we have made in this committee and have been made by officers in the past about this still
still stand and that we believe that removal of the store is necessary to remove all the
impediments that it causes. Is that a reasonable way of summarising what we have to say?
Chair, would you want me to include in addition to that the wording from 2024?
I can just read it out quickly.
So your previous objection was the committee unanimously objected to the application on
the grounds that it was a completely inappropriate structure to be situated within a conservation
area which cluttered the pavement, hindered the entrance to the railway station and obstructed
the view when exiting the station to buildings of note.
That was your previous objection.
Yes.
OK. In that case, can we move on to the papers to note, firstly, paper 26157 on the development
decisions that have been made on applications that have previously been considered by this
committee. I'll just go through them one by one, if you like.
Item 1 there, the Meadbank Nursing Home, we supported the proposal and it was granted
by the Planning Applications Committee.
Number two, two Altenburg Gardens in Battersea.
We objected to that application
on grounds of inappropriate infill design.
And there were changes, quite significant changes
made to the application subsequent to our discussion and planning permission was granted
again by the Planning Applications Committee, in fact at its most recent meeting.
Number three is opportunity road, the erection of the demolition of the existing buildings
and five storey building with 23 units.
We objected and the Planning Applications Committee refused the application.
For a whole load of reasons which I'm not going to go through.
Many of them not related to conservation or heritage issues.
9 -15 Elko Street, more towards your patch, Councillor Fisher.
This is the redevelopment of the design studios for...
Sorry, my mind's gone blank.
Vivian Westwood.
Vivian Westwood, yes, which we supported and PAC granted permission.
By contrast, number five, 110 to 112 Putney High Street, former bank building,
We supported the application, but the Planning Applications Committee refused it.
It went to appeal and the Inspector upheld the original decision.
Just pop in a word, please.
Yes, Mr Catto.
This panel, this committee quite rightly thought that what they'd done with the design at the front was mostly okay.
We had one or two small concerns. What got it refused was that they extended the bulk of the building all the way to the very back of the plot.
And there was going to be somewhere down the middle a couple of five -storey light wells about as wide as from myself to Mr. Armstrong, with rooms facing each other.
I can quite rightly see why that element, not visible
from the street, not affecting the conservation setting,
would have justified refusal.
So we supported it in design terms, but in other terms,
I can, and the Partner's Society did
think it was not acceptable in those other terms.
Thank you.
And finally, the one that Ms. Way mentioned earlier on, the glass mill, which came before
this committee a number of times, went to, was refused by Planning Applications Committee,
went to appeal a public inquiry ensued in which a number of the societies that are members
of this committee joined with the Batsy Society as a Section 6 participant in the inquiry.
if you want to know what the sections section six rule six sorry it's rule six
sorry I'll tell you later what that means but we were a party alongside the
Council in supporting the refusal?
I must interject.
Michael is underselling it.
There was a consortium of amenity societies
that attached themselves to the Battersea Society, the Putney
Society, the Wands of Society, and others.
And we sat round tables week after week, day after day,
preparing our case for the appeal to be rejected.
And Michael spent God knows how long sitting at the inquiry,
well, and before then.
It was a great amount of work and a sterling effort
and I think he should be commended for the party played
in helping to have the appeal overturned.
I mean, the Council did their bit as well, obviously.
But I'm hoping that as an amenity group that we groups, we played a part.
So thank you, Michael.
Well, thank you.
I, all I can say is I'm personally very pleased by the result and by the fact that we're now
beyond the period when the developers could have applied for judicial review of the inspectors'
decision.
So the proposal is now well and truly dead. Thanks very much to all concerned in achieving that end.
I didn't mean to be disparaging about the Council's part in me in getting the appeal dismissed,
because they must have spent a goddamn fortune preparing the case against what was a pathetic
appeal for a building that should never have been considered for the site.
I think developers should be... When you go to appeal, it is possible that you can have
costs applied against you.
And the parties, that is a developer in the council,
I think agreed that that would not be the case.
I really wish they had, because I
don't think the appeals stood a cat in hell's chance of success
if justice has anything to do with it.
It doesn't always, I grant you.
But the cost to the council must have been prohibitive.
And I'm just so pleased that the damn thing was refused.
And I mean just to add to congratulations to the council I thought that our Conservation
and Urban Design officer who's now left the council I understand, Ben Ely, did sterling
service in that appeal. So thanks to him.
Is there any other business I know, sorry, Councillor Fisher.
I just wanted to cheque whether you had heard anything about the proposal, the new proposal for the nest,
which is a building taller than the glass mill, about a mile from the glass mill.
My understanding is there is a new proposal for that building.
I did ask officers whether it had been considered by this committee previously
and I understand it was considered last year and there was a unanimous objection.
Will that proposal come before this committee again if it does proceed?
I'm almost certain that it will. Well if I have anything to do with it, it will.
The reason I ask is I asked officers last week and the response I got was that it had already been considered by the committee.
So I was, it was my first meeting of this committee, so I was slightly unclear as to whether that would be considered again.
Yes, there is no bar against a revised application coming back to this committee, as was indeed the case with the glass mill.
There is no formal application for the building.
Correct, not yet.

5 Decisions (Paper No. 26-157)

I know there's one item of AOB that Councillor Osborne wants to raise.
Quickly please.
Just a tiny one and forgive me because I'm not sure whether it was previously discussed
at this committee or not.
I haven't always attended and been on this committee,
but the planning application in the rear of number 2 to 28
Bickley Street, which went through the planning
applications committee on the 25th of June,
one item about that which I think
is important that this committee notes
is that it had attached in the conditions for the approval
of the planning application a written
scheme of investigation as requested by Historic England and they are I think
it's fair to say unusual and significant and now we have one smack in the middle
of my ward in Tooting and I'm pleased to say and so I think the
committee is should be updated on that. Thank you for raising that. It has
come to this committee before and both Ms Lawson and Ms Greenwood have been involved
in making representations about that application. So it's a minor success and a significant
success, a minor but significant success, I think.
Okay, is there any other business?
I don't know what the score is, but I'm sure Calum will find out quite quickly.
Okay, thank you very much and just ask you to note the dates of future meetings.
Yes.
I bring the meeting to a close.