Interactive webcast player

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Thursday, 10th September 2026 at 7:00pm

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

Hello, good evening, everyone.
Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation Heritage Advisory Committee.
My name is Michael Jubb and I'm chair of the committee.
Can I remind members to switch off their microphones when they're not speaking, to put them on
conversely when they are speaking, and also to turn off their phones or put them on silent
if, well, to avoid embarrassing themselves during the course of the meeting.
Can I ask for apologies, please?

1 Declarations of Interest

Thank you, Chair. I can confirm we've had apologies for absence from Mark Dodgson and
Andrew Kettle who's been substituted by Laura Paul Gacy. Paul Gaze. Paul Gaze, sorry.
Thank you.
And we have the officers serving us for the first time,
Michael Flowers
and
the
conservation officers Lauren Way.
Evening Chair.
Oh, it's not Sarah House.
Stephen O 'Vagan.
Okay, and I'll introduce members
as they contribute to the meeting,
if that's acceptable. Thank you very much. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations
of interest relating to items on the agenda? I'll take that as a no. Can I ask then for

2 Minutes - 14th July 2026

approval of the minutes of the last meeting held on the 14th of July.
First of all, are they a correct record?
Can I take that as a yes?
In which case I will sign them after the meeting.
That's acceptable.
Matters arising from the minutes, there are a couple I think at least.
Can Ms. Wade update us on Fersdowne Lodge, where things stand on that?
This is item three on the minutes, page three in your pack.

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-189)

and development management and we're just waiting on either further pre -application
or an application to be submitted but nothing's been submitted as of yet but all advice has
been provided to the applicants. We're still monitoring the condition of the building as
well as a team and if a need be, we can obviously contact our enforcement team if there are
any concerns about its condition deteriorating further.
Okay, thank you. I mean, this is, as we've said many times around this table, something
that's gone on for a very long time. Ms Lawson.
But I would suggest that you are not taking a specific
role if there is any kind of course interest in doing it.
Do you want to start something on that thing?
Yeah, honour, I was a question.
I was aADD Honestly, core question is how I would
take it for myself.
team who live quite close by are also keeping an eye on it as well.
So there's not like a kind of established monitoring system in place, but we are keeping
an eye on it on a regular basis as we're out on site in that area and obviously where we
have offices close by.
Thank you.
Okay, can I move on to page 4 of the PAC, which records our objection to the application
20262045 on the Wandsworth Roundabout?
We objected to it.
This doesn't appear in the papers, but I note in the papers for the PAC meeting a week today
that it is, the application is going to PAC with a recommendation from officers to approve,
which I have to say in the light of the comments that we made about that application, I find
very disappointing. But, Councillor Fisher.
Just to flag, I think it's a revised application that's being approved, so the proposal is
a shorter advertising tower and the screens are smaller than the proposal that we saw.
I recognise that, of course, but nevertheless, I think I find it, I'm expressing a personal
opinion, obviously, somewhat disappointing.
Okay.
Page five on the pack.
Are there any comments?
This is, let me say, another application, 2026 -2404, which is going to PAC on Thursday
next week.
So, again, an objection from this committee, strong objection last time, but it goes to
PAC with a recommendation to approve for another two -year period.
Again, I have to say, I can only say, give my own personal opinion, but I'm very disappointed
by that given the case that we made against it.
That would be second and third he did
with at least two various in front of the disappointed.
Any other matter?
Did I miss something?
No, your microphone was off, though.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Let us move on then to the main item on the agenda which is applications.
and we'll start with 2025.
So this is an application that came in last year, 2025 -4038,
land adjacent to Creative House on the corner of Prince
of Wales Drive and Batterby Park Road.
Who's going to lead on this?
Can I just say before you start, for the benefit of people watching that members of the committee
have seen the presentation and have read through papers relating to them, so we are not starting
from scratch in any comments that we make. Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Way, I interrupted you.
Thank you, Chair. So as the Chair has stated, first application,
land adjacent to Creative House on Prince of Wales Drive. So let's hope this works.
So the site itself is situated to the to the rear of Creative House which is a
modern block at the junction of Prince of Wales Drive and Battersea Park Road.
You see in the red line boundary here it's actually the site that literally
surrounds this Creative House. Now this formerly was part of Creative House and
it's since been sold off as a separate parcel of land with Creative House
forming its own parcel of land. I think there is a need to maintain some form of
access onto this site in terms of parking for Creative House and as well
as bins stores which I'll point out as I see go through the plans. In terms of
heritage assets, this is on the southeastern tip of Battersea Park
Conservation Area which is set out in yellow, just wraps around the site and
And what's important is the group of buildings to the west of the site, which are bounded
by a brick wall, tall brick wall, particularly on Battersea Park Road, which continue up
towards Creative House and include the site.
So the site that is situated just the other side of the brick wall is the Church of Our
Lady Mount Carmel and St. Joseph, which is situated in this point here.
So this is actually locally listed.
It's a church which was built in the 1860s and then extended in the 1880s.
Following that we have further buildings that were added to this collection which includes
St Mary's convent, now Cloister's building here, and then to the north of that was a former school
now I think called Garden House now converted to flats.
So this whole ensemble's got a similar sort of appearance to it.
character in terms of the building styles.
So again, just very quickly looking at the existing site
plan, you see here with the existing buildings on the site,
rather awkward sort of shape to the site.
But it basically takes up what was formerly the parking area
and some store buildings on the site that were
being used by Creative House.
And again, now looking at the street view,
you see some of these buildings.
