Interactive webcast player

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 17th September 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 - 20th August 2026

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my apologies, slight technical hitch.
There is no point in starting a meeting which could not be broadcast having advertised it
as a public meeting for everyone to dial into.
So my apologies for this delayed start.
Welcome.
Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Applications Committee.
My name is Councillor Abigail Winder.
I am the chair of this committee, but I am also a Councillor for East Putney Ward.
Colleagues around the table will introduce themselves when they speak, but I will ask
the committee clerk and our assistants here to introduce themselves before I go further.
Good evening, I'm Becky Hickey and I'm the clerk to the meeting.
Laura Campbell, technical support for the evening, thank you.
Thank you very much.
And welcome to Councillor Lewis, whose first meeting it is.
Councillor Lewis, you will have been offered both briefing about the agenda as well as
briefing about the planning process, and I trust that's been helpful and supportive
for you.
Yes, it has.
Thank you.
Thank you very much to the officers for providing that to me.
Well, no apologies have been received for this evening's meeting.
Yes, Tony Belton, Battersea Park Ward.
Yes, apologies from Councillor Cooper, who expects to be here about eight.
Very much, Councillor Belton, that's noted.
Can I just make it known to, particularly for members of the gallery, that members of
the committee will have read all the papers and looked at the website and informed themselves
fully about the matter that they're going to decide on this evening.
And so if you feel that somebody hasn't contributed or asked, it's not because they haven't read
their material, but because that matter has been covered by either the debate generally
or they have no concerns to raise to make their decision.
On that note, that's all very well in theory,
but I was away for the weekend
and didn't get hold of the papers until I got back.
And I looked up the website out in the sticks
and discovered it was being taken down
from Mr. Calder looks surprised.
I can assure him that it's not just me,
but the website was taken down for comments on,
to see comments on applications,
and indeed members of the public gallery
have protested about this.
Well, I recognise the great works of IT,
file conversion, all that sort of thing,
but they really should have consulted
with the members of this committee,
and indeed this committee leadership before taking it down a week before the committee meeting,
which I think is most unfortunate.
And they ought to be told that actually all these things are set up for the public and the councillors to make decisions on,
and they should look at their diaries when deciding when to take things down.
Well, Councillor Belton, you know the correspondence with the new, and Ms Gagan was, I was copied in on that.
that she had informed us as to what the reason was behind the website being inoperable.
And I know you made your point very clear and plain to her.
She and I have been in conversation about it.
The timing of the upgrade of the website is unfortunate, but given that this committee
meets once a month, every month, and the work required was going to be more than three weeks,
it was always going to be a bit of a problem as to which committee gets inconvenienced.
But I'll take back your comments.
And I know that offices have gone out of their way to compensate for the fact that the website
was down and the objection letters that were received once the website had gone down were
available in hard copy earlier this evening.
I think, thank you, Councillor Galindya.
Nick Calder, Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
Yes, this is a long -term project to upgrade our IT system.
It was unavoidable that we would have some downtime.
We tried to minimise impacts to make sure it didn't occur so members of the public
could comment before on applications.
What we're covering here is the items for late items, which, as Councillor Covington
points out, we've got hard copies.
You were emailed all copies of all this correspondence earlier together with the late item.
So hopefully we've covered as much as we can do, but apologise once again for the inconvenience
that it was always going to cause.
Moving on to the minutes of the meeting on the 20th of August.
I know they've been seen by Council Belson.
Does it agree that I signed them as correct record?
3
Thank you.

2 Declarations of Interest

Any member with a declaration of interest on matters before us this evening,
And Councillor Cooper's declaration will be recorded as normal when she arrives.
But any other members wishing to declare an interest in matter before us?
Take it there is none.

3 Applications (Paper No. 26-207)

We move on to the applications in paper 26207 and item one on the first item,
which is the Arch 79.
I just remind members that this is an item we have seen before
on two separate occasions.
On both occasions, it was deferred for a variety of reasons
and hopefully this paper tonight does deal with all those issues
on which for which we had deferred the application.
There's one matter I'd like you to be mindful of which is there is a
problem with the pagination.
If you look after page 16, it goes on to page 17.
In fact, page 17 is effectively the beginning of previous paper reports on this item.
I'm sure the members will work their way around that little error.
Before we go into the substantive debate, I'd like to ask Ms. Moore, who is the committee's
legal advisor, to comment on the Russell Cook submission that we all had and whether the
late papers response is full and complete and whether there is anything further he'd
like to add to that.
Thank you very much. My name is Duncan Waughes. I'm the external legal advisor to the committee.
As you said, Chairman, the matter has been before committee on two occasions previously.
The first was on the 25th of June. I recall there being some debate on the merits of the
application. But I was concerned, I think following a comment from Councillor Belton,
that members hadn't had an opportunity to consider properly the first Russell Cook letter
that took issue with the applicant's noise assessment that had been submitted with the
application.
And also the Council's Environmental Health Officer, Mr. Streeting, was not available
to attend the committee to assist members with the technical issues contained within
that information supplied on behalf of the local residents.
I therefore suggested that the item be deferred until the July Committee in order for this
information to be properly considered.
The application was deferred, and then it was further deferred to that July Committee
on the basis that some additional information had been submitted and insufficient time that
there was insufficient time for it to be properly considered by the Environmental Health Officer.
And so members decided, I think in my view rightly, to defer until such point as members
have had a full understanding of the information that's been provided by the applicant and
also the objectives, and that crucially the Environmental Health Officer has had an opportunity
to address that.
So I have had an opportunity, Chairman, to input into the late items paper, and I draw
members' attention to paragraph five, which starts on page three.
If I could indulge you, Chairman and members, just to read it briefly.
So I say that Russell Cook are right to point out that a decision -maker is entitled to choose
when there is conflicting expert evidence.
