Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 24 October 2023, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 24th October 2023 at 7:30pm
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the October meeting of the Planning applications Committee, my name's Tony Belton, I'm the chair of the committee, I'm also a councillor for Battersea Park ward in Battersea.
I'm not going to go through in introducing all the members because I think people forget that too readily, but I will ask and try and remind members when making their first contribution to introduce themselves, what I will do is asked the people at the top table who are here to explain their presence to the public at large and I'll start off with the most important person the person who takes the minutes.
thank you, Chairman, Councillor Campbell, and the clerk to the committee, thank you.
thank you Chair my name's Nick Calderon, the Head of Development Management, at once, with caring Chairman, this Muslims Duncan, was on the external legal advisor, thank you tonight, we have rather heavy listed apologies.
I hope.
fortunately, at least two of them, I think, are on holiday and one is looking after not very well charged, so we wish not very well child all the best, but that's Councillor Owens and the other apologies are from Councillor India and Councillor airs, no other apologies.
no, can I ask members whether they have any matters of interest, where, of course, interest means financial pecuniary or other interests are not that interested, because we're all interested Councillor Cooper. Thank you Chair, I'm Councillor Anthony Cooper and I represent the first-hand ward and the reason I'm just mentioning this I don't believe it's a pecuniary interest and it may not particularly arise this evening, but just if there's any aspect of any of the reports that relates to the Greater London Authority
I would like it to be recorded that I am the London Assembly Member for Merton and Wandsworth, thank you Chair, and by the way, I welcome Councillor Cooper who good Council having a point of view as Vice Chair of the Committee last Wednesday and indeed Councillor White who has become a member of the Committee the first time I'm sure we'll hear from him before long,
I, I've decided to change the agenda a little bit and take items that will be dealt with quickly, first of all the minutes, which I imagine everyone agrees minutes, greed, good and the quicker items anyway I wanted to bring enforcement forward for for a long time because I think it's important that the public recognise that we do enforce conditions in this bar and so on, bringing forward enforcement and the tree preservation order and maybe one other item.
that, first of all, the enforcement paper which is paper.
paper to 0 no, it isn't.
paper 23 3 3 7 and there's an enforcement against high fencing in Clapham Common West Side.
is that agreed?
a great no one's going to argue that the country are they now agreed, but I know this isn't a planning issue, but could we be assured of the involvement of the RSPCA because it sounds like a dreadful situation for the ponies and now that's something I can have to ask?
about?
is is our enforcement officer online?
hello hello, good evening, hello good evening, Craig rabble planning enforcement, absolutely, that was one of the first things we did was report, the ponies to the RSPCA owing to the to welfare concerns.
covered okay, so that items agreed, thank you, and I hope you recover quickly, you look pretty OK, but you recover quickly, thank you Chair.
move on to the tree preservation order now I'm sure I must be wrong, but this seems to me like a first and I've never remote can never remember anyone objecting to a tree preservation order, I didn't think it was allowed to object a tree, but we have a tree preservation order and we have objections to it.
Minister,
do you wish to just talk about introduce it to for us?
Good evening, Councillor Barrett, as a prison officer Wandsworth, yes, we will make the tree preservation 2 4 7 4 back in January, initially we received objections from the owner and
we then, because one of the objections at that time was that the the the the the
what is more, the clarification about the number of trees in the group, so we then are star council's tree officer enable two to go and have another look at it, and they came back to me and said Well we could we we need to revise that slightly so, instead of having a seven trees, there would be five trees, three arms and two horse chestnuts, so we then will revise the the the TPO in in in June and certainly reserved it, and again we came back with the objection from the owners of the land through their agents and
and again we just had drafted the report for this committee and they still weren't happy in some ways because they said they asked me through e-mail did I include a copy of their correspondence as part of my report and I said No, so they wanted to do that via late papers and are you I think you've seen the advice note and the the letter from Mitchell Moss so that's been submitted and you know in terms of that particular late item support. I think really most of most of the that's covered actually in my actual report to committee
well, you've heard the comments and you've got any anyone got any queries.
I have one, if no one else has, I think, is quite clear why the owner is objecting.
presumably, if he wishes to put forward a planning application for some kind of development, then we will reconsider.
the trick, the position of the trees and with regard to the actual application that it might put forward, in other words, I'm saying this doesn't necessarily stop him doing what he clearly wants to do.
yes, Councillor.
we, we've had pre-application discussions, I cannot reveal the content of the discussions, obviously because that's confidential, but as and when an application did come in, if they propose to fell the trees as part of the application, then then that would be something that Montague could consider in future.
thank you well, subject to that clarification is that agreed.
agreed, thank you.
now it was my judgement that we probably would handle.
the to Do.
excuse me a moment the
night's application fairly quickly.
I hope I'm right and we are for the ninth application, Councillor Grimston wants to say something about it, hopefully briefly.
and we can resolve it. Councillor Gibson, can you introduce itself yes, thank you, I'm Malcolm, Grimston Sunday, Independent Councillor for West Hill ward. I don't need to keep the Committee. I think the recommendations are very clear. It is a a late Victorian area made up of family houses, the level of local support for the scheme. I think, speaks for itself. The report says the local character is of
of of houses, and I think the the division into flats was never a happy one in this particular case, and in a sense it's just returning this to the two were almost to its natural state, so I hope the Committee can view it in that way.
does anyone have any queries I do if no one else does Councillor Councillor?
actually, Coldplay caught my outburst,
thank you, Chair, Councillor Coakley, for St Mary's ward, my question was regarding the application and not specifically to Councillor Winston, so I don't know if Councillor Humphries did have a question first that you wanted to address that relative emblem.
OK man was also general one, so it was your one director, Councillor, you, for you've our way.
Councillor Buckley introduced herself.
sorry, I was missing, go on.
I just wanted to ask because there wasn't any mentions about insulation versus debt sustainability because this is a it's a re conversion back into about and it probably be doing a fair bit of work and I was just wondering why there wasn't any mention of carbon reductions I would normally see in other developments is it because it's a small one or because of the nature of it, I was just quite curious to see why and Councillor Humphrey is marvellous.
yeah, the comment was one or more of the question, but I just wanted to make it clear again, mainly for the benefit of people watching in and listening and hearing the results afterwards. Why? This is the sort of interesting case, because the policy that this is contrary to in effect is there for very good reasons and not subdivide for autism, rather not re combined problems that have been subdivided in the past to make sure we have enough quantity of stock and then say the policy is there for very good reason and as new hands are starting to learn very quickly and we old hands have known for years. Minister Goldner and Mr. Moore's will tell us that we have to judge every case on its own merits and the reason why this is my own opinion in this case acceptable. Although it is contrary to policies, there is a very good, rational reason why there should be, and, as Councillor Griffiths instead, is restoring into a historic situation where it is, but I wouldn't want people to assume this is going to be carte blanche across the borrowers do the same kind of thing, because, as every particular case, has its own reasons, and the policy that is this is against is there for a good reason to, in many cases, so just to make that caveat, I'm happy to support the application. Thank you for that comment, summaries
researchers got any comment to make about Councillor Coakley's query, thank you, Chairman, my name is Alan Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area Team.
the proposal is for the deacon version, it's not creating a new dwelling, if you like, they are going to be undertaking works associated with or upgrading the building in in terms of building regulations, but I wouldn't trigger the need for us to apply conditions requiring further sustainability or improvements on the building.
yeah, I'll just to add to that there was a previous application, which was granted in 2023 earlier in April, which was just the external works and alterations. This application is solely about the use and going from two units to one, so wouldn't be covered, and can I just congratulate Councillor Humphreys on reminding that everybody knows about its each application on its own merits and this isn't again a carte blanche for every D conversion. It's this particular circumstances, as set out in the report reports them
so those reassurances are we happy.
thank you, thank you, Councillor Grimston, now I think we can revert to the order of the agenda.
which is first Road number 64 64 see Battlesea Rise.
searches.
Christie regime. Sorry, I'm getting my, I'm having a great time and I'm just a Grange, I can't even see him at the moment, rather Mr Ganja or Nigel Grender. I managed East Area Team Myton 1 at 64 seats for CPAC rise. This application was deferred at a previous meeting for further information on the refuse and recycling. There was a situation where officers recommended a prior to commencement condition, but Members thought that that wasn't satisfactory in order to ensure that the conditions for the waste and recycling would do and achieve what they're supposed to do with in terms of not spilling out onto the the public footway. So this has effectively been redesigned to be internalize and access through sliding doors
and the correct amount of actual storage space has been provided for waste and for the
recycling components and the Council's Waste Strategy Manager has been consulted on this and is in full agreement that it meets the the refuse and recycling supplementary planning guidance document. Sorry in terms of its policy compliance, well, I congratulate can Councillor Cooper. I'm picking this up last time and with Councillor reindeer, encouraging us to deliver it and well done the officers sorting this out, which looks much better, a much better way of handling the refuse Councillor Cooper. Thank thank you, Chair, Councillor Cooper, first-time ward, and, as you rightly pointed out, Deputy Chair of the Committee now I'm very pleased to see the improvements and that have been offered with this re submission. I think it will help ameliorate the problems that I alluded to. That might result from the 13 bedroom HMO going above the commercial facilities. I have actually checked with the Lavender ward councillors and they have advised me that they
we are happy with the proposal as it now stands, so I'm very happy to now vote in favour of this having jumped about a bit at the prime meeting when we discuss this one, thank you Chair.
given that Councillor, A White welcome to the committee hi hi Councillor Wyatt, of two in Beck wards.
my first.
submission and it's I think we're going to well, I'm going to talk about a little bit more about this later on, but I noticed this as an expansion to a basement in Battersea, which you know.