So this is looking from Prince of Wales Drive,
where you see the Creative House right on the corner there,
very distinctly modern building that has a very different sort of character and
design quality to the buildings, Victorian buildings further along. In your
foreground here is the former school building, the Alcraster's Garden building
with its crow step gables that are addressing onto our site. This is
looking at the junction to Havelock Terrace and Bassy Park Road towards
Creative House and you see the buildings that we're describing in the
background here. So this building is the Cloisters Business Centre which was
formerly the convent. Further behind that is the church which is locally
listed. As I mentioned the whole site's mounted particularly to the south along
Bassie Park Road by quite a tall brick wall. You can see in context there the
person on the street how high that is. Those gates there are the access to the
Cloisters I believe and it's just behind that. After those gates is the
start the red line and draw a plan. And further along, so these are the gates that you would
provide access to the site, and this site which terminates that brick wall. You can
see those buildings, very distinctive crow step gables to these buildings, they all have
them, the cloisters and the former school. So it's quite a distinctive skyline here,
and then you have some modern buildings further along towards the Bassy Park, along Bassy
Park Road, but it's quite a good quality Victorian townscape that survives along here
with the exception of Creative House. So existing situation here, you've got a number of buildings
on the site that are effectively sheds that are where a serving Creative House. Bear in
mind that a lot of these sheds here that are actually occupying the existing elevations
have since been removed, so it's pretty much a cleared site. What they're proposing
on the site is effectively a group of four four -storey houses on the site that set a
staggered arrangement and located on the western side of the boundary, a maximum of four storeys
with terraces and some modest landscaping surrounding it. So this is showing you the
proposed elevations, so front elevation here. They sought to try to achieve some semblance
of design to those buildings, including the Cloisters building and the school. Not quite
sort of crow step gables, but sort of integrated stepping within those eaves. This shows you
what you can see in its context. So that's actually the front elevation. So obviously
it tapers quite a bit towards Creative House. So it is staggered, so they all stagger up
towards the north where they're each step further forward towards the north a range of different
types of material but largely in terms of materiality they're proposing it to be a yellow
stock brick I believe to try to blend in well with the surrounding buildings. Roofs are going
to be finished in blue black slates and then the actual detailing to the base and the detailing
around the windows at the rear will be finished in zinc cladding.
These are, we don't have a huge amount, we don't really have any CGI's that accompany
this application so we are looking at these aerial views. This is looking at it from the
rear elevation so this is coming from the rear, looking at, you'll have the cloisters
building and the school quite close by to the west of the site. In fact that is actually
the former school building there, so it has come up quite close to the boundary. In order
to deal with the proximity of the school or the former school, you see the windows here
on the northern building are turned towards the brick wall of the building further south,
and you have a visibility screen here on the first floor terrace, which is just to mask it
and provide privacy for those occupants in that house and as well as the garden buildings of the
as we call it. These are our elevational drawings that show it in its context at Prince of Wales
Road. You see it does rise up above the school building. The school building is two storeys
but obviously quite lofty proportions in terms of the floor to ceiling height. So each floor
is two storeys but it is of a height that's comparable to three storeys. Yeah, it will
be four storeys that rise up above those buildings there and will occupy the space quite close
to the school building. And there you see on the street elevation there's a single
large long narrow window rising down these elevations continue along here
very little other articulation to these elevations on Battersea Bark Road. You
can see there the context in terms of height with the four -storey building and
if you bring it along it's roughly about the same height as the Closters Business
centre or form of convent and then furlong here that's the church and then some of the
some later development next to the church there so it just gives you a good idea of context in terms
of height. Layout, ground floor layout here just gives you an idea of how that state the staggered
arrangement situated. There are some small garden spaces towards the rear largely occupied by
air source heat pumps and then they have to maintain a access and some hard
standing along in this area for creative house. You have a look at the top corner
here that is the bin store for creative house just there. My apologies my cursor
is just a bit slow off the mark when I'm actually using it so hopefully you can see.
First of all layout here you've got your terraces occupying site again some of
cut off just because of the nature of the the red line boundary being quite awkward shapes.
Second floor, bedrooms and a small terrace towards the front on top of that bay window
that you see on the front elevation. Third floor plan, again so just another couple of bedrooms
there and then that's it that we have. So if I put back just those sort of axiometric views that show
it just from up high. That's probably a good point for me to stop there to get views from
the committee members. Thank you.
Thank you. Could we start with any questions for Ms. Way? Questions of fact before we get
on to expressions of view. Is anything not clear?
Just quickly before I take questions, there's one thing I just wanted to add. I note that
members might have noticed in the design access statement it mentions about pre -application
engagement, but the conservation urban design team were not consulted on that pre -application,
So we didn't feed into those discussions. So we'll be looking at it as application stage not at pre -app that was
undertaken by the development management officers
Okay, thank you. I
mr. Armstrong
Bearing in mind this is a former car park
Can you tell us what the car parking if any arrangements are for these new dwellings and?
There was my understanding, because I'm actually reading this out of the design and access
statement, there was car parking spaces provided for each of the houses at pre -op stage, but
these have been omitted. So each house will be given space for secure cycle storage, but
there will be no car parking proposed for the houses.
Okay, other questions? No? In that case, expressions of view, please. I might add by way of introduction
that the Battersea Society has objected to this application on various grounds, but I
would welcome views from members of the committee who are not as local to this as members of
the Battersea Society are.
Ms. Paul Gaze.
I assume highways have been contacted because I can't see that there aren't going to be deliveries, even if there's no parking.