The role of this committee is not to adjudicate or referee on the conflicting expert evidence
but be satisfied that it has enough information on which to make a sound planning decision
on the issues.
The Council's Environmental Health Officer has given his view on the information submitted
by the applicant and has addressed the criticisms from the objectors and their noise consultant.
His views are set out in the late items paper and members are legally entitled to agree
or disagree with his professional view in the exercise of their planning judgement.
I say in either case, members should give adequate reasons to show they're properly
engaged with the issues that are in dispute.
I also say for the avoidance of there should be doubt on the top of page 4, Chairman, rather
and slight, forgive me, members are entitled to consider the wider context, including proposed
conditions and that the application is sought for a temporary period.
So the shorter answer to your question, Chairman, is I am satisfied that members have sufficient
information contained within the late items paper and all the other submissions that have
been received and that they have been properly assessed by the Environmental Health Officer.
And it's now for members to exercise their planning judgement on this application.
And I don't think there's any legal impediment to members considering this application and
making the decision this evening.
We also have with us Mr. Streetly, who's the Environmental Health Officer, whose comments
are included both in the report and in the late paper.
So Mr. Streetly, perhaps I should also give you the opportunity, is there anything further
you'd like to add to what you've already submitted.
Thank you, Chair.
Bob Streetley, Environmental Health Officer
in the Council's Noise and Nuisance Team.
I have nothing further to add to my comment at this time.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We also have a request from the Lord Councillor,
Councillor Claire Davis, to address this committee
as a board member.
Is that agreed?
Thank you.
Okay, Councillor Davies.
Thank you very much.
So, Chair and Committee members,
thank you for giving me the opportunity
for this second representation to this Committee.
I am sharing this on behalf of residents of the Bridge
and Chelsea Bridge Vista buildings
who have strong opposition
to the planning application and discussion.
Despite deferrals in this application,
the numerous valid concerns raised by residents,
concerns which are specific and material in nature have elicited no response
specific and specifically why they have been ignored.
I should note, I wrote this prior to the late paper.
There's a point there.
This lack of response highlights perhaps not only deficiencies in the impact assessments completed for
this proposal, but also the resulting mitigations proposed are therefore also insufficient.
Overall, the residents feel they are unheard and powerless and that their views are not
being sufficiently considered, undermining residents' trust in this process that you
are going through today.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to two particular points.
One, the appropriateness of the location of this application.
This location is far away from the more vibrant Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms area.
Indeed, it is more akin to an environment in Battersea Park.
As an example of the incorrect information shared with this application,
a freedom of information request demonstrates that there are materially fewer trains per day than the application reports,
further strengthening the point that this is a quiet residential area.
The second is the noise impact of an establishment with 8 AM until 11 PM,
midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, opening hours throughout the week.
To have such long hours marks this out as a total exception in the area,
an oddity almost amongst the comparators in the area.
This is the context of having properties with bedrooms and balconies overlooking directly this establishment.
As a further example of the incorrect information shared with the application, you as a committee have not been provided with the reasons as to why the offices have chosen to accept
the noise report submitted by the applicant despite the inadequacies raised by residents.
I should note, I wrote this prior to you getting the late paper.
Chair, in summary for these reasons, residents respectfully ask the committee to refuse this application as it currently stands.
If the committee, despite the strong representation from residents, is still minded to approve this application,
I would kindly request the committee to strongly consider materially reducing the hours of operation,
especially during the week, working week and on Sundays, to safeguard the immunity of the residents.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you very much, Councillor Davies.
Ms. Ferguson, do you have any response or matters to add?
I think it's worth emphasising that the site, sorry Janet Ferguson,
I'm the planning manager of the strategic development team.
I think it's important to note that the site is located within the central activity zone
And that's an area where these type of uses are regarded as acceptable if you have a look at our planning policies
the other matter to point out is that the distance between
the residential properties and the arch is some 50 metres in between these
Buildings and such a relationship is considered acceptable in residential managed terms
Sorry, how many metres is that?
15 metres.
And as far as the hours are concerned,
we've consulted with Mr. Streetley
in environmental health, and we've considered it as a team.
And we think the hours are entirely
appropriate for a use like this within the central activities
zone.
Mr. Streetley, if you've got any comments about the reference
to the noise report.
I've considered the noise report and the late matters
and I think I've addressed in the late matters
many of the concerns that have just been raised.
Thank you very much.
Over to members.
Thank you, Chair.
As Claire Davis says, my board as well,
and I was obviously very concerned about it.
I've been to look at it several times,
and I know for a fact that I'm sure we weren't deliberately
misled, but the impression was given at the first meeting
by one of our members that there was a restaurant and all sorts
of things down that strip.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
The only place I can think of that they're referring to
was quite a considerable way away.
And this is indeed reasonably quiet area.
It's 15 metres away.
It's also at almost sub ground level.
It can't quite be because the Thames
is just around the corner,
but it is very near to the level of the Thames.
And I don't, I'm not absolutely sure,
but you need to go up at least a whole storeys equivalent
to reach the ground floor as it were of the bridge.
And when I've been there and I go there
at least once a month, most of the ground floor
is taken up with atrium and public space.
And most of the living quarters I think
is probably about 30 feet above the area
that we're talking about, and of course it goes up to the tenth or whatever floor it is.
It's considerably above. Now that's not the total compensation because sound obviously travels up
quite easily, but it's quite a long way away by the standards of all sorts of pubs in all sorts
of places all over the city. But it isn't actually quite a pub, is it? I see the reference on some
page rather, I was just struggling to find it and now I've lost it again, to what are
they called live, gosh someone help, oh there it is, on page 20 something or other, 25 is
it, a reference to live fast brewery.
Perhaps it's worth discussing this again, although it was discussed previously when
I was certainly concerned. Can someone just tell us a little bit more about Livefast Brewery's
business model, what they do and how it is. It's not exactly a pub is it?
