Interactive webcast player

Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 21st July 2026 at 7:30pm

 
Share this agenda point

.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Apologies again.
We had some technical hitches.
Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Applications Committee.
My name is Councillor Ravi Govindia.
I'm the chairman of the Planning Applications Committee
and also a counsellor for East Putney Ward.
I'm going to ask counsellors to introduce themselves
when they first speak.
There are a number of offices, well, in fact,
three on this here and then a couple down and three down there.
And they too will introduce themselves
when they contribute to our deliberation.
But the one person who is fundamental
to our proceedings is Ms. Campbell.
Hello, Laura Campbell, Democratic Services.
Okay, thank you very much.
I have apologies for absence from Councillor Sweet.
I think one thing I'd say is that perhaps at future meetings
we will revert to room 123, which is more personal than this,
and I kind of find this kind of sitting down, looking down on all of you,
be a bit tiresome and difficult.
I don't have ambitions to be a mayor.
I don't have the ambitions to be mayor.
I can look down on you without having to sit up, you see.
That's...
Okay.
Just as a normal reminder that colleagues will have read,
received the papers and read all the background documentation
as a part of their preparation for the meeting
and say if proceedings go at pace
as though people haven't read it, it's not true.
There's nothing to ask, they won't ask.
So straight on to the minutes of the 25th of June,
they've been seen by Councillor Bilton.
Shall I sign, may I sign them as an accurate record?
Councillor Bilton.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any declaration of interest or registrable and non -registrable interests?
Councillor Warrell.
Thank you, Chair.
At the last meeting, I made a statement in support of one of the planning applications.
As a result of that, it could be seen that my participation in item number one could
be seen as predetermination and so as a result I will not be taking part in the discussion
and I will leave the room during the discussion in relation to that application.
Thank you, Councillor Warrall. Councillor Cooper.
I'm not sure it's going to be relevant this evening. Councillor Leonore Cooper, Fersdown
Ward, but in addition I'm the London Assembly Member for Merton and Wandsworth, so just
in case any aspect of any of the applications
relates to the work of the Greater London Authority
or its constituent parts like Transport for London.
Just for transparency purposes, I'd like that recorded.
Thank you, Chair.
I did say last time that we would have it
as a standing recording rather than you having
to utter it each time, but happy to do that.
Okay, we go to item one, which is on page seven.
I'm going to let Councillor Worrall make his excuses.
Before this meeting, I wrote to colleagues
about the very, the latest submission
on behalf of local residents,
some 87 pages that was submitted
by their legal representative,
which included some further noise assessment and so on.
Normally those documents would have to be assessed
by both planners and appropriate professionals in the council
and this being summer, it's been difficult
for the Environment Service to give us that opinion
because the environmental health officer
is currently on vacation.
And therefore, we don't have the benefit
of that professional checking off
the submission from Russell Cook.
And therefore, I think, having taken advice from planners
and our legal advisor, that it would be good
for the council to defer deliberations on this occasion
and hopefully have the matter before us in August.
I hope that we have now got almost all the information we
need from both applicant and the objectors,
and there will be no further late arrivals of documentation.
And so the only thing we need is assessment from our offices,
and therefore the next time we consider it,
we will have a comprehensive report covering both items,
both aspects of the application.
I'm just going to ask first Mr Moore to make any observations if he has any,
and then I'll call Councillor Cooper.
Chairman, thank you. I think you summed up the position well there.
Russell Cook, on behalf of some of the Bridge residents,
submitted a further submission two days after the committee paper was published,
and in that they raised matters relating to technical evidence
of where some of the noise readings were taken from.
And as you say, they haven't been able to be assessed
by the council's in -house environmental health officer.
So whilst it's not the council's necessary role to adjudicate
between two different views in terms of the technical evidence,
it's your role to reach a planning judgement on the evidence.
So you're not necessarily required to favour one over the other.
But if you do, then you need good reasons for doing so.
and we, the councils and environmental health officer will assist with those good reasons.
So I do agree, Chairman, that the matter is best left until that's happened.
Thank you.
Councillor Cooper.
Thank you, Chair.
And can I just say it's very welcome that you have raised the fact that there's an impediment
to us discussing this before we had the discussion, which obviously last time we did spend 40
minutes discussing it before we decided that we couldn't discuss it. So it's very welcome that we
have at least decided that we can't discuss it before we've had another 40 minutes worth of then
deciding that we can't discuss it. Can I just ask though, that perhaps we could go further next
month if we haven't got all of the papers in advance and absolutely all assessed and dealt
with, can we not have it on the agenda at all and hold it over until such time as we absolutely do
have everything because I can't be the only councillor who wouldn't really want
to have it come back for the third time on an agenda and then not to be able to
finish our deliberations. Thank you, Chair.
I accept that but of course it's sometimes difficult to avoid these things because
matters of interest to objectors or applicants only come to light after the
report has been published. So I think we are in the worlds of reality rather than
ideal council Milton
Excuse me, Tony Belton Battersea Park Ward in Battersea. I'm sorry to make such a quibble but given the importance of the previous
information
Slightly mildly unfortunate. I don't think mr. Moore was introduced himself
And so perhaps the public don't know the value of his his comment
Fair point.