There will be deliveries and it looks a very tight and awkward entrance to it.
It's not necessarily a heritage question but more of a planning question.
Yes, highways would have been consulted unfortunately.
I don't have a copy of their comments at this stage but they would have been consulted and provided comments on that.
whether they provided comments at pre -application stage,
it's not clear from reviewing it.
But they will certainly provide comments
on what impact that bin store will
have in terms of refuse collection and things like that.
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, can I say that I quite like the roofline,
the sawtooth roofline, although it's
going to give future maintenance problems due to the presumed
valley gutters, which will collect all sorts of leaves
and be a constant source of annoyance
to the future residents.
But yeah, it's an interesting roof line,
and it's a bit different to the usual boring flat roof
terrace that we often get.
There was the applicant putting the scheme with flat roofs, which at pre -application
stage was discouraged by the planners.
It had the benefit of allowing for some photovoltaic panels on the roof, which was an advantage.
You referred to the crow's nest?
Crow step.
Crow step, detailing the eaves of the roof to match the buildings, I think, is it to
the west of the site?
Yes.
Yes, I can understand why that might have been thought a good idea except that I don't
it is. If they had provided gross crow stepped gables that would have been a recognition
of the adjoining buildings but having these panels immediately underneath the eaves I
don't think does anything. I think it just shows a mistaken objective to try and match
things that are there. What I agree with Mr Armstrong that I think there are the fine
houses, but they don't seem to sit on the site in relationship to the buildings on either
side. They sort of stand independently and I think that's a shame. The buildings to the
left which aren't shown very clearly on the drawings, the ones that have the crow stepped
are very distinctive and I think had they made an attempt to form a terrace...
Okay, Councillor Barron.
I have a very similar view on that, particularly the tiles at the top.
It seems like they've made a great deal of effort, and I do appreciate the effort, to
kind of integrate with the area.
but it comes across more as a poor imitation
than actual integration.
Whether, obviously that's more of a personal view
than a subjective view,
but it's something that I think is admirable of them to try,
but doesn't quite come off in this respect.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken?
Councillor Fisher.
I like the proposal, I support it, but I haven't had the benefit of reading the Battersea Society submission
and I probably should have done before the meeting.
I struggle with this idea that a building on that site
could be in keeping with the surrounding area
on the basis there's an extremely eclectic mix
of buildings in that area.
It's right next to Creative House which,
and I'm sorry it's a personal opinion,
but I think it's probably one of the ugliest buildings
in Nine Elms.
It will provide much needed respite
I'm having to look at creative house on
Heading east along Basu Park Road
It is between two two railway lines. It's I appreciate some the best apart conservation area, but it's not the
It's not the it's not the jewel in the crown of the Basu Park conservation area
And there are very very tall buildings
a few metres from from the site including
Immediately east of the railway line on the east of the site, which has just been put up
So I struggled to see grants for objection to the proposal.
I think it's reasonable and I would support it.
Forgive me.
Mr. Farrow.
I think it would be a mistake to try and relate it
to Creative House.
The less said about that, the better.
But my point, I should have been more specific in my references.
The buildings to the west do make a, they contribute a whole and I think that if they
had formed this building as a block which could sort of act as a part of a courtyard
or one side of the courtyard to the buildings on the west of the site it would have been
a lot better. These look like houses that belong elsewhere somehow. They don't seem
to fit into Nine Elms at all. They should be on an estate somewhere. I mean, I think
they're nicely designed. I just don't think they belong in the area.
Okay, comments from anyone who hasn't made a comment up to now. If I can then say on
behalf of the Battery Society, my colleagues on this found that particularly the height
of the four houses accentuated by that steeply pitched roof
meant that it obscured rather than responded to the stepped gables
on the old school building
and that the attempt at a crow -stepped gable done underneath the eaves just didn't work at all.
Personally, I wasn't involved in that objection, personally,
so I nevertheless think it's important just to pass that on.
In the light of the discussion, it
seems to me that what we're likely to end up doing
is commenting on this application
rather than objecting to it.
and that our comments might take the form that A, they seem to be well -designed houses
to fit on a site like that. There are questions to ask about the height, their height, and
particularly the steep pitch of the roof, which doesn't respond to the nearest local context,
which is the school building, the other side of the boundary.
but that, as I say, we would accept that they're reasonably well designed, but they might want
to look again at the design of the roof and the height of the building.
Would that be a sort of compromise that Councillor Fisher may be?
I struggle a bit with the height point.
I appreciate, you might not want to talk about Creative House,
but it is next to Creative House.
It's shorter than Creative House,
and it's surrounded by extremely tall buildings 50 metres away.
So I think fair enough on some of those other points.
Withdraw my comment about height.
But could we go ahead with commenting about the roof, essentially?
It's steep pitch, which doesn't integrate.
It's poor attempt, I think, at a stepped gable.
So something to pass back to the developers.
I have a bit of a problem here, as much as I
think the steep roof does relate to buildings,
if not adjacent, then to nearby.
And I completely agree about the fact
that the attempt to refer to the step,
Crow step gable is ineffective.
But I think that I would be pleased
if we could add something to the effect
that the buildings don't sit comfortably on the site
and don't relate overly well to the area.
Sorry, I'll take one more comment.
Mr Armstrong.
Yeah, I quite like the fact that this is a road, a site which boards, is bounded by two
roads and the terrace, the way it's stepped, it addresses both frontages.
So I think it's quite well, it responds to the site quite well, really, in that respect.
