Interactive webcast player

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 20th August 2026 at 7:30pm

 
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

1 Minutes - 21st July 2026

Good evening and welcome. Welcome to this meeting of Planning Applications Committee.
My name is Councillor Rabiegh of India. I'm the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee and also a Councillor for the Sputni Ward.
Members, I will, when you speak, I'd ask you to introduce yourself and then officers likewise when they contribute if they could introduce themselves.
except for Democratic Services.
Normally never speaks, so we need to know who you are.
Good evening members, Callum Wernham, Democratic Services Officer, Clerk to the Committee. Thank you.
I have apologies from Councillor Wiles and I take it Councillor Tillers is...
Yes, he counts that sorry
My I'm Tony Belton
Councillor representing Battersea part wall in Battersea
Yes, I've had apologies from counsellor to the he
Texted me not long ago Brazil. I'm afraid but I think
But not to it by the sound of things that we cover in a few days
Thank you very much
I'm going to skip the rest.
It's a very short agenda and I don't think anyone is likely to disappear.
But the point I was going to make was that when we decide applications,
sometimes we don't necessarily spend a lot of time debating it.
It's not because we are uninterested, but it is because we have read the papers,
ask the questions that are relevant and come to a considered judgement already
based on the evidence that is with us and we contribute if necessary but not
needlessly. The minutes of the 21st of July meeting that was sent to Councillor
Belton who was in agreement, are they okay? Shall I sign them?
We note Councillor Cooper's standing declaration arising from her membership of the GLA.
Are there any other colleagues with interest to declare on tonight's agenda?
Okay, well then, shall we move on to the agenda before us?
Mr. Calder, do you have anything to say before we get into the discussions?
Thank you, yes.
I've got two points to make.
Firstly, regarding the sort of the shortness of the agenda, it was a matter that we were
waiting for a third case, which has been quite controversial, being on the last two agendas
to have appeared on this one.
We were waiting for some background information so the Environmental Services Officer could
complete his investigations and conclusions.
We are unable to receive that before the agenda was dispatched, so I couldn't put that on
the agenda.
So the information is now all being received, so unless there's a massive issue, it will
be on the September meeting.
So that's the first point I just wanted to raise because otherwise with such a short
agenda we might have looked at another way forward.
The second one is that the Government have kindly released on September the – sorry,
August the 17th the revised NPPF.
I've put a very short note in the late items.
We have assessed all the applications before you this evening to see if it would change
any of the outcomes. As officers, we do not think there's any change to that recommendation,
so I've put that in there. If you'll indulge me, I can just talk a little bit more about
the MPPF. So it's probably the biggest change to the MPPF since the first one was released
in 2012 and marks a sort of a substantial overhaul of national planning policy. It gives
a very strong presumption in favour of sustainable development with pretty much a default yes
approach. While that doesn't appear as a statutory test itself, that is what a lot of commentators
have called it. And it reflects a clear direction from the government to the sustainable development,
particularly housing development, in accessible locations should be supported. It doesn't
mean that we should approve everything, of course. Applications can still be refused
where there's unacceptable harm, for example, residential amenity, heritage assets, design
quality, environmental interests or local character. However, that balance has probably
shifted a little bit. There is very much an increased emphasis on housing and growth.
And so housing proposals in sustainable locations such as in a London authority are likely to benefit from the national support.
As a result, committee reports may change and may place increased emphasis on the benefits of housing delivery,
including market and affordable housing provision, and benefits that carry in the overall balance.
However, I'd like to highlight in Wandsworth we're in a pretty strong position in terms
of housing delivery.
For the period 2022 to 2025, we exceeded the housing delivery measurements by 123 percent.
So we were required to provide 5 ,850 new units.
We actually achieved 7 ,187.
So given that there's an explicit general presumption in favour of housing within the
context of Wandsworth, since we're succeeding in the housing delivery targets and able to
demonstrate five -year housing land supply, we feel we're in a stronger position to push
back on poor quality designs and ones that would be harmful and a better place to manage
development in the local priorities and against our own policies.
I would point out we're one of only five authorities in London that have reached those housing
delivery targets, so we're doing pretty well.
I'll name and shame the other ones.
So it's Barnet, Croydon, Harrow, Westminster.
So it's a mix and surprise areas like Hamlet's haven't achieved that.
So the other important point is development near public transport nodes, particularly
relevant in Wandsworth, I think, because we've got a number of networks and locations such
as Clapham Junction, Nine Elms, Vauxhall, Wandsworth Town, Putney, Ilsfield, Ballum,
Southfields, Tooting, they're all sort of highly accessible locations.
And we may see increasing numbers of applications for higher density developments around those
sort of areas. There's making more of efficient use of urban land, but I think we already
do that pretty well. We have good high quality developments coming through. But there's also
the continued importance of the local, the development plan. So we have an up -to -date
development plan, and we'll be going shortly into a full plan review. So there's those
elements. One thing I wanted to highlight, and I'm not going to go through the whole
MPPF because it's meant to have been, yes, it's now over 100 pages where it's meant to
start off about 12 pages, I think.
Heritage members, new and old, will know that the term less than substantial harm, I'm staring
at Councillor Belton because he particularly hates that phrase, came from the MPPF.
And so under the previous MPPF, we had no harm, we had less than substantial harm, and
then we had substantial harm.
And one thing that the new MPPF does is simplify that.
So now we have a positive effect, no effect, harm, substantial harm, and total loss.
So we all know where we are.
No, we're telling you that.
So the less than substantial harm always caused a problem, because you're saying it's harmful.
Now we've got a bit more of a balance and a bit more emphasis in there, and they've
moved from great weight to be placed on heritage assets to substantial weight.
Other issues, I think for householders, pretty much it doesn't make too much of a difference.
we'd rely on our local plan policies,
and although there's national plan policies,
they sort of replicate what we already have.
Might be more of a push on small sites
with a greater emphasis on density,
but generally that's pretty much similar.
So that's my sort of whistle -stop tier of the MPPF.
So essentially nothing to worry about.