Chairman, members, forgive me.
My name is Duncan Moore, I'm the external legal advisor to the committee.
Is it then therefore agreed that we defer this item to a later date and proceed to the
next item?
Thank you.
Which is the ground floor, Jessica House, 10 Red Lion Square.
On this I have been approached by Councillor Sarah Davies,
the local ward councillor, to address us.
Is that agreed?
Thank you.
Councillor Davies.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, committee members,
and for listening to what I've got to say.
So the report here, it focuses on the area
being near the very busy ones with High Street,
but I'd like to draw your attention
is actually the quiet residential aspect there.
There is no free traffic and almost feels pedestrianised
with Georgian alleys, cobbles, the National Opera Studio,
nursery, charity shop and a small independent coffee shop nearby.
The roads and pavements outside Jessica House
and into Hardwick Square are not council -owned
and there's already an issue about litter, fly -tipping,
suitable street lighting and antisocial behaviour.
and the fear is that increased footfall will make the area more dirty and
unpleasant and unmanageable. I'd be interested to know if the planning
officers have visited the site and if they concur with these two points.
So I've spoken with many residents over the months and I've met with the
Resident Ed Property Management Board. They strongly object to the proposed
change of use to allow for a laser tag operation directly underneath their own
homes and others in the immediate area they've also abducted. They want you to
know about laser tag. So LaserQuest marketing itself states that this
energetic game involves running around and shooting people with infrared guns
in a high -octane thrilling adrenaline pumping activity. Residents, one with the
newborn baby at the time, they've already been disturbed by contractors working on
site late at night and the council noise team has intervened. They're very
concerned about a direct infringement of their right to resident amenity with
loud noise, boisterous activity inside the building and noise outside before
and after energetic activity. They also raise that smells from the cooking of
fast food waste could permeate into their flats above or in the general
area. Class E use typically attracts more visitors and deliveries than Class B. So the
access to Jessica House at the moment is by narrow one -way alleyways and a three -road
through Hargrove Square. So any additional delivery vans to serve the site or those vehicles
dropping off the customers recalls obstruction, pollution, noise and safety risks to pedestrians.
It's possible that the operation is conflicting marketing, that the operation would permit
a policy of bringing your own alcohol and this could lead to increased noise shouting,
anti -social behaviour and street drinking and of course the general rise in all the
background noise. So residents really hope that the committee members here, that you
will decide to reject this proposal for change of use to allow for any leisure use in the
paves the way for any other operators in the future to function popular but disruptive ventures.
So I'm thinking about like we had with the strike bowling alley, it was closed down due to the noise and vibrations
and entering the residents directly above. But if you do choose to pursue this application, overriding resident views
and the residents have asked for a range of conditions to be considered and they'd like them to be implied
in order to partially meet their right to residential immunity.
And these I've emailed to the officers, but we're looking at restricted opening times,
no parking and elements like that.
And if I've got time I could actually read what they are.
So that they would like proof is obtained and shared with them
that their rights to goods residential amenity will not be adversely affected,
including acoustic and vibration reports.
They'd like the hours of operation never to exceed 5 .30,
with no operational Sundays and bank holidays.
Deliveries are limited to one hour a day once a week during normal working hours.
No additional parking space is provided,
no hot food served, and bring your own alcohol is not permitted.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you, Councillor Davies.
Ms Richards, can you help us with some of the comments
that Councillor Davies has made and the conditions she suggested?
Thank you. My name is Ellen Richards.
I'm the team leader for the West Area team.
So I'll start by just setting out that the application site
has an established office use which was approved as a class B1. Since the original permission
was granted that had a condition on it to retain the use as a B1 office, the use classes
order changed to a general class E use. And this includes a number of different sort of
uses. And I'll just give you an example to give you an illustration of the sort of uses
that could potentially occupy a space such as this in a town centre location. So, it
includes shops, sales of food and drink such as restaurants and so on, financial services,
professional services, indoor sport and recreation, provision of medical and health services,
creation day care centres, and other uses including offices for administration function,
and development, as well as industrial processes. So both uses, both the office and what is
currently proposed fall into the same use class. But the condition attached to the 2011
permission restricted the use to being just office because office use is protected within
a town centre location. So our policies require that our policies are relevant as set out
in the report, that the change of use would be acceptable and the loss of the office would
be acceptable subject to demonstration of an 18th month marketing report that would
say that it isn't in demand. This has been submitted and this has been set out in the
report. The site's actually been vacant for quite a long time. I think it's into years,
in fact. So one of the benefits really of the proposal would be to bring that back into
use within a town centre location. And this is also supported by further policies within
the local plan subject to demonstration that any potential impact on residential amenity
can be satisfactorily mitigated. So, amenity is clearly the biggest issue for residents
and that's understandable, particularly when the site may have been vacant for some time
and previous use was an administration office.
The Environmental Health Officer wasn't satisfied with the information that was first submitted by the applicant
and found it to be lacking.
And as such, the applicant was asked to submit a noise impact assessment, site -specific, and also a noise management plan.
And the environmental health officer at that time set out very specific things that he
wanted to get information about.
In April of this year, both of those documents were submitted by the operators and the noise
impact assessment was undertaken on the site over a four -day period in March of this year.