I think suffers would suffer quite a lot in in a flood situation and I don't think we should be encouraging basements, it's all we know those type of areas, as this is an extension, you might say it has less impact will think.
we need to think about this now, think very much so, and you know a basement impact assessment would be wise, I think that the Council, so that we can assess things, it was a lot more background, information on on things like this.
you're interested in what happens in basements is noted and I'm sure we will come back to it and and and do more, not least because there's a paper coming to another committee shortly about flood prevention, particularly in Battersea area, so we are considering those things but thanks to the current subject to that comment though is it agreed great, thank you maybe on to Item 2 27 19 Gal Lane.
I cannot ask Mr Granger to introduce us in a second, but can I just check that Councillor Rigby is on air and ready for her comments in a minute or two?
she's there, I'm sure and a good good OK, thank you.
Mr Guangzhou, we have a few slides if you'd like, to see slides on this.
yes.
OK just wait for colleague Mr. Thwaites a cig get these up for you, just as a visual aid.
just trying to maximise the screen for excuse as we've got a slight technical problem.
thank you, Chair and good good evening, this is Alex tweets a senior planner in the East team, so the application before its nights is at 27 9 Scale Lane and for the proposed demolition of the existing garages on site and erection of a three storey building the building would provide two studio flats and the communal area in connection with the existing specialist housing unit on site.
so the site is located on night scale, in line with the garages proposed for demolition being located to the south of the main property which has access onto Albert Road.
the surrounding area is generally residential in nature.
the site is located in a Clapham Common conservation area shown in yellow and is sought on the slides and is immediately adjacent to the two Grade II listed ballads at the junction with older, but right.
the application site is a three storey, semi, detached property with large front and rear garden the existing garages are a later addition that are considered to be a detracting element within the conservation area.
the application faces a part single part, three storey development in place of the existing garages which are adjacent to number 2 Aubert right the Faisal is contemporary design and it features a zinc second floor with forward and side-facing fenestration.
officers have assessed the proposal against national and local policy and in this instance the application is recommended for refusal due to the potential impact on the surrounding conservation area.
in coming to this recommendation, the benefits of the scheme have been considered within the officer report, so that's paragraphs 2.2 8 2.4 1 these benefits notably includes the proposed use of the plot of the property supporting the existing charity on site and the sustainable credentials of the scheme.
while officers agree that these would mitigate a certain level of harm to the conservation area.
the desirability of preserving the conservation area in this instance is not considered to be fully outweighed by these benefits the appraisal was therefore recommended for refusal on these spaces, thank you, Chair, thank him straight.
while we've heard what the officer's recommendation is and the introduction, can I turn to the Ward Councillor Councillor Rigby for comments, Councillor Rigby.
thank you, thank you Chair, thanks for allowing me to speak, and so I understand that each member of the Committee has received a briefing document on behalf of their connection, so you will have read about and the hidden dangers of women's homelessness you'll have read about the lack of dedicated safe space for highly vulnerable women to be in same-sex or temporary accommodation you'll have read that this plan will have less than substantial harm to a conservation area that there were 152 letters of support from local residents.
and just one objection from, and one household and the the the planners immediately tackled the objection and changed the plan, and and now those residents are happy.
and what we've just heard is that the harm, the lack of substantial hub but still harm that this is intended to a conservation area, I want to talk about the harm that is gonna happen to vulnerable women who will end up on the streets as a result of the decision to reject this application.
thus, there is almost nowhere for these women to go in Wandsworth and unfortunately there isn't money available now to buy new property in Wandsworth to to set up this sort of function once were simply too expensive, this is once in a lifetime opportunity to create a space for women.
and I did want to bring Victoria along tonight who has been helped by connection. She was going to sit in the gallery, but unfortunately Victoria, who is an adult woman, is not allowed out after nine o'clock in the accommodation she's now living in. Can you imagine that painter a woman and having to stay in after nine o'clock, but she wrote a letter to May because she wanted me to tell you all what it would mean to have somewhere, so I went to read it out since I came to the connection this place brought me back to life. Hearing other stories and how they became homeless helps me to feel connected to other people and how we can work together and share ideas to rebuild our lives. Taking part in activities like creative writing helps me to rediscover my strengths and skills that I had forgotten I had here I feel at home
my life before homelessness, I was a financial professional and I never realised I had a creative side. Having been homeless has opened up a new channel and path for me, what I went through after becoming homeless is now turning to good because of the opportunity the connection has offered me. I am coming back to life again and everything is coming fresh to me and I want to start working and living again for women. The only way we can make these changes is by speaking and being together, supporting each other and sharing ideas having come through such difficulties. Over the last year, I have realised how strong I am and the connection has helped me with this journey. Now, if we turn down this application, these women are going to end up
on our high roads and then residents are going to complain to the council about why haven't we got anywhere to put them and we'll go back and say we had a really beautiful place to put them, but because of the lack, the less than substantial harm to the area we turned it down and are not encourages tonight to break the historical and to give women like Victoria a lifeline and a chance to keep off the streets, thank you.
thank you for that powerful presentation, Councillor Whitby, are there any questions of Councillor Rigby, and I mean questions of Councillor Rigby not that she can genuinely answer not her views on on the architectural merit or something which is is a more technical matter so questions that are strictly about Councillor Rigby's presentation, Councillor Boswell,
mind is a comment on, generally, it's not a question to Councillor Rigby, so I'll take that in that section, OK any questions, no, Councillor repeat, thank you very much for a powerful presentation right questions on the paper as a whole, can I just start by saying I always find very confusing, as the officers know, the phrase less than substantial and I know what it means, but I'm not expecting everyone else in the borough to know what it means so.
Mr Cawdor, can you explain to us the categories of of harm to conservation areas and, where less than substantial fits and why, in my view, less than substantial should be in quotation marks, because it doesn't mean in some senses, but can you explain I'll start with,
use. One of Mr. Grainger's examples of the definition. These definitions are set out in the MTFP which I have quoted in the papers for the particular paragraphs, but substantial harm to a heritage asset might be the the demolition, and I think in the past missed scroungers used the example of St Paul's Cathedral being demolished. I probably wouldn't quite go that far, but the demolition of a listed building or substantially changing the structure of a listed building would be substantial harm. So you have that as the the the highest level, then you have the next level down as less than substantial harm, and that can range from very substantial changes to Building 2 to changes which don't preserve and enhance the building. So that would be your range for
at less than substantial harm, and then the lowest level is no harm, and that's sort of a whistlestop tour through the MTFS definitions.
they are defined in the in the MTFS, hence Councillor Belton request that their italics or put in punctuation marks to to define that they're not our own definitions, but those of the government.
OK, just to that technical clarification, I think you're going to make a comment, Councillor Boswell, and thank you very much Chair I am Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Bec ward.
yes, it's more a comment than a question I actually lived on Nightingale Lane at number 41 for over 20 years, so I know this property and I know the properties around there very, very well, will pass this one many, many times.
and I'm really really struggling, and I know that this was a finely balanced decision by the officers to recommend a refusal, but I'm really struggling as to why this harm it. It isn't enough. The public benefit is considered not enough to outweigh the less than substantial harm. When I lived at number 41, it was next to the garage on Nightingale Lane, which people will know very well so that a whole area is not entirely beautiful. People do have large gardens, that's true, but the garage had a Somerfield various didn't supermarkets on it and then eventually I had a Sainsbury's built, there, two storeys blocking out all my light in my property that I lived in, but it went ahead and I presume it went ahead. I wasn't even the Councillor then, because of the public benefit of having a local Sainsbury's on that site. I thank Councillor Rigby for everything that she has said, and if that isn't a public benefit for those women. I don't know what is thank you,
any other comments or questions, Councillor Golton.
yeah echo in the points from Councillor Boswell and from Councillor Rigby this application, it's overwhelmingly supported by West residents, it's not objected to by the conservation committee, it has a massive public benefit in terms of providing a low cost, low cost rent and a safe space for these people it's got an excellent sustainability score as well, I just I really struggled to see.
the calculation of how all of that added up together.
it doesn't outweigh the less than substantial harm if off, if officers could maybe come in and say like what it was lack in, for instance, or what it was data.
could have justified it because, as Councillor Boswell said, I don't see what our Executive had really to justify it.
I might come back on that myself but Councillor White, unless unless someone's
one of the officers is itching to get in and respond to that straight away, Councillor Wright.
yeah Diana
talking about St Paul's Cathedral was there at the moment is very, very ugly, so I don't think that's benefiting the.
conservation nature of the area at all.
I think also, obviously, being on the Housing Committee as well, I think Councillor Rigby quite rightly.
spoke about the alternatives for some women, but she didn't speak about some of the alternatives of temporary accommodation that some women after,
escaping.
domestic violence have to put up with as well being placed in shared facilities with unknown characters.
the last thing some women need after the experiences that they've had, this is a supported housing which we lack in this borough and it's affordable again, which we lack and, as Councillor Cox leaves, has said that the sustainability nature of this is really really admirable, the reductions in carbon
or or are excellent, so you know the public benefit for me, far outweighs getting rid of some ugly.
garages and or and placing something that to this borough really really night, I don't want to.