Okay, what are we going to end up saying?
would that we...
There are aspects of the design which we are happy with.
There are divisions of view about the steep pitch of the roof.
I mean, I won't go into why...
I mean, the school buildings do not have steeply -pitched roofs,
and they're the ones with the step gable.
So I think we have to accept there are divisions of view on that,
but I think what we're essentially seeking some further work on
is the crow step gable.
Is that OK?
Is that acceptable as a comment?
Thank you.
Let us then move on to
2026,
two, three, five, one,
land to the rear of two Altenburg Gardens.
We have looked at a previous application,
which has been now consented
on the
the erection of a house on what is at present a vacant site, essentially, at the end of
the terrace in Altenburg Gardens. This is a development to replace the current workshops
which run in between Altenburg Gardens and Lavender Gardens.
Who's going to lead on this?
Okay, over to you.
That would be me, thank you.
So the proposals here are alterations,
including the change of the existing workshop
storage building and an adjacent office building.
Both of those will be changed to residential.
That includes part demolition,
as well as alterations to the existing buildings,
creating two two -bedroom units and one five -bedroom unit.
There's also private amenity space, cycling,
refuse storage, boundary treatment,
and associated landscaping.
So this is the existing and proposed site plan.
As you helpfully said, there is an existing consent for,
I think it's two and a half storey building to number two.
That would include basically a carriageway
providing access to the site. Other than that the layout is pretty much the same
heritage asset plan this is in the Clapham common conservation area no other
heritage assets nearby. So this is the view into the site from Altenburg
Gardens that single -storey building it will be removed and in that would be the
the dwelling with the carriageway underneath it.
And that's just viewing from the opposite direction, the same entrance.
So from this aerial view, you can see the long existing workshop running between Lavender
Gardens and Altenberg Gardens.
The white building on the right there, that is the existing office building, so it's essentially
two semi -detached buildings of two storeys with various extensions to the front of them,
currently painted brick. The workshop itself is also just painted brick with a
fibre roof on it. That is somewhat of a view from Lavender Gardens, you don't get
too much of an impression, but that is the rear of the office buildings. So the
existing, the elevation drawings are a little bit difficult to see. Top left you
can see is the single -storey building, so that would be the entrance into the site.
The section in the top right, that is, I don't even know what that is, that is looking south.
So the section is the two -storey building, and you can't see the workshop building.
The central image, that centre building with the large garage door, that's the existing
workshop, with the cross section of the two -storey office above it.
And then the bottom image is straight through the workshop, and you can't really see the
office to the side.
The proposed are in a completely different orientation,
but you can see the replacement workshop there
with a very large front window to it.
Again, a cross section through the two -storey building.
So the two -storey element is essentially
going to be retained and refurbished.
The workshop building is proposed to be demolished,
and then the site lowered to accommodate another floor.
So the workshop building doesn't change in height,
but it would become a two -storey building.
That's the cross section.
And you can see there maintaining the front extension,
just adding glazing to it.
So the form of that building is pretty much staying the same.
That is the cross section to the proposed.
These drawings are quite small.
So existing elevations and sections as you can see there, they're introducing a very
large courtyard to the centre of the workshop.
That's going to provide the amenity space.
There's a smaller garden to the rear.
You can see there how they've kind of lowered the ground and a slight slope to the front
to provide the second storey.
Again, refurbishment of those office buildings, essentially just replacing a lot of the extensions
and adding a significant amount of glazing.
So those would be rendered, cradle windows, cast iron pipes, et cetera.
And is there another existing floor plan?
You can see how long narrow that existing workshop is of a single storey.
And then proposed, you can see it's now become two storeys, including the lower ground floor,
we'll call it.
That is the central courtyard with a tree.
Private amenity space to the front of the office buildings, low boundary walls separating
private amenity space.
There's also a single storey extension proposed to the front of the workshop, which would
between the office building and the workshop building.
The workshops themselves would be just stock brick,
a zinc roof, a membrane to the flat areas.
And I think that's it.
I'll hand it over for questions or comments.
Okay, questions or fact.
I have to say, I mean, you have accurately
shown what the developer has provided, but the drawings are not easy to follow.
I think we'd all agree on that.
But first of all, questions.
Questions of fact.
You mentioned that the warehouse, the floor of the warehouse was to be lowered in order
to accommodate an additional storey. I did not read that from the drawings. If the site
had been lowered, it didn't jump out at me. Could you confirm that and if so, the depth
of the excavation?
Yeah, so it's a very marginal change.
The existing height is almost enough to accommodate.
It's just a little bit of excavation to provide a more even access and to get that full height.
So I wouldn't say it's a significant amount of lowering.
So the roof of the new warehouse building, it is at the same or similar height to the
existing?
Yeah, that's correct.
The form of it is slightly changing because it's currently pitched and they're going to
do pitch sides and a flat middle.
So there's some slight variation, but the overall height is basically the same, yeah.
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, can I just give a bit of the history of the site?
Sorry, is this a question or?
No, I'm just explaining what the site is, the nature of it.
Okay.
Yeah.
Along the Clapton Common frontage in the 18th century, a whole series of villas built in the 1750s to 70s.
And this is the remaining ground of the West Lodge,
which is one of those villas.
And it had a lot of garden buildings.
And some of these buildings remain from West Lodge,
although they're later than the 18th century.
They're mostly late 19th century.
They were sort of stable buildings.
And then when the site was redeveloped
in the 19th century, this bit of triangle of land
was left over with these buildings on it.