And they have set out and they also did a similar one in Greenwich where they have a
so that they could demonstrate what the general noise activity to nearest residential actually generated.
So the activities proposed include the laser quest play arena, VR simulators which are silent,
arcade machines which will be fixed at a low volume, and also a couple of party rooms for small groups of people after the activities.
The noise report submitted has confirmed that the existing internal noise transference insulation
at the premises actually was of sufficient standard, but they proposed to instal further
insulation measures, including solid MDF cladding to all partitions, raised floors and carpet
finished, an enclosed arena and also the installation of rockwool tile installations to the ceilings
and the walls, which will provide additional insulation as well as external fitting on
doors and windows to reduce any breakout noise. Also, the ramps and platforms that are proposed
will not be attached to any of the structure of the building. This was a request by the
environmental health officer to ensure that there was no risk of vibration moving up the
building. It's confirmed that the music would only be ambient, associated with the particular
games being played. There would be no live or amplified music. The food is proposed to
be light refreshment, similar to that which is sold at a cinema venue, and there wouldn't
be any cooking on site, so there wouldn't be any external source of any odour and so
on. The noise management plan also sets out quite in detail how the staff, which there
are proposed to be six, would actually operate the comings and goings associated with the
use. It will operate on a booking service only, so nobody can just turn up at the site
to come and play. So people will arrive for their given slot and then leave. So there
wouldn't be any queues or additional activity outside the site. The hours of operation are
also pretty limited actually until 8pm on weekdays and again Saturday and Sunday as
well. And outside of school term, the operating hours would be between 10 and 6 p .m. So there
are already quite limited hours of operation proposed, particularly given that it is in
a town centre location. There are conditions also recommended that are in line with what
the Environmental Health Officer has requested in terms of the noise reports as well as the
hours of operation. Environmental health officers have reviewed all the information submitted
and are satisfied that there shouldn't be any resulting impact on the residents. And
just to emphasise that contrary to some of the objections, there is no intention to sell
alcohol or to actually allow alcohol onto the premises at all. So, we're not sure where
that information has come from. So, in terms of the overall proposal in terms of land use
and also in terms of amenity impacts, officers are satisfied that the proposal can be operated
within the bounds of the conditions and without impact on the neighbours.
Councillor Davis has kindly forwarded some recommended or requested conditions by residents
that if members accepted the application and went with the recommendation to approve, they
suggested that we provide proof to them that their right to good residential amenity will
not be adversely affected, including acoustic and vibration reports. This information is
actually already available on our website against the file, so that is actually viewable
currently. But in any event, further requests for additional information, I've been advised
by our legal advisor would not be precise, reasonable or enforceable when considered
against the MPPF standards. The residents have requested that the hours of operation
do not exceed 5 .30pm and no operation on Sundays and bank holidays. This is a matter of planning
judgement and I think the hours they have already suggested, which is largely between 10am and
8pm are reasonable, again, particularly because it is in a town centre location and they are
limited to certain days of the week and curtailed depending on whether it's term time or not.
So the recommendation is at the end of the report. They've also requested that deliveries
are limited to one hour a day, once a week, during normal working hours. I'm afraid I
don't know whether or not we have any information associated with what reasonable delivery measures
would be, but I may defer to Mr. Tiddley on that point. There is also a request that no
additional parking is provided. The operators and the premises already have three parking
spaces, one of which is a disabled bay, so there's no more that's proposed. I've already
warmed up on the site. And again, on the bring your own alcohol, that's not permitted. Again,
the operators have confirmed that that's not a proposal that they're looking to include.
So I think I've answered all the points that have been raised. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Richards. Just one question before I ask colleagues. On the fact that
this is a private or non -adopted road,
so presumably there is a limit to what council can
and cannot do.
So perhaps, Mr. Tidley, you could clarify on that.
Thank you, Councillor.
David Tidley, the head of transport strategy,
and I'll just pick up on a couple of points
that were raised, if I may.
So to deal with the issue of crowding and footfall,
within the documentation that's been submitted,
there is some mention of management of customers,
which includes effectively the way that the operation works
is that customers are encouraged to pre -book sessions,
and most actually do.
Some do turn up unannounced,
but primarily large groups particularly will always book,
and consequently they can be managed
through the timetabling of the service.
They generally arrive in small groups, they're supervised throughout and then they leave
accordingly.
So that has been picked up to an extent.
On the issue of deliveries and servicing, you're correct, Councillor, as it's not a
public highway, then we can't enforce any loading and servicing regulations.
What we could effectively do, I think the proposal which was put forward of having one
that one delivery per week over one hour
is incredibly restrictive.
And when you think of how something like this would work
and lots of town centre uses would have significantly
more deliveries and servicing than that,
particularly if they're dealing with food.
That said, it may be permissible,
I'm looking at Miss Richards' condition
of delivery and servicing plan generally,
and then we can assess what comes in
and assess its suitability rather than actually specify
at the outset what we think would be,
we ought to prescribe something, thank you.
Any comments from colleagues?
Councillor Belton, then Councillor Tiller.
Chair, there is obviously going to be
quite a lot of unhappiness if we approve the recommendations
it stands right now as Councillor has already expressed.