I was just about to say I don't want to extend this further than necessary, I was going to ask whether anyone wants to speak in favour of it, but Councillor Cooper.
I mean, I'm you know, obviously it's very balanced a judgement in the the.
what it offers I can see, because we, we've just heard very eloquent statements about what it offers in terms of housing provision in the borough, my concerns relate to this development in terms of the planning.
aspects and I'm looking at on page 53, paragraph 10.8 and then the reasons for refusal the proposal would therefore, on balance, be contrary to policies LP 1 and LP 3 of the Local Plan Policy HC 1 of the London Plan, the NPP F 2023, Section 72 brackets one of the planning listed buildings and conservation areas Act 1990.
and I think my issue is the disco, you know the looking at the actual development, not what it's aiming to provide, and I don't see why you can't provide something that isn't over scaled in mass and bulk, as well as irregular and unbalanced design.
on the elements to the Alderbrook Road facade treatments yeah I don't see why it needs to introduce an alien and incongruous feature into the streetscape which is to the detriment of the spatial character of the location, I want all of the good that has just been described by all the prior speakers what I don't want is this specific.
matter that is before us, because in my opinion, it it does cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, which would not be preserved or enhanced by it.
and so I would quite like the people who submitted this in Congress Alien.
on balance, an irregular design to go away and come back with something that would provide all of the benefits that we've just discussed, but doesn't contain any of those features as well, thank you, Chair.
now, thank you for that contribution, I think it has helped me a lot to.
and also Mr Korda's introductory remarks is clearly not substantial harm.
it's clearly not quite in accordance with the Nightingale Lane conservation area.
but only, and I guess it could be better in the sense that it's not a vertical is in its general outlook, it's more horizontal that doesn't quite fit in some ways and etc etc but, on the other hand, what is there now?
is extremely harmful, I would have said, and it's a considerable improvement on Platt, and what's more, I realised I'm going to be told by Mr corridor, this is irrelevant, but I'm still going to say it is right on the fringe of the conservation area anyway which is called Nightingale Lane and this is halfway down Alderbrook Road,
the two ballads even mentioned, which I
looked up today and which are for people who are interested, boundary markers of the Battersea parish about 1,800 and are interesting, but there are 20 yards away up towards the common from from this particular site, so I would say it's an improvement on what's there now so.
Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair, I think last time round I forgot to introduce myself, but everybody knows many were very Councillor Humphreys South Fields, Putney, blah blah blah.
I was going to think I was thinking earlier, I'm going to be a lone voice, but thanks to Councillor Cooper's intervention, I may not be a lone voice and
nobody is that nobody is anybody in Washington, this is anybody in the world is going to say this is a bad premise for what they want to do and what the charity does, and all the rest of it is absolutely not.
I hate to drag us back to the mundane reality of the Planning Committee, but Agile appeared on the Planning Committee is to assess whether the building as Councillor Coupar said is not worthy for the purpose it is being used for, but is it going to be working on its own merits to sit in the context of the street scheme here, and I must say I'm quite surprised, I'm sure officers have tried their hardest on this one. The application in its current status has got this far and it is finely balanced, but in my opinion it's finely balanced because of the outweighing merits of the value of the the good caused. But it has absolutely no merit to my eyes in planning terms whatsoever, and I don't not sorry colleagues, but I don't get the argument just because something is worthy. We should build anything
my wife comes from Poland and the things that got thrown up in Poland in the 50 s to make housing. Yes, there were houses for people, but I would doubt anyway, maybe the 20th century society might think some of those are wonderful examples of architecture, but I'm not being flippant, it's a serious point. We could chuck anything up because it's needed that doesn't mean it's an asset to the borrower and I think particularly something that's a charity and serving a wider purpose should demonstrate some reflection of the merits of each area and be proud to stand alone as a good quality building. The one thing I always said when I was Chair of this Committee and I'm sure Councillor Belton agrees with me. Most of the time is that what we want to see in any building in the borough is good quality architecture and something that's an asset to the borough, whatever its purpose, and I don't think this does that at all. And yes, I think
if we were to follow officers' recommendation, which was, I would encourage my colleagues to do, that isn't saying we don't want housing for a very worthy cause in the borough, by the way, incidentally, this is for two studio units, it's not going to make a massive difference to the London wide situation of homelessness in all honesty.
is a useful contribution towards it, it is two units, two studio units, and I would send a message to the applicant to please go away, you use their design methods more carefully and come back with something that we'd be happy to agree to there's going to sit much more comfortably in its context here in the street and our responsibility. Colleagues, as Members of the Planning Committee is to uphold those principles that this is
it is finely balanced, but I think that doesn't mean we can accept anything in its place, and I don't think this stands alone looking even just at the the slides we've seen, let alone looking at the drawings more carefully, it has absolutely no context to look at the fenestration the windows and it's got nothing in sympathy or coordination with the building next autumn, I wouldn't want necessarily to emphasise a pastiche of what's built next door to who couldn't build it, half as well, but I think we should insist on them going away and coming back with a better quality building for those people to live in.
well, I think this looks.
in the broadest and best sense of the world word.
this looks like a political decision, by which I mean not a party political decision but a worry about how we run our society we've had to clear to clear views here, any other comments on that I don't think Members respects if the officers really want to come back here and I think I think we know that the officers were led to say on balance report and it's for us to make a decision any other comments from members.
no one, in that case the officers recommendation, is, as you know, to refuse this application, all those in favour of the officers recommendation, let's make sure I've got that right way round.
3 and those against the officers' recommendation for I believe.
which I therefore call on someone, I guess my deputy to move some overs other alternative.
the argument in the other direction, but on balance the social good of the scheme outweighs the.
issues that have been raised in the report, particularly in paragraph 10.8.
but I might need some help from a Mr Calder and Mr. Moore's to ensure that that's where we are very legally bound, so let me just get Mr Moore's government.
I would say it's just very straightforward to just have a resolution to grant planning permission, subject to conditions that we can, with delegated authority, to to come up with a raft of conditions regarding design.
layoffs anything else from the officers that we think are covered by conditions.
you would normally see quite a number of conditions, but they'd obviously be unusual raft of conditions getting seeking details before well, can we need commencement and obscure glazing, all sorts, landscaping, waste and recycling shows Kent, can we agree, can we move the recommendations as you're suggesting Councillor Cooper, subject to conditions that will be agreed with Councillor Humphreys, as the opposition speaker on me that at some subsequent time developed by the office yeah, yes,
happy with that is that motion from Councillor Gilbert seconded.
secondary Councillor Cockney, those in favour of it.
I am pleased to speak you realise that yes, I'm sorry, whereas against.
right.
that is decided by five, and I apologise for it, Councillor Kidd, but by five votes to two.
move on to Frances Barber Item 3 Frances Barber pupil referral unit in Franciscan Road and here again we have representatives of some of the local ward, interestingly, two representatives, one, I think in favour and one I think against, but first of all can we have the officers,
introduction, MR rates.
thank you Chair just another quick presentation, so the application before you tonight is the for full planning and listed building consent for the phased demolition of the existing buildings, apart from the sports hall and the subsequent erection of both a two storey and a three storey building for educational purposes.
sorry, the application site is the existing Frances Barber pupil referral units, which specialises in providing education to secondary aged peoples who experienced difficulties either accessing or within mainstream schooling, schooling at the site is located on the southern sides of French Franciscan buried in teaching, is surrounded by Totterdown Street to the east Jury Street to the west and Bank Road to the south.
to the immediate east of the site is the former Engine Street school building now called choosing Primary School, which is a Grade II listed building the listing also includes the front boundary wall to Franciscan roads, which which extends across the front of the application site.
so there are four existing buildings on site, ranging from single storey blocks to two storey teaching blocks, the administration block is located at the front of the school that single storey and acts as an access point to the wider school two two storey teaching blocks are located essentially and to the rear of the site with the recently built sports hall also being located to the rear of the site.
the first development seeks to demolish the buildings on site and, apart from the sports hall, and redevelop redeveloped the application site to provides a two storey administration block and a 3 storey teaching block, the admin block would be located again at the front of the site and this would includes such issues as the reception kitchen, dining hall, main school and staffroom.
the proposed 3 storey teaching block would be located further back within the site and this will include the majority of the classrooms.
workshops and staff offices.
the proposal has been designed to be two storey adjacent to the Grade II listed, building with these three storey element, acting as a transition between the 4 storey ancient house building and the two storey residential properties on Jury streets.
while in general the layout and massing has been considered acceptable by officers again, lessons is less than substantial harm has been identified on the setting of the grade II listed building, this is notably the the general principle of the proposed building blocking views of the listed school when moving along Franciscan Brighton so particularly from the west.
however, in this case, the proposed scheme benefits of the scheme, nicely the continuation of the existing use, and the quite substantial Net Zero carbon sustainable credentials have been considered by officers to outweigh this harm, and this is detailed within Section 2 of the officer report.
in terms of the actual listed building consent, the appraisal seeks to remove s a section of the listed visible and replace it with a larger gate, which is strictly for emergency vehicle access only.