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-184)

The leader put out an interesting note a week ago
about the responsibilities of the Cabinet as he saw it.
And planning policy was included under his name,
which I'm not sure, well I know in the previous four years
it was variously under people's names
and reported to Transport Committee frequently.
If it's in his name, which I thoroughly accept
it puts planning in its right place, I think,
right at the centre, most important thing going on.
So I thought I'd approve of all that.
But where are we going to have a chance
to discuss this in detail?
Not at the Planning Applications Committee, presumably.
And I don't quite see from his note
where it was likely to be discussed or considered
in any sense.
So I think certainly when I was leader and my predecessor,
we both had the strategic planning responsibility as part of our portfolio.
There was a time when I was a cabinet member for strategic planning,
which is a separate portfolio altogether, when the leader didn't have that responsibility.
But that was for a kind of short period.
So I don't think there's anything wrong in where it is now.
In those days in the past, the planning policy came to the then technical services committee
or the transport and strategic planning overview and scrutiny committee.
And I suspect that a similar journey will be the case in the future.
Which then means that when those policies are discussed, the executive member with responsibility
would presumably be there to attend to talk about it.
Although the plan making is largely written by professionals.
I have actually written to him asking for clarification on that.
I'm sure you'll see him frequently.
Perhaps you could just nudge him because I'd like a reply.
I mean, I was sitting... Sorry, Councillor Cooper.
Councillor Leoni Cooper and I represent the Fersdown Ward
in tooting. So in the last year I was sitting on the Transport Committee and
although it had changed its name just to the Transport Committee, just as the
Children's Committee still covered education, the Transport Committee still
considered strategic planning issues. So unless the constitutional changes that
we obviously received with the claim at some meeting or another very recently, probably
the 22nd of July. Unless we've actually changed the standing orders for that specific committee,
I imagine it's still the Strategic Planning and Transport Committee because certain items
had been requested to come forward to that committee. For example, consideration of the
the transport perspective, also from the planning perspective. So, for example, if we were going
to have a discussion at an OSC of, I don't know, a response to the national planning
policy statement, if it was a consultation, or the London Plan, which is a consultation
and the closing date is the 15th of October, would it go through that committee as well
as being considered by cabinet and so on. I mean I'm assuming it's going to go
somewhere. Thank you, Chair. I think I remind members that we are a planning
applications committee and not a planning policy committee. The questions
about where planning policy starts is of interest to us but I think I'm not in a
position to answer those questions. I think you need to raise it with either
the leader or appropriate officers but I you know to be fair planning policy
Many matters have generally gone to transport, but they could go equally to finance corporate
resources for that matter.
But where they go is something that I'm sure between administration at the officer end
and administration at the political end will resolve.
Okay, moving on to item one, which is 5 Beechcroft Road.
This is a relatively straightforward application.
We have seen it before in this committee and approved it before.
this is a variation of the last approval. Are there any comments or questions?
Thank you, Chair. I was on the committee when this came forward last time, so I read this report with
a lot of interest and I think I voted in favour when it was seven units and it's now eight and the
design appeared to be a bit better to me, so I feel that this is, you know, the officer's
recommendation that we should approve it with conditions all seemed in order to me.
There is an additional condition in your late items which is about the hours of operation
of the community facility at the bottom of number 5 Beechcroft Road.
So if there are no further contributions, I'd recommend actions with the additional
condition.
Agreed?
Thank you.
Then we move to the next item, which is 32 Nightingale Lane, which page 65 on your bundle.
So, again, another straightforward application.
Counsellor Sweet.
I did have a couple of questions about this one.
I mean, I think the application is acceptable reading the paper, but if the officers can
just clarify my understanding on the HMO policy, if I understand this correctly, that
the paper is suggesting that an HMO can be converted into a single dwelling if there's
replacement HMO accommodation available.
Is that right?
Good evening.
Good evening.
I'm Neil Shaw.
I'm a principal planner in the East Area Management Team.
Yes, can I say, Policy LP 29 seeks to preserve HMO accommodation.
and there's two areas where it can change or be lost
and move into a single dwelling.
And that's one where the HMO accommodation
is not seen as up to appropriate standards.
That's not the case in this application site.
But number two, it's appropriate to be changed
or acceptable to be changed where adequate replacements
been provided elsewhere.
for the same applicant had planning permission granted in July 2026 for HMO
on Fairfield Street where a 12 bedroom premises was provided so there'd be no