And yet on the other hand, it's a town centre site
which is not used and largely shuttered up.
And obviously the policies of the Council include
making sure town centres are used properly.
It's also the case that there'll be some, not perhaps a great deal, but some small employment
gains and very little in terms of planning policy on which to base a refusal, I think.
I think it might be quite a difficult one to fight at somewhere or other.
However, there is a lot of local opposition.
How justified, I don't know.
But funnily enough, we've already had an item tonight
on the agenda, although it's deferred,
where we have another large group of opposition.
And we got round that by suggesting,
at least we got round it in principle,
by suggesting a limited time approval,
time approval of two years, I think it is,
on the one that we've already just deferred.
Now, I don't know, but perhaps Mr. Richards can advise me,
but judging by the report,
there's not going to be much capital expenditure on this.
It doesn't seem to be like a great investment in capital,
So the normal argument against having a limited time approval
that it wouldn't be worth it in terms of the capital costs involved may not stand up.
So I'm quite interested to know, obviously, Mr. Richards wouldn't know exactly,
but am I right in saying capital investment is limited?
If that's the case, depending how the rest of the discussion goes,
I might press for an amendment for a two year approval
just as in the other case I was referring to.
Thank you.
Nick Calder, Head of Development Management.
We don't know the precise amounts,
but it seems to be quite a substantial investment
to refit another layer of sound insulation,
put in a number of different rooms,
putting in new flooring and putting in the investments.
So I would have suggested that if you put a temporary consent on it, you'd probably
not be very difficult to justify, but I don't think you could justify it in terms of the
cost that would be involved.
The advantage of course of temporary is pretty obvious that in fact if the resident's worst
fears were to be justified, then the period would not be so great.
And if it's not justified, then of course as indeed, so I mean in one sense I could
play that game the other way, which Mr. Cole
was a bit unfair of me, but I could play it the other way
and say if the applicants are so confident
that there won't be any noise,
they won't mind about it being temporary
because they'll know that they'll pass
and be successful and get an extension after two years.
So, but I'm interested to know what other people think,
but I think that a two -year temporary approval
might be something that I recommend that I would move
for if I get support.
Councillor Tiller then Councillor Canola.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I mean, I have to say sort of from a common sense
point of view and you know, putting oneself in the position
of the residents, you know, who would want to live above
a laser quest with all the noise and vibration
that that entails.
So some related questions about that.
Can officers clarify whether any site -specific vibration
assessment was undertaken?
Because it does trouble me that the noise impact assessment
relies so much on measurements from another LaserQuest venue.
I can't believe we're comparing exactly like for like there.
Are they definitely applicable here?
And finally,
can we have some sort of general comments
about how the proposal complies with local plan LP 14
and London plan policies D 13 and D 14
regarding vibration and noise.
Thank you.
On your latter point, Councillor Tiller,
I'd say that if they were not compliant,
of the report would say so.
but I'm assuming that they are compliant, but I'm sure officers will help with that question.
Councillor Acunola.
Councillor Acunola, Councillor for Teuting Broadway.
It was just in reference to my colleague, Councillor Belton,
I noticed that in the recommendations it wants to give a...
it recommends that the development must begin within three years
from the permission, so I'm not sure if two years
will then satisfy that requirement.
I think that's a pretty standard condition on any approval
that once approved, they need to get on with implementing the approval.
So I think that's the purpose of that three -year condition
rather than anything else.
Before I take Councillor Worrall and then Councillor Cooper,
I'm just going to ask if there is any observation from offices
to what Councillor Tiller has raised.
Thank you.
There was site -specific noise impact assessment done.
I am not an expert in that field.
I am not, but I can show you
the extent of the assessments that were undertaken as part of that report, which has then been
analysed and assessed by our environmental health officer, who is the expert in matters
associated with noise and so on. I think the Greenwich Noise Impact Assessment was submitted
as well as to demonstrate how a laser quest, an existing laser quest actually operates
in terms of external noise impact. So clearly, you would, as part of the report, they measured
the actual sound inside of the building, but also from the nearest noise -sensitive source,
so a receptor, I should say, in terms of being able to assess how audible any of the activities
were. And I would imagine that in terms of the Greenwich site, they would have had to
undertake various insulation and noise transference mitigation measures as well. What they have
presented, as I've said, was assessed fully by our environmental health officer after
he made specific requests for very precise information associated with the use and what
he wanted to understand more of. So, as far as I am concerned, as the presenting officer,
I hope that would reassure you that we are satisfied that that has been fully assessed
to the standard that we would expect. And we can report to you positively about the
measures that they intend to undertake.
CBF Thank you, chair. I mean, it sounds great, doesn't it? This laser quest thing. I've also
looked at the marketing material and the stuff about thrills and adrenaline and the battle
for supremacy. It's very immersive as an experience. So once you're in it, you're in it to win
and it's obviously, you know, there's a lot of running and jumping and enjoyment and it seems
to be aimed at a younger demographic. And therein lies my concern because I think that once people
get into the game and they're inside and they're just completely focused on what they're doing,
which they obviously would be and completely fascinated and desperate to win this battle
for laser supremacy, they're not really going to be focusing on making sure that when they
jump off something, they do it lightly and all of this.