And the garage was constructed, which
is the main long building that they were going
to reduce the floor levelling.
and the earlier buildings became offices for whatever, there was a business there run.
So it's got an interesting history and it has an association with Sherlock Holmes and Conan Doyle
in that one of the last residents in the 19th century
was Henry J. Raymond, who was the alias for Adam Wirth, who
was known as Napoleon of Crime.
He was sort of an international crook, basically.
But Conan Doyle based Moriarty in the Sherlock Holmes novels on him.
So, let's just...yeah.
Okay, thank you.
If there are no more questions, can we move on to comments on this proposal?
Anyone?
Mr. Councillor.
Yeah, I'm assuming from the relaxed way in which Mr Armstrong described the site,
we don't think that there's anything left there that's worth looking after or preserving or taking away or anything of the kind.
No, I mean the Climate Society is pleased to see these buildings being the ones that remain from the 19th century
put to good use instead of being demolished and completely redeveloped.
They're actually keeping everything really.
It's very sort of conservation based redevelopment this.
So, it's very difficult site to develop anyway, because it's hemmed in by
later buildings on both frontages, road frontages.
If that's the case, I think that the developer should be asked to in some way reference or record on the site that this is where Moriarty lived.
You don't want them to sell the building then obviously.
Sorry to give me a matter of clarity, when you talked about the buildings being retained,
you were not talking about the warehouse building, it is the other buildings.
Oh, it's the other buildings, yes.
Okay, sorry, that's helpful, I didn't quite get that.
I think that in conservation terms, what is proposed is unlikely to have any adverse effect
on the conservation area.
I'm sympathetic to the views of the many people who have objected to it, that the building
will be more obtrusive, that is the houses that back onto it.
but as said earlier, the drawings are difficult to understand.
And why I think the relationship of the warehouse building to its neighbours
is critical to the success of the scheme.
I found it almost impossible to work out what effect it was going to have on them
from the sections and elevations that were submitted.
and I just wish that could have been done better.
But as I say, in the effect of the conservation area,
I think it is unlikely to have an adverse effect
to proposed development.
Can I add from a Batch Sea Society perspective,
as Mr. Faro has said,
there have been strong objections from local residents, both in Altenburg Gardens and in Lavender Gardens,
who will be affected by this on grounds of overlooking loss of daylight, sunlight and so on.
And it does seem to me rather important, though these are not strictly speaking conservation
issues, I think that they do need to be treated seriously.
And it was in those terms that we wrote an objection to this application.
And I'm absolutely on all fours with Mr. Furrow.
I spent probably about three hours trying to work out from the design and access statement
and the drawings.
What the hell was going on here?
So, I do think that there's a case for going back to the developer to produce some better drawings,
some more, better in the sense of more readily readable than these drawings are,
and the concerns about noise, overlooking, daylight, sunlight and so on, do need to be taken seriously
and they need to be addressed before consent is given.
Mr Armstrong.
Yeah, I looked at all the residents' objections, but I couldn't really see there was any daylight,
sunlight or any great daylight, sunlight issues because, you know, it's an existing building
that's already there, so it's just making use of an existing building. And presumably it's got
industrial, light industrial use.
So there are all sorts of very noisy and unsavoury uses
to which this building might in the past
and could in the future be used if it doesn't
turn into residential, which could be a noise or smell
generator or some other thing.
So I didn't really think that there
was a great deal of issues with it changing to residential,
although residential can be a noise generator.
Well, that is certainly one of the issues
that the residents have raised.
I think a number of the workshops
are, in fact, vacant at the moment.
and certainly they seemed to be vacant when I visited the site.
And that, of course, is something that will sway with local residents.
They were also concerned about light pollution at night.
So I think there are some genuine issues that need to, on which really the developer needs
to get its act together in liaising with the local residents.
But better drawings would make a hell of a difference.
Does that, I mean, again, it seems to me we're commenting on this application rather than
saying yea or nay. I mean, but essentially on conservation grounds there's nothing much
to say, but we need more information. If I was a planning officer, I have to say I would
want more better information than I have at the moment.
Rex.
Yeah, that's good.
I like that.
But perhaps people thought I was being flippant about Moriarty.
I think it's an important point.
I mean, that stretch of the common
has got politicians and poets and so on recorded along.
And the Council, and for that matter English Heritage, aren't always resourced to put plaques up and pieces of information and so on.
And so if we could get the developer to do it, that's worth pursuing.
I think that those little plaques sometimes transform an area, a beautiful area into an interesting and beautiful area, that kind of thing.
And that may be the case here.
I mean, maybe it should even be limited,
that we think it's worth recording by the developer.
I would certainly support that.
It would be in the interests of the developer, wouldn't it?
Moriarty Muse.
OK.
Have you got enough to write a minute on that?
Thank you.
In which case, let us move on to 2026 2832 215 Franciscan Road.
Leading.
Thank you, I'll be doing this one as well.
So this application is for the demolition of single storey garages to the rear of an end of terrace dwelling.
And the single storey extension along with the terrace, there's also proposed a cycle
shed behind an existing substation.
To the main dwelling there's proposed a side dormer to the interface of the rear roof cable
and as well as the introduction of a round window to the rear gable.
There's also proposed three conservation style roof lights to the side elevation.