loss in the HMO accommodation and floor space so it's found to be acceptable.
Thanks.
I suppose that just seems a bit strange to me.
They seem to be, in my mind, separate applications.
Someone has received planning permission for one item.
Fantastic.
Now they want to do something completely separate in other parts of the borough.
So I just want to confirm that our policy is actually that it's acceptable to connect
these two applications in this way.
It's the same applicant for both applications.
That's correct, yes.
It's fairly unique and it's quite unusual in a way.
We don't have this very often, but it's the same applicant.
And they were in at the same time.
It just so happened that we didn't delay approving the other one to wait for this one.
So okay, thank you.
And my second question is about paragraph 5 .2, which is about the financial contribution
for affordable housing.
Can we just get a bit of clarity about this point about the application coming in before
a policy that would have led to more financial contribution to affordable housing?
How has that happened?
When was this 28th of July date agreed?
Yes, thank you.
It's an interesting point.
I think I've raised it at the last couple of meetings, but the local plan was adopted
in March of this year, the local plan review, which included this clause.
What we decided to do was wait until we had documentation, the supplementary planning
documents to enable local residents and developers to have full information before we brought
it forward, and that was the reason that we delayed it.
We couldn't go into it prior to May due to the local elections, and then after that we
needed some time to get everything ready.
So, the 28th of July was chosen as the date where that policy has started to kick in.
So, it's applications received after that date.
I was interested in Councillor Sweet's line of questioning and was going to ask similar.
So I take it that we are talking about appropriate alternative on a one -off, one -for -one kind
of basis being appropriate.
Are we looking at this in a holistic sense across the borough at all?
Like are we satisfied that there is a sufficiency of HMO occupation or is it a desperate shortage?
because I have a slightly different attitude depending on the answer.
If we're desperately short of such facilities and we're losing, what is it,
here, seven or eight or something, nine?
Nine.
And just getting one very, very large family unit in place,
then I'm interested to know.
And, indeed, so interested that I'm inclined to think that we should throw it out.
Now I realise there's all sorts of problems with that, but I voted against overlarge applications
before, so it won't be a new one for me.
Thank you.
So in the circumstances, although you're losing the nine units, it's funding the new proposal
in the location, and that's why it was tied in through Section 106.
So you have no loss of any units.
In fact, you end up with three more.
So, you know, the new provision at 65 Fairfield won't happen unless this is allowed.
Councillor Craig for Northcote Ward.
My question is also along a similar train really.
It seems perfectly adequate in terms of replacement in this case, you know,
12 HMO places for sort of nine, that is an increase.
But is it that this recommendation wouldn't have necessarily come forward if it hadn't
been for that link or sort of following on from Councillor Belton's point, is there more
of a general sort of we look at the trends of sort of amount of HMOs in the borough and
we could have taken a decision based off that.
It's more for my personal information more than necessarily deciding on this particular
application.
Okay.
Yeah, hi.
Well, yeah, the policy does seek to retain HMO floor space.
That's why in this circumstances, had there not been a replacement floor space within
the borough, then it wouldn't have been acceptable and it would have been recommended for refusal.
But given the specific circumstances of this case, then it's found to be acceptable.
So, it's only that there is a replacement and that's in that very narrow circumstance
that it's...
That's correct.
There's no, there's an increase, there's a net increase in HMO floor space of about 25
square metres, I think, in between the schemes, so.
Sorry if I can just add to that because as Mr. Shaw pointed out, there's the policies
as is twofold.
There's the replacement of it which is this and if it was a very poor quality then we
could accept its loss.
Councillor.
Councillor Barron.
Wonder what.
I just want to add more information than anything.
Just on the condition regarding cycle parking.
On 6 .5 on page 74, it says no information has been submitted regarding proposed cycle
parking.
which for a building of this size with this amount of land,
which should not be too much an issue,
but it just seems odd to me that they've done it
this way around by not submitting any information
and then a condition being put on it.
Is that, I mean, I assume it is well within the rules,
but it seems odd to me.
Is there anything you can kind of further explain on that?
I think he picked up on it.
On this particular site, it's a very generous site.
So officers are happy that there will be, it would be feasible to provide sufficient
cycle parking for the number of occupants.
Had it been very restricted, then we would have sought information up front to make sure
that it could be achieved.
But in this circumstance, we're happy to put a condition on there, get information, subject
to planning permission.
If there are no further questions or comments, are the recommendations agreed?
Thank you.
Well, that concludes the applications paper.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 26-185)