And I think that one of the things that seems to be missing in the report for me is it talks
a lot about noise assessment, but I don't think there's enough in here about mitigating
excessive vibration and the thumping that you would get.
I think in my experience, bizarrely in a parallel life, I do a lot of case work relating to
the night tube and tube noise but it's not so much the noise from the tube that
is the issue for the people who live in the dwellings immediately above the tube
tunnels it's actually the vibrations and their properties actually
literally shake so even if you do amazing mitigation for the noise and put
I don't know rock all over the windows and the floors and all the rest of it
you could still end up with the the vibration of people jumping about all
the place and having a great time. And I'm not sure that this particular proposed usage
for LaserQuest is compatible particularly with having all of the dwellings. I mean,
we can see in the previous planning history that there's a large number of dwellings there.
Now, I visited the site on many occasions and it's not great in terms of misuse of the
external area already. I mean, I had the delightful experience of watching a man urinate, which
obviously I hadn't gone there to see that, but that was just part of what happened. It
has been misused fairly heavily already. There's some undercroft not far from there. I mean,
it would be great to have some things that address those external problems and issues.
and I am very concerned at the idea of having a bring your own alcohol policy and I really
that's absolutely cannot happen at all. But I don't know how you can control that because
anyone can put anything into a water bottle, can't they? You can't unless you're going
to open every water bottle and cheque it. But my real concern here is about the vibrations
from this change of views causing problems for families who are living above as well
as the potential for further antisocial behaviour on top of the antisocial behaviour that already
exists around Red Lion and Hardwick and in that area. Thank you very much, Chair.
Councillor Warrell and then Councillor Craig. I'll come back to officers to respond to all
this. I think, I mean, I hope that we will be measured in our contribution. I don't think
there is any premises anywhere where there is a cheque on whether your water bottle contains
gin or not. I mean, those things happen and Councillor Cooper, I'm sure that you're not
allowed to take that into GLH, alcohol into GLH Chamber, but it is quite possible to take
it in your thermos flask if you want to. So let's just be realistic about our contributions.
Councillor Warrall, then Councillor Craig.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to go back to paragraph 4 .12 on page 60.
In the paragraph, it says that in relation to vibration, the noise officers advised that
the vibration transmission had not been specifically assessed because it was based on the nature
of the proposed use.
What would be the situation if in the building and the construction and it starts they decided to change part of the usage,
so bring in different types of machines or different types of activities.
Laserquay is like other things, it goes on what's popular at the time and people's tastes change over a period of time about what they want to do in terms of activities.
So if we gave permission today, how does this not become a wedge to actually then change
the nature of the youth over a period of time, especially as we haven't taken into account
possible change of usage in relation to vibration in the actual building?
Councillor Craig.
Hi.
Councillor Craig for Northcote Ward.
First of all, just to perhaps go back on something Councillor Cooper said about vibrations, I
appreciate obviously she's got experience from her other role, but I might maybe likely
suggest there's a difference in weight between a train and a small child playing laser tag
as an observation, perhaps. I'd be quite interested here from officers just about how long the
property has remained empty.
I think I saw something about seven years here.
I don't know if that's the entire period it's been empty.
How long the owners have been trying to sort of fill that
with the current office.
And also a little bit more about what you said
about change in use, that this only is before the committee
because of a previous sort of restriction
that was put on there.
Ordinarily, this wouldn't come to us at all.
I'd just like a little bit more on that if possible.
Thank you.
MS. RICHARDS.
So in response to Councillor Cooper and others in terms of vibrational issues, in terms of
the observations that the Environmental Health Officer initially had on this was that there
wasn't sufficient information about that. And condition four, so from looking at the
assessing the noise impact assessment.
The condition number four has been recommended
to ensure that any items as part of the fit -out
is only attached to the floor directly
rather than to any of the walls or structure
that would directly link to the floor above,
thereby limiting any vibrations running through the building.
He actually considered another use that had occurred in another building nearby where
there was unauthorised use of the site for late night clubbing and where there was nothing
put into the building.
And clearly there were issues associated with noise disturbance and also vibration from
the nature of the music and beats and so on. And so he was very concerned initially just
to be sure that any leisure use, if you like, in this location with residential above would
be to a high standard and wouldn't cause impact. He doesn't have issue with the vibration because
and that's why he's recommended the condition to ensure that whatever is fitted in there
isn't attached to the main structure of the building and thereby limiting the movement
of vibration. Councillor Warrell talks about issues with potential change in its activities.
I think from what you... I've never been to a laser quest. Apparently, our Environmental
Health Officer has. He took his children there. But there are very specific types of activities
associated with it, and I think that's probably their model. I don't know how technology advances
and so on, but I do know that part of what they intend to do here is actually virtual
reality games, game playing, which I understand would be completely silent, and so certainly
wouldn't generate any noise in that way. The other sort of use that's proposed apart from
main laser quest arena are some party rooms for children, which I would imagine would
be supervised in any event or for young adults would probably be supervised or if not they
would be used by adults, small groups of. Again, the wall and ceiling insulation should
ensure that there wouldn't be transference of noise to the floors above. I think it's...
only if there was going to be a significant change in the nature of the operation, then,
you know, again, residents were concerned about that and there were problems and there
are means in which that can be investigated and appropriate action could be taken through
environmental health legislation. Also, because there are conditions that require the use
to operate within the bounds of these conditions and the noise impact assessment and management
plan, then if they're found to breach those, then they are at risk of enforcement action being taken
against them and issue of notice. So, there are other methods that you can actually ensure that
operations operate in the way that they are meant to.