It's welcome all Ms. Ferguson, either of you can you help?
Yes this is Hayley Wilcombe, Planning Officer. So as members will be aware this application is
seeking permission for the use of the arches of food and drink establishment,
a drinking establishment with expanded food provision, along with some community uses.
The planning statement submitted as part of the application sets out that it's proposed the space would be operated by a start -up social enterprise,
which aims to create third spaces with the site operating as a multifunctional community asset.
So during the weekdays, the intention is that the site would be open as a café and a working hub,
and on the evenings and weekends the venue would be used as a taproom and kitchen,
partnering with local independent food vendors.
There is also an element of proposed community use through fundraising and hosting events for charities,
as well as hosting a weekly talk club. Thank you.
Right, so when we were discussing it, first time, my memory must be tricking me.
I thought first time there was no time clause on it at all, because I was very keen on the fact that there should be.
The second time that there's, and what I consider to be an amendment for it to be two years
from the previous, doesn't really matter now.
The fact is it is now a two year permission, which I think is very important.
Some of the objectors make some mildly quizzical comments, shall we say, about the council's
ability to enforce things after they've allowed them.
Well, with a two -year limit on this particular application, enforcement should be considerably
strengthened because there's a clear threat if they don't behave properly.
In those circumstances, I mean, I was not terribly happy in the first place, and certainly
our constituents, if I can say so, that our constituents are not happy, but I suspect
it will not be quite as they think it might be.
And the two -year permission does give room, if we've got it wrong, for us to retract.
So given that there is a two -year permission, slightly unwillingly,
I'm prepared to accept the recommendations of the officers.
Any other member wanting?
Councillor Chile.
Thank you, Chair.
What customer capacity assumptions underpin the noise assessment?
I can't tell you off the top of my head, but they are in the assessment.
There was mention of the capacity.
Well, whilst Mr. Streetley is looking, are there any other questions from Mr. Tiller,
Councillor Tiller or other councillors?
Thank you, Chairman.
We had a long discussion about this application the first time it came to committee, and rather
than repeating some of the points that we discussed at that point, I just wanted to
say that I think the late submissions and the further detail given today haven't changed
any of my views on the application, so I'm minded to support it.
Councillor Wiles.
Councillor Wiles, St Mary's Ward. I just wondered if I could have a little bit more detail on
this conflicting noise assessment, what principal points of difference are, and explicitly what
what we can consider the applicants noise assessment to be in terms of defective points.
Maybe have a bit more detail on that.
I'm sorry, you're coming for information about the numbers, so I'll let you carry on coming that and we'll come back to Councillor Wilde's question in a minute.
Thank you. Anybody else wants to move the debate forward?
Councillor Wiles.
Well, Councillor Wiles, St Mary's again.
I think we've brought this up before and to Councillor Sweet's point,
we don't want to go over all the ground again,
but could we just remind us what the impact or consequences were
for noise breaches or disturbances over the temporary two -year period,
during that two -year period?
Thank you.
Councillor Ferguson.
Sorry, I have a number of seating now.
It's based on 48 people, 24 standing, 24 seated.
I'll come back to you, Councillor Vials, in a minute.
Councillor Tiller, is that concludes your contribution?
Yes, that's helpful, thank you.
Thank you.
Let me just deal with Councillor Wiles and then I'll come to you, Councillor Craig.
Councillor Wiles.
Hi, my question was just about the conflicting noise assessments, any principal points of difference,
and what were the main points of the defective assessment of the applicant's noise assessment?
There were matters raised with the measurements of the background level.
There was a query as to in the report whether the ambient background noise level was used
in the assessment.
Having reviewed the assessment, it was actually the correct background level, LA90, which
was used in the assessment.
So that was one area of contention.
The other was the results of the noise modelling.
Now there was some discrepancy apparently in that.
I'm not, I don't have a detailed knowledge of the parameters that are installed into
these noise modelling, but having reviewed it,
I don't see that there was any major
or significant issue with that.
Thank you, thank you.
My second question, or third question was,
we discussed this before, but just to remind
the members here, what impact or consequences
there were for noise breaches or noise disturbances
during the temporary two -year period?
So action could be taken under the Environmental Protection Act for noise nuisance.
If the noise and nuisance team were to receive complaints, then they would be investigated,
obviously reported.
If in the future planning, obviously that could factor.
And additionally, there would be the possibility of enforcement action by the noise and nuisance team
in the form of an abatement notice if necessary.
And also there could be some licencing issues
with that kind of disturbance as well.
Councillor Barron, Wonder Ward.
So in Councillor Davies' statement,
there was a mention of the wrong number
of trains being used.
Can someone expand further on that
and explain how we managed to use the wrong number of trains, which should be reasonably
accessible, I would say.
So I believe the number of trains was mentioned by the applicant, but it didn't form part
of the noise assessment, and therefore the number of trains is irrelevant in determining
the impact.
The important part was the measurements of the background level and the subsequent noise predictions
Counsellor and I just wonder if I could just clarify
the issue or the question raised about the capacity of the premises so essentially there's
is potential for 48 customers in the external seating area
to the front of the premises
and 200 within the actual arch itself.
So a total of 248 customers is the maximum capacity.
Councillor Acanola, Tooting Broadway Ward.
Just in relation to your last point there,
at what time would the outside people
be required to go inside.
8 o 'clock in the evening.
That's correct.
Other? Councillor Galton.
Just as a matter of interest, would this application be considered by this Committee or under delegated powers if it was after October 31st?
That was an interesting one because there is an opportunity that that could have been
what's called a Schedule 2 application.
But there are some fine tuning because there is some element that might be retrospective
and it could have been caught within that.
But I think generally it would have been a Schedule 1 under delegated powers.