The building, as I said, is End of Terrace. It's unlisted within the
Taughterdown Field Estate Conservation Area. There are no other heritage assets
nearby. So this is an aerial view of the dwelling. The single -storey building to
the rear is the double garage and then that red brick building just to the
bottom of that is an existing substation. Behind that is owned by the same
property and it's currently just an area of hard standing. So here we get a street
view from Calrick Road seeing that double garage in relation to the
dwelling and as well as the proximity to that substation and just a wider view of
the same street view and here we see kind of the height in relation to the
So here you can get a better understanding
of that existing relationship.
So you can see the garage is the full depth of the property,
blocking off that area of hard standing
behind the substation, and now the substation
projects slightly closer to the road.
And then we go to the proposed.
So it's a single storey rear extension,
not quite the full width, and then a terrace
in between the extension and a proposed single storey,
It's labelled as a bike store. Oh that's existing. Oh it's the roof plan. So this is the
existing roof plan. And proposed here we can see those conservation roof lights
proposed as well as a single dormer to the side elevation that would be
finished in standing seam zinc, same as the proposed roof finish for the
extension and the bike store. This is a proposed rear elevation. You can see kind
of the depth of the extension that's proposed, the circular window in the
centre of the gable, and then the squared off design of the proposed dormer with a
small window to the side. And this is the existing showing the garages in the
substation and proposed with the extension.
It's also proposed to create a boundary wall
that would be no higher than the existing garage buildings,
a boundary wall between the properties,
and then you can see the sloped roof of the bike store there
with the zinc roof on top, and that would be located
behind the substation where the area of hard standing is now.
This is an existing cross section of the dwelling
and then proposed with the dormer and extension visible there. Again rear
sections so you can see the dormer just creating a bit of loft space and then
the conservation roof lights providing light into the new loft space. And then
Thank you. Any questions? Libby Lawson.
Thank you. Can you tell me on the plan for what's proposed, it shows green to the boundary
on Coick Road and on Franciscan Road. Is there anything in the application that that is conditioned
or is that part of it, or is that just a drawing?
Because at the moment there's a panelled fencing boundary.
There's nothing on the plans that I'm aware of.
I think this might just be indicative,
but that is something that we can look into.
But I don't think it forms part of the actual application.
I was just asking about the green hedging that's indicated on the plan.
At the moment there's a kind of fencing, obviously this is the Tottedown Fields Conservation
Area where the hedges is very much part of the whole garden estate.
Any other questions?
Can I ask about the circular window? Which elevation was it on? Was it on the front?
That's the back elevation above the extension. Is it actually visible anywhere and is it
a feature of the rest of the conservation area? I don't know that conservation area
particularly well. Is it visible? It would be visible, yes. There we go, the street view.
Yeah.
No, it's not quite typical of the conservation area now.
I mean, they're not uncommon,
but I don't know about that conservation area.
Okay, any more questions of fact?
In that case, Ms. Lawson.
Thank you.
And the boundary with the neighbour that's proposed to be in brick, what are the garden
boundaries typically like on that stretch of Franciscan Road?
Again, this being a garden estate.
It is quite a mix.
So typically, rear boundary treatments would be either timber or brick.
This is proposing to use a red brick to match both the extension, the bike shed, and the main dwelling.
But as for the wider area, there is quite a variation.
Sorry, can I ask just one question?
That tree, is it going to be still there?
I can't quite see where it is.
That tree is in the neighbouring property.
It's not part of the...
No, it's just flat, hard standing
behind the substation, yeah.
OK, comments.
Mr. Potter.
I think some thought should be given
to the design of the windows and the conservatory,
because they look very, very poor.
Very poor rendering.
could be improved, especially the conservatory,
but rather I could be in co -addition.
Any other comments?
Ms Lawson?
Well, I agree with the conservatory comments,
but obviously that it's becoming more residential
and the removal of the garage is a good thing,
but that's the height.
This building is on a corner property, a corner of,
it's right in the heart of the conservation area.
And it's viewed from the approach from Coick Road
towards Franciscan Road.
And because of the nature of the slope that it's on,
everything about it is very much seen,
which is why I was asking about the hedging.
And the elevation of the extension
is a sort of concern and that's, I mean,
that's to avoid it stepping down presumably,
but just raise the whole.
Yeah, so as you said, there is a slight slope,
so there's a step up to the proposed terrace
and the existing, sorry, the proposed height
of the extension aligns with the height
of the extension next door,
so that was their justification for that height.
I very much welcome the loss of the garages.
I think the ground floor extension could well finish up being better than it looks on the
drawings.
I did cheque the architect's website and they appear to be extremely competent, a lot more
competent than these drawings suggest.
However, I do have very serious reservations about the proposed dormer.
I don't know the area well, but I had, I'm afraid, only on the internet, a look around
the area.
I think there are four buildings in this terrace and they are symmetrical with these end buildings
as being distinctive from the two middle,
they occur frequently in the area.
And what I could find out that none of the others
have been extended in this way.
And in fact, I think there are very few of the, sorry,
the state is the Totterdam,
Totterdam, very few of the buildings
on the Totterdam State do have dormers.
So I would suggest that we,
well, from my view, I think it's unacceptable.
And peculiarly, I don't know what the point of it is.
There is no first floor plan, as far as I could see in the submission,
and there's no roof plan.
Well, there's a roof plan, but there's no loft plan, as it were.
And it looks as though the floor plan of this dormer will be probably less than
two metres by two metres and the increase in the available height will be marginal.
If they wanted to exploit the roof space, I think they'd be far better off slightly
lowering the first floor ceiling to gain some additional headroom.
And although it's difficult from the drawings submitted, I think there is some potential
to lower the ceiling and it might well cost them less.
So in terms of conservation, plus points for removing the garage, but no points at all for the proposed dormer.