while this would involve a loss of possible officers, considered that the appearance would be enhanced by the instruction of the gatekeepers, we should match the existing more detailed part of the wall adjacent the primary school.
therefore, just for the disagreement concerned, the proposal is considered to enhance the the appearance of the wall and, as such, considered acceptable.
finally, with regard to the impact on neighbours, these have been considered within the officer's reports as acceptable, I think it's clear that the residents on Jury Street are likely to be the main properties that would be impacted by the development, and these have also been highlighted within sections 4 5 and 6 of the report.
spice, specifically in terms of outlook, the current rear, two storey building is approximately about 19.3 metres away from these properties when measured from the two storey element of the residential buildings and the single storey admin block about 13.3 metres away.
as shown on this slide, the proposal would see the deep post 3 storey building move closer to these properties, retaining a distance of about 15.7 metres, and the proposed two storey admin, block being increased, having an increase of 14.6 metres away and although clearly both higher and stature.
this the final side that shows the proposed relationship between the development and the properties in 3 D and the report has highlighted that these properties are likely to receive an increased sense of enclosure, however, the retention of the 14 and 15 metres plus separation distance is considered on balance to be acceptable in this urban location and as such has been considered sensible in the planning balance.
say?
overall, the application for full planning and listed building consent is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions detailed within the reports, thank you Chair.
thank you.
thank you now we have two Councillors from the ward who want to give presentations.
have you trussed up for whose first you have whatever which aren't going to use first Councillor Osborne?
thank you Chair the thing I'd like to start off by saying is that there are absolute minimum requirements set by the Department for Education for schools, of the type which Frances Barber is those are requirements on areas such as
specialist needs.
curriculum requirements.
minimum floorspace, safeguarding requirements, various matters of that kind, and if, like me, you'd been to a awards ceremony at Frances Barber school, you'd have seen young person after young person go through with maximum life chances that they would not otherwise have had if it hadn't been for the 100% commitment and ability of their staff there, but the problem is the physical presence of the school doesn't meet the minimum requirements. I could list several of them, but let me just pick out a couple of examples, the office facility there, the dining facilities there
both exist at the moment with.
minimum with levels below the required minimum of ceiling space.
by the same token, you have less than 60% of the minimum required internal space in a school of that type is currently being provided on that site, and I'm afraid what we need to do with a building which is dated and in poor condition is rebuild and provide a modern purpose-built facility.
the
the thing I'd like to say about it is that.
the designers with cramped space, which the school has ended up in as a result of let's put it this way as a result of a series of historical accidents.
as they've been shunted in there over the years the school has been cramped as a result.
the designers have come up with a configuration which meets those minimum requirements, despite the limited space, and it may not be 100% perfect, but they are, they are meeting the requirements as a result of the way they've configured things, and finally, I'd like to say this as somebody who has been a ward councillor in Tooting on and off since about 2006,
despite the screaming ambulance noises, despite the sound of helicopters coming into the air ambulance station.
I am proud to say that Tooting is home to a first-class cutting edge world-class teaching hospital at St George's hospital.
I want to be able to say Tooting is also home to an absolute, first-class perfect facility, pupil refurbishment, referral unit, teaching facility at Frances, Barber and would be proud to be able to say that thank you Chair.
thank you for Burton, eloquent presentation, Councillor Forbes.
thank you, I'm Councillor Kate Forbes, also from Team Broadway Ward, and thank you Chair for let me speak this evening on behalf of local residents of Jubilee Street, some of whom are here this evening. I would like the Committee to reconsider this application owing to the clear reduction of light for half the residents of George Street and due to the overlooking and current enabling nature of the plans. The current proposal was overbearing for residents on GBC streets and, as referenced in the report, contributes to a sense of increased enclosure residents are supportive of Frances Barber and the need to develop the site. They have lived in harmony with the school for years and I just wanted to be very clear that
this isn't about rejecting any development on the site, it's about making this work for all who live in the space and use the space, and I read residents who are here does even in a very very keen to make this development work for the benefit of pupils' and for neighbours due to the poor consultation including many residents not being notified of engagement events, we cannot support the plans in front of us this evening as they are because they will have a clear detrimental impact on residents' lives.
residents wanted me tonight to convey to the committee just how great the changes are, in their words, the proposed three storey building will be significantly higher than the current building nearly 4 metres higher and will be positioned less than 5 metres away from the boundary wall to George Street properties.
the 3 storey teaching block extends further east and the two storey administered administration block replaces a single storey structure, meaning that it will feel very intrusive for residents facing at earlier, iterations of the application were more in line with what residents wanted and did not contribute to such an overbearing increased sense of enclosure.
while noise and overlooking only occur at certain times of day for a school and therefore residents. The decision to locate the buildings along the length of the southern boundary wall creates a significant permanent change. The effect on the residential amenity of July. Street residents, in terms of a sense of enclosure, and the loss of daylight to many properties appears to have been dismissed as the height of the proposed development is too high and overbearing. As referenced in paragraph 5 15 on page 83, the residents would like to see these plans improved. If this is not possible, there are several conditions that may make the proposal more palatable to local residents. There is considerable reference to urban greening, as this is a once the Council, application officers and the Committee should be striving towards the best possible options for green policies, as at all looming. Enclosing dull, brick wall is one of the main complaints from local residents. I wonder if a further condition could be included, taking into account the increased enclosure of the residents
looking at the possibilities of greening on the school wall or other possible finishes for Croft and Ernest Bevin, also in Tooting are good examples of where this works and there were benefits too, for the pupils' at these schools. We would be grateful if this could be considered if this application gets approved this evening. I think it would also be prudent to agree a plan for development updates so that residents can be updated weekly on progress, especially when there is particularly noisy work or weekend work at times. During this process, it is clear that Jiří Street residents have felt that they have not been adequately engaged with by the Council, and this sort of plan for updates may go some way to rectify this. I thank the Committee for their consideration of residents' views and thank the residents for attending this evening. Thank you, Chair.
thank you.
whereas two pretty impressive presentations, I thought, comments, questions views from members.
Councillor Cooper, I think just by a neck or Hey short heads, I by the way, some officer talking Sport some officer suggested to me today that I should start the meeting by announcing that the Chair and Vice Chair's football team is top of the Premiership for the first time in living memory which I just mentioned in passing.
sorry, Councillor Cooper, yeah, I think the National Planning Policy Forum strategy document 2023 does refer to Tottenham Hotspur football club. I'm very glad you have introduced that matter into the discussion returning to the residents of July Street and the proposed development next door. I mean I take on board the very serious points that Councillor Osborne is making, but I think I would refer back to my comments about
Nightingale Lane, and it's the balance between what's being proposed, which is a vital and absolutely vital transformation of a facility that is substandard, I mean at school, a spade a spade, and whether this is the facility that will provide the that both the improved facilities on site for the pupil referral unit but will also provide something that is something that the people in Jewry Street particularly nearby can.
live next door to, and, of course, it is also in the context of a very attractive listed building on the other side, which is highly visible as you come down Franciscan Road, just as a number of these other board schools are highly visible in Tooting but the bulk of this area of Tooting which is at the bottom of a slope is the sort of two storey properties and then broken up by these you name.
very large school buildings, also the Tooting Library, which is another very, very lovely building, and so my problems with this proposal, as it currently stands or exemplified on page 61 by the the CJI I representation of wow what looks like a Lego, brick or white Lego, brick to me, sorry, it's devoid of architectural merit, and it certainly isn't covered in green walls and green roofs, as Councillor Forbes was mentioning, and then if you look at the layout, it's quite clear that the the buildings have been positioned incredibly close to the Jewry Street properties, whereas the sort of more open space of the the multi-use games area is on the other side, and I understand him in if it was in constant use, that might be a very welcome thing to do, but this is a school that is only used between restricted hours. So it seems to me that the layout on the site sort of you know, militates against it's sitting, pleasantly for the people in Derry Street and the sense of enclosure that Councillor Forbes related to and also the loss of light in certain
instances, I think is it is quite serious and for me does not outweigh the less than substantial harm that I also think is being done to the building next door, although I'm it's a a listed building or conservation area, so in some
I I and I particularly object to the contents of paragraph 2.2 3 where it says the the both. The proposed buildings ought to be of a light buff brick construction with a general contemporary appearance in a rectilinear form will call a boxer box. You know, please add, the proposed design, whilst relatively simplistic, is considered acceptable within the locality and would also represent an appropriate architectural language for the educational use. Well, I actually don't think that's right, I think the I think the pupil referral unit has as much right to have beauty expressed in the architectural language.
as any other facility and having a rectilinear simplistic box is a bit insulting to the purposes of the PRU, so I think that this could be a much better application. It's crucial it's vital for this purpose and the current facilities or, as I said, substandard, but I don't think this is the right application and I don't think it's in the right place on the site and I think it creates difficulties for the neighbours, and so I'm on my difficulty as such or not. I will not be voting in favour of this. Thank you, Chair
thank you.