That means for public interest, that means it doesn't come to committee and it's not
liable to get public observation.
So yes, essentially if it was Schedule 1 it would be delegated.
Schedule 2 application doesn't necessarily mean it comes to committee but there has to
be an agreement between the chair of committee and the chief planning officer for it to be
taken to committee.
Without even the opposition having a say so.
That's the regulations as set out nationally.
Thank you for raising it.
Just given the size of the gallery, this is almost an internal discussion, but I think
they should know that from October 31st, the government has introduced new ways in which
the planning application committee should function.
The number of items we currently consider will be greatly reduced by splitting all applications
into schedule 1 and schedule 2.
Schedule 1, which I'm not going to give you a full lesson on this, but Schedule 1 is a
lot of the minor applications or what are deemed to be minor, including building up
to 10 units, would be considered by officers under their own delegated powers and would
have no involvement of members of the Council in making the decision.
Which doesn't mean public will not be able to comment on it.
There will be the usual consultation and engagement as there is now, but there will not be an
open debate as it is here.
Schedule 2, which is largely the major applications, will come to this committee and will be discussed
and debated as normal.
That's a brief, but helpful division between 1 and 2 and where we go.
I feel that it's not a good move by the government.
I've not been in support of it, but we are where we are
Determining the application the recommendations are at the end of the paper, but before you go to the recommend
I just want members to be mindful that this application has gone through
several deferrals here much consideration by both officers and members on separate occasions and
and has engaged the public in a great way,
because the residents have written to us in large numbers.
It is an important application for them,
and therefore I think we have to show
that we have considered all matters
and before coming to decision.
I am convinced that that is the case,
because we have debated it on two separate occasions.
And I know there has been correspondence
between members and residents quite separately
from this discussion.
So I...
Chairman, just to add one thing.
So if members are minded to support the application, then I think it's important that it's recorded in the minutes that the reason for doing so is that they're satisfied with the content of the late items paper.
When the technical information has been considered by Mr. Street, I think it's an important point to raise.
Before I go to a vote, are there any final further comments from members?
If not, those in favour of the recommendations taking into account the information given
to us both now and in the late papers.
Those in favour of the application.
No, it's, is that, councillor, I didn't see, are you, you're not, wait, sorry.
Okay, that's seven.
And those against?
Oh, sorry.
It is two against.
I've sat through all of this three times and you're saying I can't vote?
And I've read all the papers three times.
Ah, Mr Moore.
Well, I'm not going to tell you you can't vote.
What I'm going to say to you is I think it's probably that you ought not to
on the basis that you missed the first 20 minutes or so of the discussion.
If you're satisfied that you know all the arguments for and against,
then you can decide to vote, but my advice would be probably not.
All right, then I will abstain.
To be clear, the minutes are clear as well.
There were seven votes in favour.
There was one abstention and one against.
Thank you.
Right.
That's we concludes that item debate on that item.
We then move on to the second item which is item 2 South Dean Gardens on page 53 of your
bundle.
It will take a minute whilst the gallery clears.
This is schedule one application.
Mr. Calderon, is item two, the schedule, the South Dean Gardens a schedule one of the future
or not?
Item two would be a schedule one application in the future.
Thank you. Right. Colleagues, any comments on it? The recommendations are on page 71 to 72.
Council Teller, sorry, were you indicate... Oh, right. That agreed? Yeah. Thank you.
Item 3, which is the ones with the roundabout ones that were written page 73 of the bundle.
This is an application that we could have had as schedule one or schedule two.
We've amended our triage system to make such ones a schedule two, so this could come to
committee in the future.
I think we don't need to be transported to Cuba.
Any comments and observations on the roundabout application?
Councillor Tiller.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Matthew Tiller, Roehampton Ward.
It's not often that roundabout features anything,
as anything that people are fond of or want to see preserved.
So I believe we should listen to the outcry in defence
of the current structure, the pretzel as it's known.
Personally I think the replacement structure
is messy and incongruous.
I understand some concerns about the durability
the ability of the pretzel being raised.
So could officers tell us whether it would last longer
without the screens?
And also, what evidence demonstrates that larger
digital screens, as proposed, would not increase
driver distraction?
Thank you.
I'm the team leader for the West Area.
Thank you, Councillor Tiller.
From the information that's been submitted by the applicant, which is included in your
the advisory committee, conservation area advisory committee.
They have said that the current structure is about 30 years old,
and although it could last longer, it would need quite a lot of maintenance and upgrade to it.
So I suppose they are taking this opportunity to replace the structure,
also to take the slightly larger advertisement panels that are proposed.
So that's in answer to your first one, I think in terms of the length of durability, I guess, of the pretzel.
The advertisements are larger, not hugely so.
I'm not sure actually whether or not in terms of if for example the existing pretzel was
to remain in location, whether or not they would upgrade the advertisement panels on
the existing structure.
That's not really been discussed or considered by officers.
It's a potentially realistic thing though.
Councillor Tillett, are you about to come back?
I believe Councillor Lewis has a similar question.
Sorry, okay.
I'll come to Councillor Lewis.
Councillor Wilds has caught my eye first.
I'll come back to Councillor Lewis.
Councillor Wilds.
Just a couple of questions, one point you raised there.
There have been, I think, concerns raised about, you mentioned maintenance of the existing
structure but also ongoing maintenance of what is proposed in terms of
materials if you just touch on that and also could you just clarify understand
the screens are smaller but there's still an increase I think in luminescence
in terms of the current levels and is that being considered the impact of the
local residents as well as obviously that the change in and view and light
impact throughout the later hours.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So the proposed structure is to be built of wood,
but it would be treated against weathering
and also be fire retardant.
But also it would incorporate some painted steel work
to give it more structure
and be a safer structure in that location.
And they intend to plant the structure
in the existing bases, I guess, that's there already.
So they wouldn't be removing those structural elements
there currently.