Other comments on that? Ms Lawson?
I mean, there are a number of dormers on the Truttidamfield estate and it's referenced by the architect, but actually they are in terraces, in long stretches.
the corner one is so very exposed and there is, although it wouldn't show from the front
because of the nature of that roof line, the gable coming to the…
But from the, from Coick, from Taunsiskin Road you wouldn't see it, but from Coick
Road, although it's proposed that it's pushed back and barely visible, it is there
and it does rather jar. And then all the more so by the introduction of that circular window,
which is completely alien to anything on the Totterdam estate.
And I couldn't understand why it's needed for light,
or because of the lack of drawings,
and I really feel particularly the window is objectionable.
A very picky note, I objected to describing it as a circular window.
They don't describe the others as rectangular.
I mean, I think we can deduce it on our own, that it is round.
And I agree with you.
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned it.
I think it is an intrusive element.
Other comments?
People with local knowledge?
OK.
Can I try and sum up?
I think we welcome the elimination of the garages,
which will be a distinct improvement on the frontage to...
It's not Francis. I've forgotten.
Oh, going back.
Road.
and if they are going to sort the boundary out with red brick to match, that's all to the good too.
But there are concerns about the windows, the roof windows.
Typically, there are often objections made to as many as three roof lights on a single face of a roof,
particularly if it's at the front.
In this case, it's on the side,
but very visible from the street.
And more particularly, the dormer window.
Are we commenting or objecting?
Object to the dormer.
Object to the dormer while welcoming and to the circular window.
And the three, you don't need as many as three roof lights on one.
It spoils everything.
Okay.
Okay.
Then let us move on to the additional item that was the late edition.
And this is 2026 -27 -02, 25 Prince of Wales Drive.
Do I take it mis -way? Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Over to the other side of Battersea Bark Park Conservation Area now.
Flat C25 Prince of Wales Drive.
So here you see in its context, it's part of a pair of semi -detached Victorian houses that are
situated just to the west of Bassey Park. Here you'll see from Street View a pair
of detached houses surrounded by quite a few more modern buildings but form a
quite distinctive semi -detached pair. Slate -hit roofs, red brick facing, three
storeys with basement with the projecting bays to the ground and first
floors. What's interesting about the building is that it is actually like you
can see it from the rear you can see the rear of the building it has the rear
outrigger that takes you up to first floor level and if you see here on the
left -hand side image the building that is in question is just to the right the
building that it joins to does have a outrigger extension up to second floor level. So it
has removed the cut -slide roof on this side and it has been raised up and you can see
that very distinctive change in brickwork here to a flat roof just sitting however sitting
below the eaves. You'll see that more clearly in the aerial photos. So this is looking at
from the front elevation hip roof building, shallow hipped roof, so the distinctive features
are that front elevation with the detailing Victorian detailing. Rear elevation you'll
see here, so you can see that the rear outrigger has been extended upwards up to second floor
level with the adjacent property but not on the property that is subject of this application.
So moving on quickly to the actual proposals. So the actual proposals are two -fold. So you
have a rear single -storey extension up to second floor level on top of the outrigger
and at loft level you're having a loft conversion incorporating a small front terrace and part
the top floor of the outrigger extension also form a terrace. The extension at loft area
will encompass a hole of the roof. You are effectively removing the hip and turning it
into a gable end on one side with a front terrace as you see here with two large windows
leading out to that front terrace which is set back from the eaves, but yet will be bounded
by a balustrade, which I believe is glass. Here you'll see the side elevation here.
So there is sort of some semblance of the, of this, but this is actually I think the
party wall between the two properties. That side elevation will be completely taken out
with almost like a box dormer that takes you out to the rear.
There you see that setback slightly, so that is that terrace towards the front of the building
and then that the dormer goes all the way back and is sheer to the rear elevation.
And then you see here they're introducing a whole sheer storey to the outrigger
with an enclosed terrace on top of it.
And finally here you see that that full extension towards to the roof
and then extension on top of the outrigger.
So it will come to the same height
as its neighbouring property,
and it will form a terrace with a window
which breaks the eaves line.
There is much of an eaves line here,
because obviously it's sheer up to the,
a sheer storey all the way up.
Floor plans, you see the existing.
So this is a flat, so it doesn't include that ground floor,
but it does rise up to first floor and second floor.
This is as existing and as proposed.
So you're adding in another bedroom here on that addition
onto the second floor, and that will be formed.
Then a terrace up, which will be accessed
from this new roof extension, which effectively becomes
the gabled extension, covering pretty much
the whole of the roof with a front terrace
that is set back from the eaves.
We're two large windows serving it from the front.
I think that is the last image.
We don't have that many images of the natural drawings.
Just to give an understanding of its materiality, so to see the actual extension to the outrigger
will be the same brick as the building so that we do avoid having some of that impact
like they have on the other side where you see quite a change in brickwork and the actual loft
conversion will be clad in zinc. So they talk about in the design access statement being quite
a common found in contemporary roof extensions so it's going to be largely zinc clad in terms
of that roof extension. Thank you.
Thank you. Questions on what is quite a significant development of this property?
Mr Armstrong.
Looks like we're losing the chimney stacks as well. They disappear in this proposal.
Any other?
Any other?
The side chimney stacks here will be removed
because obviously you can see in this image
that they get completely removed
in order to allow that wrap around loft extension
to go all the way around the building.
And obviously those would be coming up above the hips.
Any other questions?
Okay, comments, please.
Right, Mr. Armstrong.