Councillor Justin.
this application would have objections.
will have the objections from the neighbours either side and will have to go about loss of light, but it would appear to be here. We've got a whole street, a whole street, down a whole side of the even numbers who are all going to come out badly from this. They all have a loss of light and on that basis I can't believe how anyone would vote for this send it out and have it redesigned. It will absolute insult to every resident on the even sided number of that street. I couldn't possibly vote for it wants to currently
I'm going to be a tad, controversial and say that I actually quite liked the design, I quite liked the simplicity and it's not, I don't feel like a detracts from the teaching primary school as and it's not trying to be a bit cheap replica of its own independent one and yet it still has.
the the column of the brick that stews or pays respect to it, so I quite liked the design, the one concern for me about the application is the loss of daylight, especially for the free.
the free properties in Jury Street which is in contravention of our planning policy, Allah I really liked Councillor Foxes' idea about a green roof, so I'd really like to see if that could be pursued, but also another one I had a fall was that we have free properties that we have identified where there also be scope for a potential condition.
that, for instance, makes some grant money available that residents could use to, for instance, installed a skylight to make sure that they don't have to mitigate some of their loss of light.
the most interesting thing, if I would be a possibility or one for either of these conditions, would we be able to get them if we were to defer the application, or would we need to sort of either of approval and hope that they come back, they listened to this feedback and engage with officers on it so that was quite worthy. I'm happy to clarify further
Mr Granger, did you want to come in?
Mr Calder says you might want to tell me, and I think at this juncture, I think we just might need to look at a few facts in relation to what's been discussed in, especially in terms of daylight and sunlight, there have been 55 windows analyzed in a
quantitative assessment, using something that's called vertical Sky Component, along with daylight distribution there are technical studies that look into.
the existing amounts of of daylight and daylight distribution received from windows and then, when the new obstacle is put in place, what that does to it the out of the 55 windows, all of any of the windows that are affected by the proposal would all be in a logical, as you would expect to be at ground floor. The first floor and floors above are not impacted on this proposal. There were 49 windows that meets the BA guidance that is not over half of the windows, failing the guidance, so there are 6 windows that are impacted upon, of which number 8, as articulated within the report 8 12 and 14, receive the highest losses. So when we talk about situations where there we have a secondary test, if there is, if these windows are already under the threshold, where you look at a ratio of the actual loss of daylight, and it's it talks about it being 0.8 times, its former value at number 8, it would be 0.7 5 at number 12, it would be 0.7 2, admittedly, at number 14, as we've articulated and discussed an assessment in the report that retained retained ratio would be 2 0.6 7,
when we're talking about reductions that go beyond the the point 8 times or on or greater than 20%, there is a margin with within that I mean, when we are existing in urban locations, the the degree of those changes, as articulated within the report and within the BA report and how that's been assessed by officers.
the amounts of change to these windows, particularly with number 14, that's been extended closer to the property, which is 12 metres away, is has exacerbated the overarching degree of daylight loss. So, in terms of daylight officers are very much of the view that this does not have such a harmful impact as to warrant refusal when so many windows, 49 out of 55 meet the criteria in terms of the impacts on outlook. These distances have been obviously reported and the our conclusion, as officers, is that there are impacts in terms of an obvious reduction. However, similarly the way that these these, the new elevations would present to the existing elevations, are not in there. This is an unbalanced view, but were of the view that any the reductions that that we've seen at 14.6 today to the administration block at 2.00 2, storeys high and the greater distance to the three storey building, these are the limits that we are talking about in terms of acceptability for officers and their recommendation. We appreciate that there would be a change. The degree of change, however, we feel is, in this particular instance, tolerable, so I just wanted to make those two points, because I think we are talking about the the impacts on the setting of the listed building has been gone into
and the way that the admin administration block is set away, deliberately two storeys and set away, along with the realignment of the access way for fire purposes. Only is it in order to give the the listed building the heritage asset enough space so that it can be read visually as as its own entity and that people can still enjoy and not get distracted or confused by a new obstacle being too close to it. So the heritage asset remains in enough space to be read visually in an appropriate and appreciative form and,
the rectilinear nature of the building would only mean there would be a rectangle presenting to Franciscan Road, but the way that the proposal goes into the site into the into a long, deepest site you simply do not would not be able to to again read direct the rectilinear form of the proposed building because that's the constraints of the site presents very little other design solutions than two to do something and track in a rectilinear form into the site, thank you.
interestingly, Mr Granger, that paragraph 4 22 says the daylight distribution has not been completed for this property, as no data existed, and therefore it is likely that this room would be detrimentally impacted by virtue of the development, I don't think that's the only.
property that that were that's praise is used.
where did you put those properties in terms of real statistics?
they're not within the the calculations of the 55,049 55.
windows tested under the VSC calculations vertical Sky Component, because that can be done to any window, it is measuring the amounts of lights OK, but that does mean there are a number of windows here, but that's in daylight distribution, which is a different test that is the amounts of light that penetrates into a room from the top of the cell into a natural room itself and the guidance states that you are not supposed to calculate that.
that?
you, you're not calculate that value, if you do not know the specific dimensions, internal dimensions of the room, the exactly where the window is and how that sits with the floor level, the paints used the degree of illuminance in the room, there are very strict rules as to when you use that for this daylight distribution and,
on some properties, you can obtain those dimensions by looking at the Council's records for planning permissions for previous planning. Permissions are a state aid. You get more of an idea on estate agents' particulars. You can have to sometimes make assumptions, depending on what you can see from photographs and things, but at least you can get the dimensions so that's when those daylight distributions calculations have been being done, but we are relying principally on the vertical Sky Component test, which is the best which is the one that allows us to calculate
potential daylight loss on any vertical plane from the centre of a window.
one question I'd gotten, I know Mr rates covered this process, as rates can remind me, at the southern end of the site.
how which, I think is where the three storey element was, was not how far is it from the back of the houses injury street to where there's three storey and remind me how many metres high is that how far what's that distance so the distance to the teaching block would be 15.7 metres measured from the two storey element of the of the residential property and that's the teaching block would be 12.9 metres high which is 3.4 metres higher than was existing.
so 15.7 metres, for us old, fashioned people Huth and lots of people watching will be thinking in these terms as well, what are we talking about, we're talking about a 45 feet, something like that.
roughly.
length.
yes, OK and and and how high is the building?
the building is what would be 12.9 metres.
so again, that's 40 feet 40 feet high.
this is why OK, thank you.
any other comments from Councillor Golton, Councillor Boyes that will have Councillor Boswell, first because I didn't think she'd spoken on this now, I haven't thank you Chair.
Councillor Sheila Boswell, yes, I have looked at this carefully and with another hat I have on another committee as chair of the children's committee, obviously on when one children in the pupil referral unit to be in those cramped conditions that Councillor Osborne eloquently outlined for any any longer than absolutely necessary, although it seems to me or referring to a paper that were coming to the land at Broadwater School that those children will actually be de decanted to another building site,
whilst this work is on going on, so I've got to points 1 and may have missed it, but I'd be interested to know whether we had comments from the Assistant Director for Education or the head of children's services who, ever on the PRU, comes under and then secondly on if this does go ahead, I'd just like to underline what Councillor Cocu said that Councillor Forbes put forward about having the urban greening, the brick wall greening maybe trying to think of something more imaginative, maybe wooden cladding. I know the boundary wall is listed and that might restrict that on but yeah, if those the conditions or if those could be implemented if it does get approved and the idea of ha having weekly updates on for the residents as well, so they know exactly what's going on, I think we've had the experience with Wandsworth Bridge, where the communication was really excellent, with residents in the borough on, and I think that helped enormously with people's frustration with that. Bridge being closed, and so on that principle, I think if we could do that here, if this does get approved and go ahead, would really help as well. Why can I suggest that the directors of education are almost certain to say Well, of course it's not absolutely necessary as Councillor Osborne argued and this is the best we've come up with, so we're supporting it. I'm not sure whether the officers wanted to add to that, but it seems to me inevitably that's what they're going to say
but on the other points that Councillor Boswell mentioned, the greening of it.
sorry, the greening of its principally, so it is it's around what Councillor for Forbes put forward around urban greening, so the suggestion was that the brick wall that is so dense and imposing that some sort of greening there or different cladding, something more imaginative could be used there and then the points not on greening but that the residents would have weekly updates so they know exactly what is happening at that site and you know every every week as they go through the disruption that inevitably this will cause if this is approved.
can I just say in passing, as a development going on in my ward at the moment where the developer is producing absolutely ace weekly updates for all the residents that has made a fantastic difference.
external completely different, but as Mr grand job missus race about the greening and
we have all the roofs against the green roof, say we've got condition 20 that secures the the detail of that, and that would obviously capture it into perpetuity, so the issue of barrel cladding and green was the they raise significant issues in terms of fire risk.
so any additional cladding over brick work, this has been assessed independently by by fire struck, well, fire safety, external consultants, and this meets the criteria.
applying anything that potentially is flammable to walls other than very highly non-combustible material that great expenses is a significant problem for aesthetics because you won't achieve vegetation, but I just think that the end user as well in in the in the facility might raise problems for the management as well, so we have to be careful about what supplied to the walls for fire safety reasons and for the management for the the facility itself so there are,
by DA diverse route provided in conditions B, to be captured about green walls, et cetera, I don't think it is feasible, Councillor Coakley.
while I support always biodiverse green roofs, the I think the point of the Greenwood was to make it more visually paid into the western, do vote to account for the best sense of enclosure, so even if it's not.