I think in terms of the luminescence,
as set out in the report, I think it's on page 87, the nighttime luminous level is well
within what is allowed under the maximum guidelines for nighttime advertisements. So this is proposed
to be 160 candelas, I believe it is.
And it is higher, but it's still within the 300 maximum
that is set out in the relevant guidelines
for advertisement and lighting and so on.
The early evening levels would be higher,
but again, that would be relatively higher as well
in terms of the guidelines. So that has been considered in the report.
Councillor Lewis. I'm Councillor Lewis from Thirstown Ward.
I'm not sure whether you can answer this question. First of all, I'd like to say thank you so
much for the papers. Thank you for the work that the officers have done because it's incredibly
comprehensive. When I was reading the papers, I noticed it
drew attention to a safety audit that is to be conducted.
A safety audit?
You're not speaking on the mic.
Sorry.
Oh, I'm so short.
A safety audit that is to be undertaken.
I was wondering if you are able to answer
whether the results of the safety audit
will be publicly available and whether there will be interim
reports within the three year final period on the findings
of that safety report because, well, safety.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.
Perhaps if I pick that up in a more general few comments
about the application.
Clearly displays like this adverts
are intended to attract attention.
At the same time, analysis indicates that quite a lot of road traffic accidents are
caused by drivers being distracted or other road users being distracted.
On that basis, also at a theoretical level, you should probably say, well, why are there
any adverts at all?
But of course, that's not really what's intended because there's lots of adverts already out
on the street there and there's guidance as well about how you can safely ensure
these sorts of structures are provided.
So in this particular case, we looked at the particular locality
and the specifics of the injuries and accidents that occur on the roundabout
and on the approach roads and couldn't identify any significant causation
that indicated that there was any impact on road behaviour
caused specifically by the current structure.
The new structure, as has been mentioned,
has slightly larger displays,
but from a distance would appear relatively similar to the existing.
So that's been picked up.
And then to get to the point specifically on road safety,
I mean, I think even more urgent than you're suggesting,
we're aware of all the road accident casualties
and personal injury accidents that are taking place
on the roads almost in real time.
So if there was a particularly serious accident
anywhere in the borough,
we would know about it straight away anyway,
and would be able to sort of make initial indications
of what the factors might be on that.
But more generally than that,
there would be also a published road safety audit
on this particular application and I certainly see no reason why it wouldn't be public.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be public.
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
I'm not sure, Chair, if you were chairing the meeting 30 years ago when this was first approved.
I rather suspect you might be, but I'd like to reassure Councillor Tiller just
just in case he's mistaken about this,
but it wasn't very popular when it first came.
Indeed, it was extremely unpopular
and everyone was campaigning against it quite vociferously.
So perhaps it's just, its age gives us a certain nostalgia.
But I think, I can't bet on this as long time ago,
but I think I voted against it then.
And I think I'm inclined to again,
It seems to me that the arguments that Mr. Tilly makes is all very well, but if they
don't distract drivers, then by voting it down, I think we're doing the advertisers
a favour because they're just wasting their money because it isn't achieving anything.
And if it does distract drivers, which is presumably the point, then that's unfortunate
too.
And I think one of the nicer parts about the British countryside,
there's lots of nice things about the British countryside,
is roads, particularly as main roads,
are not festooned with thousands of adverts,
as some countries I could name.
I rather like it that way.
So I think we ought to keep these large ads out of the way
and out of the sight of drivers who can then concentrate
on not running us pedestrians down.
So I'd be up against it.
Councillor Cooper, you perhaps can also cover the point whether this is countryside or urban
landscape. Thanks very much chair. Sorry I didn't say earlier on then
Councillor Cooper from Fersdown Ward. I mean I have to say I have never
particularly liked it in its current form but now seeing the CGI on page 76
of what looks like a tree house that appears aimed to replace it. I have
realised that I have become accustomed to it and the reason why I prefer it to
the potential alternative is that it is it's not as it's not as opaque. It's much
more transparent with the adverts sort of then hanging within this sort of open
I've never quite known how to describe them, but the sort of the arches there, the hemicycles or hemisircles or something.
So I now realise that actually that is a much better option than what is being proposed.
And so first of all, there's a sort of thing I think about blocking the skyline.
I think it was actually Councillor Tiller who said it much more succinctly and just said it's very cluttered.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Secondly, I have got some concerns about some of the comments that have been made by Transport for London,
which are on pages 79 and 80, where they are talking about, making all these points about driver attention is important here,
advertisements are intended to attract attention, so we raise concerns with the suitability of advertisement at this location,
although replacing an existing display, the collision history demonstrates
multiple serious and slight incidents, especially within the approach to the
roundabout where road users would have the most visibility of the advert, where
it may distract road users, increase road safety risk, contrary to
policy T4 and the mayor's vision zero ambition. So all of that is is quite a
concern. And then I also noticed that it talks about, it says it is also noted
that the additional visual clutter, some page 80 follow up TfL comments near the
bottom of the page, the addition of visual clutter from the proposed
structure may contribute to additional severance for those who are
neurodivergent or have sensory processing differences potentially
diverting away from inclusive design standards within a couple of the other
sort of policies contained in the London Plan, this time policy D3 and D5. So it
seems to contravene a number of policies in the London Plan. The mayor's Vision Zero
ambition may have contributed to causing accidents, looks cluttered, I
was going to say hideous but I'll go for cluttered, so I'm not finding very much
in this paper that is helping recommend this replacement structure to me.
I'm not sure if Mr. Tiddley has answers to any of those.
Don't bother with the one on my sort of personal aesthetic opinion of it, but maybe some of the others.
Well, I think following Transport for London's comments, the applicant did undertake quite a detailed assessment of the casualties and road injury accidents in the area and the table.
is also showing there, indicating that none of them could have been attributed to the advert.