Well, I think this is a monstrosity, I'm afraid.
I mean, it's a hipped roof, one of a pair, and we lose the hip, which, you know, in conservation area terms is quite drastic.
We lose the chimney stacks and we have a rather prominent roof extension box, square box on
the top and the front, like, sort of balcony thing.
So I think it's quite a massive alteration to this building,
which does not either preserve or enhance the conservation area.
So in conservation terms, it's quite savage, I would have thought.
Yeah.
Thank you. Other comments?
Mr. Potter and...
You're very simple.
I'd rather even put it into a climate application.
Ms. Ratcliffe.
I agree. I mean it's a particular travesty to destroy the symmetry of the pair of houses
together and to lose the hip roof and just have a glass section would totally distort
the pair of buildings. I feel less bothered by what happens at the back of the building,
but certainly the front should not be destroyed in that way.
Councillor Fick?
So I don't see how the proposal is consistent
with the appraisal and management strategy
for this conservation area, which is available online,
which is quite clear that in the Bassy Park
conservation area only rear loft extensions will be should be
considered and it makes a point in that strategy document that where there have
been loft extensions on the facade of buildings they have altered the
character of the street, not always in a complementary way.
So I agree with Mr. Potter.
I don't understand why it's been put forward.
Can I say from a fantasy society perspective,
it's not only contrary to everything
that's said in the conservation area documentation, but it's contrary to a whole host of policies
in the local plan as well. I won't go through them in detail, but I think that it has been
registered even, I think, is somewhat shocking.
I don't think there's anything to be said in favour of...
Even in terms of just getting rid of a hip -to -hoof,
I've seen better hip -to -gable applications than this.
This is one of the worst I've ever seen.
It is monstrous in my view.
I hope that we will strongly object to this application.
Have you got enough?
Could I make a, sorry, just one more point?
Well, I agree completely with others
who have expressed distaste about the idea of putting
on the dorm here.
but I would like to add some concern about the proposed addition to the rear extension,
the outrigger, where they are proposing what will be an extremely extensive roof terrace,
and I think we should have expressed some reservations about that.
I don't know the area or the building. The adjacent building has a similar flat roof.
I don't know whether that is used.
I think that's the one where you can see there.
It doesn't look like it's used as a roof terrace, which
is a good thing.
But the one that I think will mirror that,
that they are proposing to construct on the rear extension
is proposed to be used as a roof terrace.
And I have strong reservations about that being acceptable.
And I think if we make a comment, we should do that.
Because the rear of the building,
although obviously principal concerns
are from the street frontage,
is visible from the courtyard
of the development on the corner.
And I think it will be unacceptably intrusive.
Okay.
With that addition, can we move on?
We have paper 26190, page 11 on your PAC, which reports on applications which this committee
has considered before and the fate of those, if that's the right way of putting it, decisions
made on those.
I think we will be pleased as a committee that 2026 -1913,
the garages to the west of the limes has been refused,
though we note that an appeal has been lodged.
I think that the next application, 2025 -4641, 99 Derrington Road, I'm afraid it's the same storey.
The application has been refused, but an appeal has been lodged.
And can I just add a comment on this?
The comment is on the decision,
the reasons for the decision to refuse,
where it states in the first sentence
that the principle of proposed development
of a new dwelling house on garden land
would not be acceptable as national, regional and local planning policies
make a presumption against such development.
That on national grounds, that is no longer true.
Policy L2 in the MPPF now allows for garden development
on up to 50 % of the garden.
So I'm afraid, and there has been a lot of comments in the professional press about this
and lots of concern from planning officers about the risks, particularly with larger
properties that this will lead to a free -for -all of building granny flats and worse in gardens.
And I am sure that since the new MPPF is now in effect, that that will be a matter which
which will be considered in the appeal, and it won't help the Council.
Number three on page 15 was land at the Lenox Estate,
which was a Council -proposed development,
which has fallen foul of cuts, I think, under the new council.
And finally, number four, on page 16,
Riversdale Primary School.
This committee commented on the application.
and I think changes were made and the application was approved.
Could I just add one thing under any other business?
As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting,
The Planning Applications Committee meets a week today, and I am puzzled, I have to
say, by a number of applications that are on the agenda for that committee, since the
new rules which set out two schedules for which applications go before planning committees
are allowed to go before planning committees and those which can't would preclude any of
the applications on the PAC agenda from being considered by the committee.
And that includes the two applications I mentioned earlier, the ones with roundabout and the
flower stall.
Now that provision depends on the council making changes to its constitution because
it alters the delegation of powers features in the constitution for which a deadline has
been set of the 31st of October.
So it may be okay for September to have these items on PAC's agenda, but none of the applications
that are on for next week will be on PAC's agenda from November onwards.
And I think it would be very useful if we could have an update on what the council is
now planning to do in response to the government legislation, which will prevent Schedule 1
applications going to planning committees in future.
I don't know if Ms. Way has any comment on that.
It is something that fundamentally changes the role of planning committees, and in our
case a planning application committee.
And all the applications that we have looked at today will henceforth from November be
determined by officers, not by PAC.
And that is a very profound change,
which will have all kinds of ramifications.
I just wanted to alert you to that.
And I think it would be very helpful
if at our next meeting in November,
we have a report which tells us how the Council is going to proceed under the new national
scheme of delegation, so -called.
It's not a national scheme of delegation, actually.
it's a, it's a dictat from the government, restricting the powers of planning committees.
Is there any other business?
In that case, I declare the meeting closed.