Even if there's not a Green vote, I feel like.
from the mood and I'm picking up, I feel like there's a fairly good chance that this application could get rejected unless there are some conditions or amend amendments secured, so and maybe it's possibly worth.
maybe it's possibly worth deferring and trying to see if we can secure some more conditions, because otherwise I felt like it could get rejected tonight, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor White, and possibly even Councillor Belton wants to comment, Councillor Andrews, thank you Chair.
but let's cut to the chase, so I feel quite sorry for officers and and are on this one, because, Mr grains, are you doing your best? I know well done you for it to imply that you can't have a green wall anyway we wouldn't have won the borough was such a fire risk, it's doable, it's just going to expect expensive, that's the reality of it, so computer says no, you can't have X or Y it's a cost analysis basis that you're going to work out whether that's possible to do it. I know this is a school building, there isn't unlimited money, but I think that's just a nonsense really
if there was a will, it could happen,
of course we shall start really there's an awful lot to say on this one, isn't there as a counterpoint to what we had last time in the arguments over Nightingale Lane? Colleagues, we should we should have some degree of consistency, surely either we think of a modern building and the because in Nightingale Lane was considered more important than the building. Evidently, I'm paraphrasing here, but that was what we had. So is any consistency usually, yes, please do all vote for it myself. I think I agree with what Councillor Cooper was saying earlier. That surely surely of all buildings in the borough the ones that we should have the most pride, most pride themselves, our civic buildings, our school buildings and such like the board school. That's next to it is a fantastic example of Victorian architecture where the civic authority at the time wanted to show its pride in providing fantastic facilities and fantastic buildings for the pupils. The pupils' live in. Councillor Coakley would say you quite likely, OK, it's a Marmite thing, whether you like it or not, but it must be, it must be of a high standard and, as I say, I do feel sorry for officers on this one and rock and a hard place. You got, quite as Mr Granger said, a constrained site and to try to balance all these conflicting needs, and it's a balancing act. Isn't it? It's a balancing act. We all have to do on these ones, but we as a Committee or officers, when they're recommending approval or not, and in this context
the biggest balancing act is between the listed building and the harm that is going to be a cost to that by plonking a big buff rectangle right next to it.
all the residents in Jury streets, and why query is, have we got that balance quite right here? Councillor Cooper referred to the MUGA and yes, that's putting the middles over the MUGA was, I don't want to redesign it, that's not what we're here to do, but if the MUGA was on the residents side of the building, there would be a massive bigger gap between the residents' houses and where the big tall school building is. So obviously it's that balance. That's been kept away from the listed building to preserve its integrity, but it's a balancing act and I just think on this one we've probably got the balance quite wrong and I would rather they went away and resort to design and came back with something that is going to work for the school and not be such an improvement on those residents in that street and the other streets around there. The views as well we've heard it's not going to look particularly wonderful down there. I think we did have an answer to Councillor fossils question about whether we've had anything from the housing department to justify it. If we did have in the late papers we've got a statement from them and again it goes back to what Councillor Ralph Vaughan was saying earlier. There's a lot of talk about it's only 59% of the required minimum standards that you'd get in a modern building. Blah blah blah, as Councillor Osborne said, this is the school, despite its shocking facilities is producing remarkable results for its pupils' and students in the borough. So this isn't going to give us this
bank spanking new building isn't going to give us any increase in student numbers, for example, it's not going to have any more staff to help the pupils do their best. It's the same number of children in the same number of staff in a bigger building which, if you had an unlimited space in the world, this is where we go into sort of cloud cuckoo land, isn't it if you had an unlimited area of land? Of course you could build everything to meet modern building standards if it weren't surrounded by Victorian buildings and people's homes and other blocks of flats, and a listed building which rolled around it. So I just think on this one, as I say, it's a delicate, difficult balancing act, but it is easy to sit here and criticise everything, isn't it? But I just think the balance has gone slightly askew here and it should be started more towards the residents, less impact on the residents and as far as the green wall, I think if it were to go through. Yes, I'd hopefully support something like that being put in place, and this is going to be a costs element include this isn't going to be a cheap build
let's be honest for 59 pupils', let's try and spend a little bit of that money, perhaps on making sure it's not such an impact on those residents who are going to live with it for years and years to come. Councillor White, I think Councillor Humphreys covers some of the things I was going to say, but I think it's comments from the last paper, I think, more applicable to this one than the last one, really because I didn't think that the I think we were improving the streetscape to the last one
this one, this one, is more problematic because it definitely does have an impact on local residents.
but
the whole point of at the point that he was making about, whether you can have loads of space, if you want to see a better unit, the thing is that the whole point of this is the current unit is not fit for purpose, so we've got really reflect on that and the thing is that,
the the new building would provide a very modern referral unit, which I think that's a.
as Councillor Osborne said, we could all be really really proud of as far as the the Greenwood is concerned, you all agree with Councillor Humphreys I mean it can be done.
my own group has done it and, and the thing is as far as the expenses is concerned, but there are, there is grant money available to do these types of things. I think with Hill Brook School, I think when I put in the the AstroTurf, that was one that I think it was one of the conditions they'd put in green walls and gardens and things like that and that was achieved. So I think that's all achievable as far as cladding is concerned so far as Wood is concerned, you know to be used as cladding, it can be treated, you know and and it can be as fireproof as or as anything else, so all things are possible. It is what I'm saying, but I think that on balance, I think that Anna and I do
as I repeat, I think we are impacting some of the Jury Street residents, but you know, I think we need to do something, we need to upgrade the the unit, that we have the to make it a state of the art referral unit rather than as something that was hankering back to a previous time.
I just come back.
Mr Cawdor wants to steal my thunder.
I don't want to steal your thunder, I just want to update on the in terms of the report, it actually refers to a green walls and a green roof in paragraph 11.2 1 now.
I take on board the what Ms Granges said about the concerns about green walls and on residential buildings the Authority described this courage these days because of the issues of.
fire safety, and I think we might be worth on this one if Members were to think that the the green green walls would achieve.
or overcome some of the concerns raised, that we would put an additional condition on just about green green walls, to investigate whether the opportunity could, in this instance, people be put on, because it's not a residential building, although obviously it's very important that it's far secure for the pupils and staff in there, so I would suggest that we probably would look at an additional condition for green walls if that were to overcome it. The other thing that was mentioned before this isn't the Council's own application. This is actually accounts an application made on behalf of the
the Department for Education, who are grant-funding the whole development rather than the Council itself, so when we talk about a high quality development by the council, is not actually the Council as applicant.
thank you.
I think this is a really fascinating one and especially compared with the previous one, I think Councillor Humphreys is right, but in a way wrong, I think if we can find a consistent position amongst any of us between those two applications, I would be surprised if people talking about substantial harm or or not substantial harm on the previous one, but think this is acceptable on this occasion, where gyfer and very strange and vice versa, I am sure I want to have my own say about it in the second, but I'd actually like to know, given that we are deciding what's in front of us, I'd like to know the full story if we were to accept it and I'm very far from clear about that. Can we talk about all the conditions we so I can put that in the balance, in my own mind, and perhaps in other people's minds, and what do we think the conditions might be? We're starting from the greening one, but can you give us, I think you've thought about this as some indication of what the conditions might be.
but I was discovering the group, the green walls issue. There is an issue that was raised about communication with local residents. I'm not sure we can tie that strictly into a condition, but we could use our where there's this empty construction management for vehicles going there and back we can put a clause in there, asking the applicants to to notify and keep informed local residents, but we wouldn't be able to enforce that. I wouldn't be able to have Mr Rabo going down every time they didn't send a letter weekly, but we could certainly encourage it and through through colleagues and children's services we could push that as a as a potential, so that would be one
additional aspect where we can add in.
OK, so as far as we're going on that.
Councillor Cockney called somebody to add.
I also mentioned a bit previously again, I don't know if the residents of the three properties in Jubilee Street would even be interested in.
allocating some and
CIL, or from the from the development to go towards some renovation, because then we're saying Hey, that you know were.
making a negative change to your property that might not be policy compliant, but here's some sort of funding on the side to sort of make mention of it.
whilst Mr Good is thinking about that, I tried I tried that for a long time about properties in in what used to be my ward in Latchmere about the mammoth developments opposite and seeing if I could get the CIL allocated to do something about soundproofing and I didn't get anywhere it was really hard work, it seemed to be reasonable thing to go for and I just wonder does does Councillor Coakley have perhaps a point that any CIL might help with in some form the jury street people I was going to encourage a different voice and Mr Moss could answer the legality of that.
very kind of misquoted headings are very laudable suggestions, unfortunately I know it's not work or CIL is for infrastructure.
costs that face the Borough as a whole really, and I think it would open a very difficult can of worms if we were looking to compensate particular residents for the impacts upon on their property or the enjoyment of the property, other issues neighbouring development, particularly in the context of the recommendation from the officers which see those impacts as reasonable in the context of the application as a whole, so I started yeah says it is a laudable.
for you to take. It is not something that we could recommend, I could certainly Hussain says, a lawful use of CIL money or section 1 0 6, and presumably you are saying that the OBR opens up the possibility of people being compensated right across the board for any application anywhere it became completely impossible. Yeah, now I think this is a fascinating decision and as it, along with the last one, nowhere near as important in some senses as the massive developments along the riverfront in some ways, but on the other hand, it's it's a public development. If not exactly the Council. I'm sure that the council education department has some influence in it and we ought to be setting the best standards for for our neighbours, and I think we all think that the people in Jury Street
I find this imposing if nothing else, it's also absolutely imperative that we do something about the situation in the pupil referral unit the question is.
is this the only option and do we think it's good enough at this stage, and are we asking, as I think some people are that?
the developers remember they may be, should go back and rethink in terms of both the design and indeed the
properties, property assets. Perhaps the Councillor Education Department has access to. I think that was incredibly difficult decisions and I'm really fascinated by the answer and are genuinely completely mixed up about what I personally am going to do, but I will go somewhere, so can I ask for someone to move, feel that if they feel strongly enough about it, I mean I quite clearly. I can think of one Councillor who is very, very strongly in favour of the application, and that's Councillor Coakley. You're going to move that, but I just I just wanted to confirm that if we are to approve the application, that is including the conditions about looking to secure the green war and about the communication, I just want to make sure that if we do, it proves that those are going to be added
yeah yeah yeah, if you're moving that way, we would move it with the with condition with green walls and the addition to the CP CSP and with an additional informative as well.
it should be seen by Councillor Humphreys and iron agreed yeah OK yeah, I'm happy to move that then, so that's moved by Councillor Golton seconded seconded by Councillor Boswell, can I ask for all those in favour of the application on that basis.
and it's one, two, three four and those against one did I count that right,
sorry, sorry, I.
apologies can I ask for the all those in favour again?