I hope that answers your concerns.
And with Councillor Craig, in terms of the length of time the site has been vacant,
I understand to be approximately seven years, which is a considerable period of time,
and that that has laid empty.
Local plan policy requires that any existing office use,
if there is proposed to be a change of use,
that it's demonstrated through a rigorous marketing exercise.
And as set out in the report, because I think they've been tabled out quite well there in
terms of what that involved, they dropped rents, they offered incentives for office
accommodation to be occupied and they weren't taken up.
The policy requires this to be done over an 18 -month period.
far exceeded that. And so in terms of our actual land use policy and the change of use,
then it complies with our policies and other policies too that encourage employment opportunities
and a wider range, if you like, of activities within a town centre. And finally, in the
point about why this is actually before us for a change of use, again, that's because
there is a restrictive condition that was on the 2011 permission that granted permission
for it to be changed to office accommodation. The main reason for that condition is because
office use is a protected land use within a town centre. And so, condition three, I
think, on this one also continues with that. So, should this use cease, then office accommodation
could come back into the site or alternatively another leisure use similar to this.
I hope that answers everybody's questions.
Yeah, sorry, Councillor Belton.
Just to add to the point about Councillor Worrall's, about another use that could go in,
it could go to another use, but the hours are very restrictive.
So if you were in a gym, for instance, could be looking at that sort of operation,
but it wouldn't be able to fit within those.
So they'd have to come back, look at the hours again,
and we would again assess the noise impacts
on that type of use.
So I think it's tied up pretty well
with the conditions we've got
on to protect residential amenity.
The one condition I'd suggest that we add on is the service
and delivery aspect that Mr. Tidley raised,
because I think that would
in some way assist local residents with those deliveries.
Can I take Councillor Wiles and Councillor Barron?
Thanks, just a quick question, which I think you may have touched on actually, Ms. Richard,
so maybe just to cheque that. I also would say having used a lot of laser quests and
VRs accidentally and inadvertently, it's not just the children. So I think the not bringing
your own alcohol is key to that. I think if you have that, and I suspect a lot of young
we'll be using that in the town centre, then I support that.
My question was, just on the noise management plan,
when it talks about the periodic reviews,
what are we getting of those periodic reviews if we have...
What are we testing against?
And I actually do take the point on the vibrations,
because jumping on the floor can cause those vibrations,
but I think that they have taken consideration
to address at least the insulation.
So, when we have, followed by regular periodic reviews,
and additional reviews where complaints are operational issues are indicated,
when those findings were reviewed, what are we measuring that against
and what's the resolution of that?
Sorry, can you direct me to where you're...
It's page 60, bottom of page 60.
Page 60.
I think you touched on it, I'm just not clear on what's...
Bottom of page 60.
Ah, yeah.
Final box.
Q. This is by the actual operator themselves so that they review their own management of
the site. This is what they've said that they would do. There's no condition as far as we're
concerned on the permission that recommends that we need to further review a noise management
plan or a noise impact.
A. It's like an empty thing they put on themselves, really.
Their insurer, it's what they've submitted as part of their noise management plan that's
been reviewed by our environmental house.
But they haven't really said what they would do if they...
With any find...
I mean, it's just sort of an empty...
Feels like an empty review.
I suppose it's just reviewing that they are operating to a standard that is not impacting
on local residents because they will still be operating?
I guess my question is, it's not clear what...
Can one of you switch your microphone? Because really it's quite difficult to hear.
Speaking to each other.
I guess it's just not clear what they will do when they've had complaints. It feels like
a token input from them. But maybe that's the answer.
Can I join in? Yes. Sorry. So the condition six requires them to comply with the noise
management plan. The noise management plan says if you've got complaints to work with
environmental services to resolve those complaints. So if you get complaints in through the noise
line, our environmental services colleagues will talk to them and that's how it would
be addressed. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Calder.
Councillor Barron, then Councillor Akinola, then Councillor Belton, and I think we need
to come to a conclusion on this application, spend about an hour on it.
Councillor Barron.
Councillor Barron of Wonder Ward.
I think Councillor Belton made an important point about it might not be a huge number
of jobs, but there are six jobs being created by this.
I think that is important to bear in mind.
My point was more around a very specific point on the waste and recycling aspect.
So the applicant on page 63, 6 .3, the applicant confirmed they would accommodate food waste internally.
So obviously the waste and recycling team have put a condition on around a plan for waste and recycling,
but I just wanted to see if we have any information on whether there are other local businesses
around there that operate in that way with, specifically with it kept internally and then
put out.
I'm afraid I can't answer that. I know that they do have a dedicated space just for their
unit so I'm assuming they would just bring that out. What they say is that they bring
out on collection day.
So...
Thank you.