At the same time, on the bit about the Eurodiversity, the applicant has also advised that the development
was designed in accordance with the guidance set out in the relevant PAS, which is 646 -2022.
So that was taken into account as well and then I think Transport for London was then more reassured or worked with officers in ensuring that suitable conditions relating to the staticness of the proposal, the luminance and the other things would be covered by condition.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Craig for Northcote Ward.
Just picking up on something that was discussed
a little while ago now actually in terms of
what would need to happen if this application
wasn't approved and maintenance was sort of
needed to happen to the pretzel as it stands.
Do you have any indication of sort of
what form that would take, what length it would take
in terms of a number of sort of the points in the paper
relate to the additional concerns
whilst it was sort of being constructed.
If there was a comparable sort of disruption
from the, any repairs, I'd just be interested in knowing.
Thank you.
We don't have any specific information about that,
but it has been in place for 30 years,
and I presume there has been ongoing maintenance
of the structure in any event,
and other works associated with the roundabout.
I have picked up on a number of the objections that talked about there's been a lot of roadworks
and various disruptions along there due to just generally maintenance of the roundabout
and other structural matters and services and so on.
I mean, certainly under this, there is a condition that would require further information to
submitted associated with any works, additional works, but I wouldn't be able to comment
on what they currently do in respect of the existing structure.
Sorry.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm struggling to see reasons to object to this, given that there's an existing advertising
hoarding there, the size of the screens are roughly the same, the brightness is roughly
the same, and the safety concerns that Councillor Cooper rightly raised seem to have been mitigated,
as Mr. Tidley and the TFL comments show. I think this comes down to whether we find the
visual impact to be acceptable, and that's, I think, potentially quite subjective. I personally,
I like the existing hoarding.
I like the look of the replacement one as well.
So I'll be voting in favour of this.
My name is Juste.
Again, with the displays, probably quite a niche question.
But on the condition for the minimum display time,
each advertisement can be displayed
from maximum 10 seconds, sorry, page 91 for anyone
who's looking for it.
10 seconds.
I just wanna gage, is that the minimum?
Is that quite long for something like this?
Can I just gage that?
But I think Councillor Sweet is right.
Whether you, I don't particularly like the look of it,
but I struggle to see why me not liking how it looks
is particularly relevant.
And I think that a lot of the issues with the,
particularly with the road safety aspects
have been addressed with a lot of the conditions.
But if I could just get a bit more information
and kind of around that display time
and what it relates to compared to other things like this.
I'm definitely not an expert in terms of advertising,
but I'm just guessing that it's probably to avoid
sort of flash adverts happening or sort of,
I know, I'm trying to think,
Piccadilly Circus comes to mind actually
in sort of movable images and so on
and words and everything,
but essentially I think that's what the point of this is
because it's on a roundabout.
Again, Piccadilly Circus is as well,
but it's slightly different sort of context, I guess.
So that's my assumption on this.
I understand the concept behind why you would want
a minimum display time, but my point is more,
is this a reasonable minimum display time?
Should it be longer, should it be shorter?
Is it about right?
I'd say this isn't specific information
that I would want to comment on, if I'm honest,
because I'm not an expert in adverse displays
or any of the logic behind it,
but this has been recommended actually
with the guidance from TFL, I believe, as well.
We probably have more relevant expertise on that.
Yes, it's as Ms. Richards said, to stop the flashing.
A ten -second time is used quite a lot across the borough.
I know the one in Roehampton has a similar type of fare on it.
So it's all on major roads.
We'll tend to have a minimum.
There's no maximum.
They could just have a fixed advert.
So whether it's too long or too short, it doesn't matter.
That doesn't, just, I can't be less than 10 seconds.
So, no further comments.
Proceed to vote at the recommendations as they are,
but those in favour of the recommendations to approve.
Three.
Those against?
Six.
I think at this point we really do need to actually crystallise our reasons for refusal
and perhaps Councillor Craig you follow the debate well and whether you've got a set of
words that we could focus on.
I think clearly it was a view of various members of the committee that the structure sort of
associated with the display scale design
and sort of the cluttered nature,
I think a few members did discuss,
is visually intrusive.
I think the proposal could be considered contrary
to certain policies, in particular LP1, LP2, LP9,
and policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan,
and the relevant overarching policy guidance.
I appreciate you voted which way you did, but those words are helpful.
Is there anyone proposing to suggest those as reasons for refusal?
Councillor Woyze?
I was going to say Councillor Belton might want to propose them, but I'm happy to do so.
Certainly the visually intrusive nature of it is a big concern to me.
Councillor Bilton.
Seconder?
That seems like a pretty good question.
Well done, thank you Councillor Craig.
But is there no room for reference to safety?
I mean there's elements in what the TFL said and certainly a concern that Councillor Tiller
had and perhaps not just Councillor Tiller about safety.
Is the safety fit in there?
I'd be happy to add a kind of an informative
about the council committee also noted
the EFL's concerns about safety.
Because I think it was not quite a slam dunk comment.
That's why I'd rather that it was sort of done
as an informative to our decision.
But we would stick to the words that Councillor Craig's moved.
Does that end?
Is that wording for reasons for refusal to greed?
Thank you.
Four, which is on page 95, the Newcombe has.
The recommendations are on page 121 and 122.
Councillor Belton.
A local resident and very recent ex -member of the committee,
Councillor Worrall.
Yes, wanted to ask, wanted me to ask about any construction management plan.
He envisaged that on Battersea Park Road and on Harpston, which is an access route to Chesterton
School, that there could be problems and issues there.
And I just wondered whether we have considered construction management plan, whether it's
enough site to consider it, and if we have what it covers,
et cetera, et cetera.
I'll pass that over to Mr. Grainger, if that's all right.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm Nigel Grainger, and I manage the Stereo team.