3, so some and those against.
for and for the application is lost before you have to move for refusal, could I suggest be bearing in mind that it's a?
as an important educational facility that we look for a deferral, but we could maybe get an idea of what you would want to us to revisit because I think it's a time limited on the grant-funding, for if I can speak for those people who voted the way I did, I'm sure will agree to that.
deferral for reconsideration and
personally, as people opposed like me, one might add to this, but personally I think something has to be done about the overlooking and height.
relative to Jury Street.
I don't know whether the top floor can be set back, I don't know, I'll leave that up to other people, but personally I think that's pretty well essential, but if that is what Councillor Humphreys, Councillor Cooper, agreed,
and Chair, perhaps to have some thoughts about where the MUGA goes to make some more space on the site in the other direction. Sorry, I said it again on the suggestion I made if we're putting things in the pot about the location of the MUGA, the multi-use games area, because that's the big reason why it's that on the existing school side of that building rather than on the residential side. Now, whilst I understand your point, you are saying that from my point of view, if you're putting it on the other side and therefore putting the building closer to the
Victoria and then that clashes as me, Obioma, is something to consider, but I have problems with either way on that Councillor Cooper.
chair I, I think it's best if we don't get into the detail of trying to redesign this during the course of this committee. I did notice that during her remarks that Councillor Forbes said there have been previous iterations that local people had looked at. The may have fallen on more fertile ground with local people. I'm sure those aspects because those are important to us who voted the way that we did as long as those are taken into consideration, along with the other balancing issues. I think it's best if we leave it to yourself and Councillor Humphreys to and delegated authority from the Committee, to move things forward for us as quick or expedited as Mew as quickly as possible, because obviously we do don't want to hold it back, we just want it to be better. In which case can I move that this application is deferred
have?
and seconded Councillor Humphreys.
and deferred for.
this is obviously, in a sense, pointless to say, but early review, because I'm sure people want it done as quickly and early as possible, but it needs some work, so I don't suppose it can be immediate and that would be just silly.
so it will take some time, but we can't define that, as I think Councillor Cooper quite rightly said, so is it agreed to defer it for further consideration, greatly everyone agreed, thank you.
councillors, Ballroom, Councillor Forbes, I hope there I ch probably going to stay for the next item marches.
so we move on to the next item, which is the Broadwater Primary School applications.
again, this is ways.
o Mr Granger.
it's my colleague, Ms Philip, if asked alright to see it just a few slides again if you are interested in it.
good evening and Wednesday me, labs, and your planning officer for his team.
if someone do something on songs.
right, thank you.
alright, thank you, so the application site is both wards, a primary school, it is and.
it is located on Brother Broadwater, with Roger Rhodes and Gareth Lane to the south of the school has been decommissioned in July 2003.
it is locally listed and it comprises the Junior building which is located to the south east of the site and the early year building which is located to the rear of the site the proposal is to demolish the early years building and construct a new part, one part two storey building on the site instead of the earlier buildings and also the retention and refurbishment of the existing junior school building in order to accommodate a new SEN school which is a special special educational needs school for Wandsworth since secondary school children.
the subject can see the existing buildings as they are on site
so the the access through the existing school is.
mainly from Broadwater Road, with pedestrian and vehicular access, there is also a vehicle gated access off Roger Roads, but it's mainly used for maintenance or or access to the playing fields as part of the existing site, they are a playground to the rear of the early years building.
playing fields to the north east of the site and the multi-use games area to the
south west of the site.
in terms of the proposal.
so the proposal includes, like I said, the erection of the two-storey part 1 part two-storey building, to replace the earlier building, it will be linked to the general building through a glazed or glazed extension.
the proposal, in terms of the wealth of the genius called building, includes mainly into internal alterations and minimal alterations to the outside to accommodate the new school.
the biggest sort of alteration would be the new entrance to the east side of the building to provide a new main entrance and the new community café.
so this is a CJI I of the new the the the the proposal, in addition to the new buildings, it is proposed to replace the the playing fields to the north side with, or an access road, a new access road from Woodham Road to Brookway wards,
o one singular access, a vehicular access, as well as replacing the playing fields with new, tailored amenity space for the school in the form of a forest school, sensory trail and outdoor or fitness equipment for the pupils.
they are also.
works proposed to the boundaries, especially along Broadway and Water.
in the to the north east of the site because at the moment, though, it is a 2.3 metre high boundary wall there, with fencing atop two parts of this boundary and the idea would be to lowered the boundary wall to some of the part of the north side to provide a bit of more of a,
more visibility for for the new entrants and the new access to the committee community cafe.
so this is existing and proposed side by side, so the proposal is for 192 pupils' n 165 staff, so just as information, the previous school had to 263 pupils' in 27 staff.
terms of the the key aspect of the proposal would be the loss of the playing field, which was objected by support of England's, however, officer funded acceptable in any teas explained further in the Section 1 of the report there will be.
the minimum required impact on the locally listed building, which is considered necessary to accommodate the new school, there is also a loss of trees, which is significant, however, it was also considered acceptable by officers, due to the need to not only accommodate the new buildings but also the water tank attenuation which is part of the sustainable drainage strategy.
and and also the the scheme, proposed the thorough plants 79 new trees to compensate and mitigate the impact, so the proposal was find acceptable by officer, subject to recommend subject to conditions, and due to the objections of Sports England it it will be also subject to consultation and any direction by the secretary of State via the Planning Case for crossword Unit, thank you Chair, thank you.
any comments, any questions, council White.
there's a couple of questions and then some comments might be, I used the questions now and come back will come into light, would that be OK?
to two questions.
we, we do have a survey of playing fields in the borough, but my question around these particular playing fields is how were they being used because it wasn't I didn't feel it was clear in the paper, maybe I was reading it too quick. I don't know that the use of those minefields because they are quite fine playing fields and if they were being used for playing fields, then that would be a loss. Although I do get the point that they there will be repurposed for the descend pupils' one and one that looked really really good stuff
the second question I want to ask, as well as about the we've had some good stories so far about the buildings, the sustainability of new buildings with
peeves and
heat pumps and we got PVs and heat pumps here, but the reduction is really really low in comparison there is there a reason for that.
to answer your last question, Councillor Mowat, the retaining a very large Old School, so it's difficult to work within the parameters of the one of the better things is that there is lots of carbon encapsulated in the old school, which is a positive thing, but in terms of retrofitting it.
the opportunity to to achieve over or you know 35% and then and over normally provide themselves in new technology and new built form, so this does achieve the minimum it doesn't it obviously can't compete with the the item we just had, where it saved 100% of carbon in a completely brand-new built envelope bar one building.
but in terms of keeping the principal and most dominant or significant part of the heritage of the heritage asset, the locally listed, building the main school, then that does it overall, have an impact the playing fields.