Like Councillor Wiles, I've also been to a few Laserquests myself as a grown -up, and
it has been very enjoyable.
But I think...
I hope they've not been jumping up and down, as your colleague has been suggesting.
Well, definitely no jumping right now, but definitely I've done it.
I think I know we've been talking a lot about people jumping up and down but from my experience the most
Noise the noise issue comes from the loud music that is played whilst you're running around shooting each other
So I'm almost following on from what councillor Wells has said is they're going to be are they going to also measure the decibels of?
The music that they are playing now. I'm I'm very in support of businesses that
support our town centres
And, you know, we've got already got quite a lot of games, sort of businesses in the
town centre.
So I just wondered if the restrictions put on this space is in alignment with boom, I
think it's called boom bar and gravity, and all those other spaces as well.
And finally, I just wanted to ask if the officers if they think that actually by activating
this space, we might reduce the amount of antisocial behaviour happening in the courtyard
in front and whether that has been taken into consideration.
I think while you want to draw comparisons, I think they offer the other uses that you
referenced in the town centre, a different scale, different type of location, different
offer. So I don't think you can directly compare them to gravity or...
Sorry, just to add in, gravity would have no conditions at all,
because it was formerly a shop use Class E.
This is also a Class E use, so they've gone in,
they've got no sort of restrictions on the same sort of level
that we're proposing on this one.
I'm afraid I don't know.
I'm not sure if you hope that.
Chair, I must say I hadn't associated
Councillor Akinoda with violent sports.
I will be very careful in future.
We'll change your seating arrangement if you're concerned.
Thank you, yes.
But nonetheless, I did think her argument
about possibly improving the social environmental conditions
outside as a result of being occupied
It's quite an interesting one at the end and I'm on the whole taken with the arguments that it's better for the town centre
To have to approve this application
However, I'm also been around long enough as indeed a future to know how difficult it is when
Applications don't turn out quite the way we expected and we think that we can apply conditions and it's actually quite difficult
in all sorts of ways.
So it's all very well on paper saying the conditions
of this, that and the other,
but actually enforcing them later.
So I'm rather going to go with my original suggestion
and move, if I may, that we give a two year
temporary permission and approve it on that basis.
I hope to get a seconder.
Can I just intervene on that?
I mean, I'd say that one of the issues,
and you raised it, Councillor Belton, earlier,
it's about striking a balance between the level of
investment required to get an operation going
and the return they need to make on that investment.
And I think that from the report is very clear
that the adaptation of these premises
to make them sound and other proof, as it were,
is going to require a fair amount of investment.
The floor is going to be new
so that it doesn't transmit noise,
the various walls are going to have to have
acoustic material fitted to it, as will the ceilings.
So all of that, I mean, there's a risk
that we find that we effectively make the whole thing
unviable commercially in a short time.
So that's why I would, my own view would be
that that would be an unreasonable restriction to put in.
And whilst I'm speaking, and I make a general point,
that when it comes to conditions,
we should bear in mind that the conditions we imposed
should be ones that are enforceable and easily enforceable.
They might sound nice for us to have,
but if you cannot actually enforce them,
that it only brings the whole thing into disrepute.
So it's quite important to be measured about the conditions.
And finally, I know the fair amount of points been made
about the consumption and access to alcohol.
I think it's important perhaps to recognise that,
and maybe we could include an informative,
to say that we welcome your operator's commitment
of not selling and serving alcohol
and not allowing people to bring in alcohol
and we'd expect that to remain in place
whilst the use continues.
Accept the informative happily.
can I stick to my amendment in any event?
Because if the, as I said earlier,
if soundproofing, et cetera, is as good as you say,
they say, and they are confident about,
then they'll have no problem accepting
that they'll pass the test in two years time anyway.
So it's no problem for them.
So can I press the amendment anyway?
Well, I'll get into more to give us some his thoughts on it, but I would just say as an aside
It's one of those things if you've got nothing to hide you wouldn't mind showing your documentation type of argument
But but I hear what you say
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Jim. I just thought this may assist members in deliberating
Councillor Belton's proposal there. So the starting point is there is a statutory power to impose a condition that
limits the duration of a planning permission
In terms of the MPPF, which is the National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 57 says
planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary,
relevant to planning and to the developments to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.
So they are the tests that conditions need to meet in order for them to be imposed.
So Councillor Belden drew similarities between the limited nature of the proposed condition
for Arch 79 and this particular application. I think for the Arch 79 proposed uses, there's
a far greater propensity for noise issues to arise as a result of the sale of alcohol,
200 -odd seats within the building, lots of outdoor seating and increased footfall. I
circumstances for this particular application.
I think the hours that have been requested are reasonable.
As Ms. Richards has explained,
there are extensive proposed internal works
relating to further sound insulation to the building.
The Environmental Health Officer is content
with what's being proposed,
and we've also got the condition four
that Ms. Richards has spoken to earlier.
So whilst it's a matter for members' planning judgement,
and I won't trespass upon that.
I just thought it'd be helpful to set out
what those six tests are in the MPPF
and also where the suggested imposition
of a temporary condition for Arch 79 differs
from what members are considering now, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Moore.
So first, can I take the informative about alcohol,
condition, informative about alcohol,
is that agreed generally?