We want page 81, paper 26185 for our noting.

5 Closure of Investigation Files (Paper No. 26-186)

And then closure investigation files on page 83, paper 26186.
Noted.
Councillor CUNYAP.
Thank you.
Just on the topic of HMOs, there seems to be a lot turning up in Fersdown, and you'll
I've noticed that in the NB, no breach on page 85 of the report, it says 62 Coors Hill Street, first down HMO without permission,
and then just below that there's another one, conversion to HMO in Lavender.
There seems to be a lot of them being implemented, I've noticed.
And people are obviously asking if it's in breach of something, hence they're ending up in this report,
because I think people are unhappy at the idea of a small house having multiple extensions
into the roof and rear additions and suddenly discovering they've got, I don't know, 20
neighbours instead of just a family of three.
I'm slightly exaggerating, but we have got some examples where there are multiple doorbells.
So we don't seem to have a shortage of HMOs.
No real comments, but those are all no breaches, so they're not breach of planning permission.
Of course you can, at the moment, move to a C4 small HMO without the benefit of planning
permission.
I mean, I'm always looking at 2D, 4th Bridge Road.
If it was the whole of 4th Bridge Road, it would be a substantial HMO.
I suspect the 2D suggests it's only a bit of a bit.
But that's where we are.

6 Closed Appeals (Paper No. 26-187)

Closure of closed appeals, page 87, paper 26187.
It's a game for noting.
All right.
And that ends the meeting this evening.
So thank you very much for your attendance.
Thanks and have a good evening.