On this occasion, we haven't envisaged,
or colleagues haven't envisaged, that a CMP would be necessary.
It's a very lightweight structure, and a lot of it
we anticipate to be fabricated on site.
So we also envisage that there's the possibilities for red route laybys, but there are opportunities around the site
To make the necessary deliveries in a short period of time and then move on so on the Harbinen Street
So we just didn't think that it was necessary. It's two flats and it's a quite a small envelope
So that was the reason behind that I believe
I know this area extremely well, as does Councillor Belton, because it's within the boundary of
what used to be the old Latchmere Ward, and I used to be a Governor at Chesterton Primary
School, which is right next door.
My concern is that on page 120 in paragraph 12 .7, and I have raised this kind of thing
at the committee before over a scheme that was on Battersea rise and that
didn't have proper storage arrangements for bulky waste. Now I can see within
this it says it's not sufficiently detrimental to justify refusal however I
do know that this area can quite frequently be subject to fly tipping and
actually having something that before me in a paragraph that says non -compliance
it and I know they are much -needed homes but a lack of a designated space for
proposed waste recycling and food waste storage I would really like a condition
attached to this somewhere that does actually ensure that we don't end up
with something that is going to contribute endless more amounts of
rubbish to the streetscape, Battersea Park Road being a very busy road and therefore
the kind of place where people seem to find it a comfortable experience to go and dump
their old rubbish. So I was a bit concerned by that. I'm not saying it is enough to justify
a refusal because I completely agree that we do need more housing, but I wouldn't want
housing to come at the expense of more rubbish being dumped in at the streets of Wandsworth.
Thank you, Chair.
Do you not think the condition 8 is adequate?
Will it be enough?
Thank you, Chair.
So within this proposal, one of the reasons why it's taken so much time to bring this
for a resolution by members of planning committee
is to try and get the waste management
and the waste provision to a level
that meets our current planning SPD.
So there's been problems at this site
for a number of years and we've negotiated,
so this is two additional dwellings,
and the way that we've calculated the waste provision
is with the existing, we've effectively added
as the sum of the two additional units for the existing units across the piece.
So the actual opportunities and the waste and recycling and food waste dedicated area
within the built footprint itself has actually increased.
So 9 .2 on page 9 .2 on page 117, you can see it's increased from 22 square metres to 30 .4
square metres.
And within that, as I said, are the Euro bins, as they're known.
They're 1 ,280 litre bins.
There's two of those, and there's a dedicated recycling bin.
And then we've got the 270 litre food waste bin.
And that's actually an over provision for the number of units proposed.
So in many ways, this is an opportunity to try and
with the existing issues with a much improved waste provision for those units.
What it lacks and what is the very small area of policy non -compliance is the specific bulk
waste collection.
Now, the existing bulk waste, you know, fridge, sofa, who knows, but two additional flats
and the opportunities or the amount of bulk waste
generated by two flats I don't think is going to be
without a dedicated space is, as we've stated in the paper,
a reason to consider refusal given that the rest
of the proposal achieves compliance
with the development plan on the whole.
So I hear Councillor Cooper's point,
but in many ways this application seeks
to address existing difficulties within the building
in its management and we believe that those difficulties should be overcome by compliance
in other regards.
Answers point.
The recommendations agreed.
Thank you.
Moving on to item five, which is two booster gardens on page 123.
Thank you, Chair.
I just had a couple of questions from some of the objections that had been raised on
this application and sort of representations.
In particular, I think, from those I read, there was concern over specifically sort of
the access, bearing in mind it's quite a strange layout in terms of a bit of an offshoot of
a road and I believe a private road.
I think there was a question of sort of a consideration of a plan for that, but it was
considered that wasn't necessary.
So, I was just hoping for a bit of an explanation, really.
So, we've touched on this, or given our reasoning why we don't think a construction management
plan is necessary in this instance within PARA 5 .2 specifically on page 136.
So this isn't the first time a proposal of this nature has, well, indeed, previous approvals
were for the self containment of the existing building into three flats.
So one could consider which was approved by committee, which didn't include a construction
management plan which could have created more delivery trips from construction suppliers
or material suppliers.
but we are of the view that the loading and the loading
could take place off street on this private land.
It's not an adopted piece of gravel drive,
but serves obviously an important purpose
for the residents there,
but there is also a degree of cooperation
within the private landowners and the developer
in order to communicate and arrange specific times
between themselves in a very much a private arrangement between them in order to ensure
that the least amount of disruption is affected upon those residents and it's definitely something
that they should seek to do themselves.
If I can just add, just because a development might not require a construction management
plan, it's still of course required to be constructed in accordance with all the appropriate
highways legislation, parking legislation, environmental legislation, which would come
to bear on any development.
Thank you for both of those.
That is helpful.
I suppose just in the nature of it being a private road.
So essentially there would just have to be negotiations between is that the owners in
the other properties sort of on the close and they'd have to agree that separately.
Is that right?
Yeah, it's obviously a degree of organisation and an agreement between themselves, because
I can imagine they all have a legal right, an easement over that land, and they could,
it's a matter for them to organise privately, which is essentially what all we can do.
We can't arbitrate in this instance because we don't have any jurisdiction on an unadopted
driveway effectively.
Well the recommendations on page 137 and 138 those
agreed
Thank you
Next item item six of the Clapham Junction railway station flower stall
Thank you.
Somewhere right at the beginning, always is at the beginning, isn't it, the related planning
applications.
This is the most recent relevant planning history.
If we just said deleted the recent and less left it relevant, you might be able to help
I would say there's been applications of this kind since,
oh, way back into the last millennium.
I'm not quite sure how far back in the last millennium,
but way back.
And every time it comes forward,
it comes forward with a recommendation to approve
for two years or five years.
I think it shuffles backwards and forwards a bit.