Right.
Without inclusion, now that Councillor Belton's suggestion
or motion to add a condition about limiting
the planning permission for two years,
is that seconded?
If it's not seconded, it falls.
So the conditions, the approved,
well, is the planning application approved
with the conditions in pages 66 to 68 and the addition of the informative about the
alcohol and the parking and delivery arrangements that Mr. Tiddley worked with.
I am moved to avoid. Those in favour of that? Sorry, Councillor
in favour of the recommendations,
to approve the application,
subject to the conditions set out in those three pages,
plus the informative about alcohol
and the delivery and parking that Mr. Tilly had said.
Those in favour?
Those against?
Okay, and those abstaining?
So I cast my vote in favour of the proposal.
We move to item 3, which has actually been withdrawn,
as you'll see from your lates, as has item 4,
and so we're now on to item 5, page 110, 21 Alma Road.
Any thoughts on 21 Alma Road or Councillor Bilton?
It's a question really, well it's just a thought as opposed to.
The original application that seems to have created this situation with the waste,
on reflection, and I have no idea whether Mr Korda was involved that time ago,
but on reflection, does he think we got the conditions wrong then?
Because we seem to have landed up in a fairly impossible position.
But my understanding was that it was shown in a particularly reasonable location,
the problem has been that the leaseholder on the ground floor
has now decided that they don't want to let over that space to the flats above.
and Miss Richards will be fully responsible for this development, so maybe further comments?
Not really. I mean, the original permission was granted with external waste proposed at
the front of the property, and the permission was implemented, and unfortunately, I can't
speculate as to why, but they haven't been given permission to actually undertake the
waste provision, so they have to find an alternative which is the one that's been presented and
in order to ensure that the waste is collected and managed correctly for the residents from
inside of the building, then it would be subject to a legal agreement to ensure that the terms
are complied with and so on.
Councillor Burdson.
This is, forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is the second time in two meetings that we've
got a situation where private, non -standard anyway to put it mildly, refuse collection
is being agreed.
twice in two years and I think the chair
and my combined history goes back maybe
between us 50 odd years and we can't remember
it happening before, it's extraordinary.
Extraordinary.
Yep, I concur but we are where we are as they say.
Councillor Wyles.
It's just maybe it's not really related
to approving the planning application
but how is that working?
If someone's getting the waste every day and completely taking it, not putting it outside
like it's just every single day, it seems very unappealing to have in a residential
block how this has panned out.
HOPKINS I actually followed this up with further questioning
of the applicant and it's actually operating like that currently because they have to remove
because it was built and occupied and the issues associated with the bin storage between
the leaseholder on the ground floor. So, the bin storage as approved should have been outside
and onto the street. But yeah, so the current contractor operates in that way already and
the security and safety of residences is okay, you know, assured to us really.
I'm with a bit of Councillor Belton, it seems quite extraordinary.
I mean, I suspect that in reality this is a public house where the upstairs would have been used by the public house once upon a time.
It no longer is, it's a separate independent space and the two landowners cannot agree in sharing bits of the ground floor for collection of waste.
and so the choice was either leave it redundant
or find an accommodation, which is what this is.
And see, is that agreed?
I take it nobody gains.
Okay, thank you very much.
Includes planning applications.
We move to paper 26165, page 127.
the two TPOs, Dryborough Road and Minstead Gardens, that agreed.
And then onto paper 26 .166 on page 143, that agreed.
which were noted for information really,
and then paper 26 .167 on page 145.
That noted?
Thank you.
And then paper 26 .168.
Perhaps on this I might actually ask Mr. Calder
about the work of the appeals inspector.
Well, again, I might blame Ms Richards because the new chief executive of PINS was actually
Graham Stalwood who used to be Ms Richards' boss at a previous authority, so I can only
think that he's deliberately picking on Wandsworth now. There seems to have been quite a move
for inspectors to put less importance on developments in conservation areas, and particularly at
the rear, where we've particularly tried to protect roof extensions and the like, and
there seems to be quite a few of these applications have just found that there isn't sufficient
harm or not even identify public benefit, which they should do. But they've gone quite
strongly on that. I will be writing to PINS to complain about one decision in particular
about some windows, only some windows, but some windows in the article four direction
and Dover House Estate, which were allowed in spite of us having previously had schemes
dismissed almost for identical ones within the same terrace, which I found just a bit too much.
But the difficulty is you can write the complaints and you might get something coming back saying,
yes, that probably wasn't a great decision. The only way to actually challenge them is
with any other planning application is to take it through judicial review, which are
very expensive process for these small applications. It's simply not worthwhile.
I've noticed an increase in the number of being allowed. Is Mr. Calder saying this is
almost totally in conservation areas? I just haven't done that analysis at that level.
They're not totally, but a majority have, and the majority of our reasons have been
the impact on the conservation area, which the inspectors haven't found. But we had this
maybe 10 years ago where we suddenly lost a load of appeals and then it then it flipped back so
I think it just happens every so often I know they've had quite a few new intakes recently
including our the design officer who worked on glass mills Mr Ely has now gone enjoyed
the inspector as well. I think that concludes tonight's meeting thank you all very much for your time.
Thank you.