And every time the committee says,
well, we'll agree at this time,
but this is definitely the last time.
In the future, this will not happen.
We will not do this.
And yet, here we are again.
Now, I know for all kind of site planning reasons,
the officers are not happy with the application
in real terms, and they only allow,
recommend approval for a short period of time.
They can't think of any way of getting rid of it.
Personally, I'd rather we just got rid of this fast
going on and on and on. I wouldn't, I actually quite like it. I like the fact that it adds
a bit of colour and whatever to the daily commute, if I did a daily commute. But it's
still quite attractive. I can see the arguments against you by all sorts of people about blocking
of the pavement one way or another.
And I guess I wouldn't mind too much if it was refused.
But I really think we are just playing games
and just going on year after year doing this.
And we really ought to either give it full permission
or refuse.
Because of what I said about liking it,
can I just move, suggest that we go for permanent permission
And saying that, I know all sorts of people are going to disapprove of me a great deal,
including many of my own side, though perhaps not sitting here.
But I think we ought to approve on a permanent basis.
Mr. Tiggly, can you assist with why the permission, firstly, is for two years, and what would
be the consequence of a permanent approval?
Well, I'll look to Mr Grainger if he has anything to add, but my concern would be that if a
permanent decision was made, because it sits on the public highway, and if a permanent
decision was made that would effectively extinguish public highway rights and that piece of land
on which it sits would then no longer be available for the council to manage in the future, that
would generally be my concern.
I think if members were minded to consider that, I think we would need to investigate
the legal position and the status of the land on which it sits and the relevant ownerships.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
I would also add that the 2017 application that was considered by the Planning Committee
was brought with an officer recommendation for refusal.
So we did grasp the nettle at one point and recommended a permanent retention of the structure
for refusal, but the committee gave it a five -year permission.
But we can't consider, it's not within the scope of this application tonight, to consider
granting it permanently, because the application is strictly for the retention of the existing
flower stall for a temporary period of two years.
So that's what's been assessed and that's what's before members this evening.
Yeah, it's obviously a matter that the previous applications, or certainly the one in 2024,
was considered under the scope of the Clapham Junction Urban Heart Master Plan, which we'll
probably raise questions and go into.
but that piece of work is ongoing
and isn't due to complete in the immediate future.
Hence why officers think that that flower store
being in this location for additional two years
wouldn't stymie or it wouldn't,
it would coincide with the progression
of the Clapham Junction Master Plan.
Okay, well assuming that we can't do it for permanently then and we're just looking at
a two -year period for a whole variety of reasons that relate to possible changes in the Clapham
Junction area, can I just draw everyone's attention to page 142 where we sent out notices
and we received 58, sorry, number of letters sent 58,
we have received 67 responses,
of which 58 are people supporting this.
So I think it is very popular locally,
however annoying some people might find it.
And that is a huge number of people supporting it.
Nearly always in these reports,
if you look at the number of letters received, the number of objections is
probably where people have gone out of their way to bother to respond. I would
say that it's nearly always objections. To get 58 letters of support I think
demonstrates a degree of support for it and I'd be inclined, if it was possible,
to support Councillor Belton if not going for it permanently. We appear to
approved it for five years on a temporary basis more than once so you
know just to have it there for a period of time but I don't know how soon some
of the potential changes coming to Club and Junction are coming so I'm very
happy to support the two -year extension and I hope everyone else is too. I just
remind members that the applicant wants two years that's what his application
asks for. It's not within our gift to rewrite his application. It never is in our gift to
rewrite an application and therefore I just do hope that seasoned members of this committee
will bear that structure in mind.
Just demonstrating our enthusiasm for flowers, Chair.
If you're proposing to buy me flowers, I'll happily receive them.
I find that logic of yours very strange.
Let me explain why.
The applicant normally for most applications
is asking for permanent permission
and we frequently say, indeed it was the case today,
no, no, not permanent, we'll make it two years.
So if we can change a permanent application to two years,
I don't see why we can't change a two year application
to permanent.
So, I just think that's logic kind of nonsense.
But anyway, put me out of my misery.
This will presumably be Schedule 1 and not considered by the committee in future.
Is that right?
Councillor Belton, you're completely correct.
What I would like to point out is that the last application was for five years, and this
committee reduced that to two years.
And I'm looking at the chair of that committee.
Thank you.
I think two things have been conflated in the objection and support discussion.
Like Councillor Belton, I think I and many residents like the fact that there is a flower
stall as you exit Clapham Junction Station for all sorts of reasons.
What I think the letters of support probably are indicating is that people like the fact
there's a nice business there that sells flowers.
The reality is that when this first came to committee in 2017, it was a retrospective
application.
What had happened was a giant shipping container had been put on the pavement on the site of
what was previously a much smaller stall.
I would support Councillor Belton's view
that there should be a more permanent solution,
probably not a two year permission.
I know that's not what we're going to discuss now.
But I think that the shipping container
has now been there I think over a decade.
It's far too big.
It really does block the pavement.
And it's time for a better stall
to be put there.
So I don't like it and I'm going to be voting against.
Have a fair airing.
I move to vote.
Those in favour of the recommendations?
That looks like seven.
Those against?
Eight.
One.
Any abstentions?
Sorry, Councillor Wyeth, were you waiting for?
No.
No?
And any abstentions?
Oh, sorry, the question.
Yes.
Oh, sorry, you didn't say it.
Yeah.
So there's eight, one, and one.
Okay, that's fine.
Right.
So that concludes the applications.
On the page paper 26208, page 158 for noting.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 26-208)

5 Closure of Investigation Files (Paper No. 26-209)

And the paper 26209 on page 161, that's for noting.

6 Closed Appeals (Paper No. 26-210)

And then paper 26210 appears.
Thank you.
And that concludes tonight's business.
Thank you very much for your attendance.
.
.