I've
had a lot of experience with Sport, England Dave over many, many years and they managed to spot a a set of goalposts on various.
aerial
popular media, shall we say, and the moment that's identified, then Sport England will will regard that area as as a playing field mean it's very clear what the what their remit is in terms of.
of what they what they tried to actually achieve in terms of marked out playing pitches, there's a big difference to a set of goals that you can move in and out on a on a greenfield and a natural playing field that contains playing pitches, so normally they have to be marked out specifically for the purposes of a list of 10 15 particular types of sporting activities.
and ironically, including American football, I don't know why, but but.
this in in the explanation that the applicant has offered and taking a common sense approach and having having visited the site and had seen what's there, this is not a marked out playing pitch, so we're not losing a vital community facility that is used regularly regularly by a local league or,
yeah or other purposes, or the the the children that previously occupied the or went to the school. It's not comparable in that regard. What's giving in its place is far more suited for the Sen children, but, having said that, we still have to put forward the the committee report and the the evidence base therein in in front of the secretary of state. Technically I'm sure the secretary of state will not even see this across the desk, but it goes to this entity called the Planning casework Unit. Thank you to your comments, yeah, it's actually one of the comments that was was made there as well. I was very disappointed with the whole life carbon
chapter
it doesn't tell us about the the carbon loss by knocking down buildings, for instance.
landfill impacts, which I would have expected to see in something that is talking about a whole lot of carbon.
or and that that again doesn't tell us about the impact of replacing a building with another building or what you're actually trading off against.
o on, on the other side of that, I was really pleased to see the retention of a forest school that was something that the parents have.
and staff were very, very proud of, so I'm very, very pleased with that, but coming back to the point there about the trees as well, they were an awful lot of trees going and you know that I think that's that's a very, very heavy impact, so I'm really talking a hell of a lot about the environment here there seems to be an inverse balance here against the environment and then there's the question of how bigger impact is of getting rid of the buildings and demolition because we don't know the report doesn't tell us
Mr granddaddy guaranteed to say I think, well, we we understand officers, understand well the reasons for the felling of the trees and the actual contribution that they make an arboricultural terms within the on the centre of the site, which is they are all a lot of themselves seeded specimens.
and the degree of of planting that's going into compensate this, which is significant in terms of the whole life carbon.
section of the report, the the these reports are technical and they are drawn up by technicians and.
they are assessed for us by an external company that that just dedicates itself on sustainability matters, and they actually reviewed this and raised no objections to it. They agreed with its conclusions, so in terms of of what's being put forward and and you know a an independent review by by similar trained people they they have accepted its findings so I I yeah but I'm not sure what more they could do in that regard
Mr grandeur had a.
objector write to me today and I've passed for to you close neighbour.
can you make any comments about his particular objections?
certainly these have been picked up in the report anyway, but the object I did write in to amplify their concerns if you look in your late items, paper item or page 1.
for Item 4, the objection revolves around issues with the consultation, the fact the Planning Service has accepted the justifications of the applicant without due interrogation, the proposal will result in loss of outlook and daylight, and the weldmesh fence to their property will be oppressive and the boundary treatment should be subject to a condition we've made comments on vermin, this is largely why we disagree there are reasons behind.
what happens the the consultation has been carried out in accordance with the general the development management procedure or to say that there is no concern.
in terms of the Council carrying out the correct level of Con Con consultation in that regard,
the purpose of the reason why the LIP is.
ref officers have had a significant amount of pre-application with the design team for this proposal, this is in order to get to a position where we eliminate any conflict during the life of an application, and this is what we should be diving, as advocated by all guidance that points applicants and and local planning authorities to have constructive and you know.
critical discussions prior to the actual end submission of an application, so the reason why those are those negotiations and discussions were so were successful in delivering this level of of critique within the paper, and is is basically is due to a good communication between the design team and and that's at the Council.
the amenity of the impacts have been addressed, these are addressed in detail paragraphs 3.1 to 3.16 4.1
there is an issue, potentially with the boundary treatments.
to the perimeter of this particular owner-occupier, I it's normally we would talk about a a residential occupier, but it's so specific that we have to actually name you'll see the condition that's been recommended and below that is the occupier of 9 4 5 Garrett Lane.
there is an existing boundary treatment that encloses the Old Schoolhouse in its roughly 1.8 2 metres but the this facility just has to be secured. You've heard all about how you know the 3.3 or 3.2 metre boundary treatments it has to be secured. Weldmesh is a very good way of doing that. It's obviously come on leaps and bounds since changing fencing and there are a good degree of voids in between it not to be oppressive, but in order just to continue that discussion and ensure that we think basically officers than kids, it's it's necessary in order to to get specifically further detail of the boundary treatment and how it interacts with nine, four or five Garrett Lane in order to be to be fully satisfied that
that we've got the best solution? So an additional condition condition 31, has been recommended to be imposed, while a number of other conditions have been amended during between the date of publication and this meeting as more reports came in from the applicant in order to be able to to capture more of this as compliance conditions instead of various triggers, no development can take place. Things like that pre-commencement conditions, which is good work and allows the allows the applicant to to get onsite as soon as possible. If, if thank you approved any other comments or questions. Councillor Boswell, Councillor Humphries and then perhaps we can draw to an end, I think,
Councillor Wadsworth, thank you Chair, yes, thank you for gangs through that for us and Councillor Sheila Buswell, Tooting Bec ward wonderful there's so much about this, that is wonderful and I am so pleased on the soft and full.
interesting noise.
still continue, Councillor Booth sorry.
sorry and anyone who is listening, members of the public eye.
Hope you got most of what I was saying, which was so pleased to see how so much of this art space is going to be used for our SEN children, but I am obviously concerned about the build on the playing field and I accept what Mr Granger has said, it's not a traditional playing field, it never was it's not used by the public or higher to the public on I used to be a governor there so I know
the background on this school very, very well, but I'm what might be helpful because I've looked and looked at the map and I'm trying to work out how much of that playing field is going to be built on permanently and is any of it for car parking spaces.
no, the ensure the are you you know, the next item is for the temporary buildings on the playing field I'm sorry, I'm mixing up two papers, thank you very much, yes, we can come to that understandable OK.
yes, it's confusing, absolutely, I can ask about that on the next paper on this paper, then could I go to the trees.
and again, as Councillor White has said, there's a lot of trees on that are coming down, I understand that we're replanting but any of those trees coming down.
or being taken down into in order to accommodate the temporary on site rather than for the long term.
the there would be the there were modifications and there has to be the the there was a boundary wall that it has got a lot of a lot of specimens, they are low grade specimens, but in order to accommodate the
the temporary classrooms, I know we can't completely ignore what's going on in this in this conversation, but in order to prepare for that and also to prepare for.
for the site works for the the. This ultimately results in the demolition of the of the infants of school. So, in order to prepare for that, that has to be actually resolved and a a formalised boundary treatment puts out before the finances Barbara proof for their temporary period. So those there are trees that that would go in that regard, but we've done. We've had a lot of conversations with the project team on all of this and really pushed back hard on the amount of specimens to be retained and the overall strategy, and the reasons given behind why the attenuation tank and what that means for the actual school and what the knock-on impacts onto the other areas was considered, too, are sounds to our our arboricultural is our specialist. That that those were were strong enough in order to agree the degree of felling that's been indicated in this
now I thank you for that reassurance. Some members of the public have asked particularly about the trees, so I wanted that cleared up. Thank you, Councillor Bruce, thank you Chair, just like a couple of quick things, agree about trees and stuff I was a bit along but our first for this with the amounts of hardstanding and and another I think it's like 2,500 metres of hardstanding and staffing in the landscaping, but I understand the justification for that in its entirety. It sounds like a big number of its programmes. With lots of little bits I did have a specific query about the number of car parking spaces
because it says there's 2016 places, first of all button 16 places for staff support staff visitors, blah blah, another 10 spaces in the security of the north-east could be enlarged, disabled bays and another 6 spaces, so that's 26 27 for it, that's 34 spaces. That's a lot, isn't it? I mean I'm wondering to interrogate them hard enough on the number of that I appreciate there's a certain aspect which obviously might need more parking, but 36 does sound like quite a lot of car parking spaces
reassure that's the right number.
I am happy to clarify that so the total of parked car parking space is 16, you will have 10 in the secure area to the north part of the site, which would be for the staff and 6 additional parking space to the wall between the soft soft play area and the access road there will be further support staff and other external people who need to access the site and you will also see they are five larger parking space agitated there and there would be for the minibus.
excuse me, the minibus, that the school will useful daily trip, for example.
not clarifying that I misread that 816 spaces plus 10 plus another six, not the breakdown as it was a c. 16 spaces sounds much better than 34 doesn't it, so that's that's fine, one of the small points and I think Councillor one was going to mention this but which is not here tonight it came up at conservation committee, I think there was quite a bit of talk on the detail about pink metal cladding.
Call me old fashioned, but that was a bit of a pink ties, I shouldn't say algorithm, but just wanted to make sure we've got a normal conditional, never approved of materials, because I'm all in favour of a bold design choice, but there is a little bit by surprise.
I definitely it's there, he's not going to be peace pink, I mean, it's gonna be a very, you know a chalky, tempered, subtle and tasteful pink, we're talking Farrow and Ball Simon's breath, or whatever it's called, I say to Simon, I think is the I take. It were in general agreement with the application. Yes, I've agreed a great can't just say I'm just because I want to say Sherlock Holmes once travelling through south-west London talked about the beacons of light that were the 19th century schools being built by the London School Board and these two I hadn't particularly noted them before, but they're remarkable. Occasionally I'd done, or whether Sherlock Holmes was thinking what are Conan, Doyle's specifically thinking about this, by turn to our heritage champion and say something we ought to do about are marking the 19th century. Schools are such splendid creations, especially in this part of Tooting can I can, I just add to that he was on a train, he was a warlock, was on a train that it wasn't a train, it was almost certainly Clapham Junction, actually, but as I have just south-west London
thank you for that, is it agreed agreed, thank you and.
Councillor Khan and Councillor Carole, greedy sorry that this isn't related to that last application, but I have had someone message me saying that the webcast has now been ourselves on those days concluded and is now no longer stream, and I was just about to say for those of us who are worried about our image on TV and was brushing our here before making our next contribution. Don't bother, because his webcast that funny noise that occurred was it was having a bad scene and has gone. What no doubt will fix it up tomorrow or something, but it's gone. Okay, so move on to the next item
which is Net Item 5 Land north of Broadwater Primary
is that still with?
Minister grandeur, certainly as Chair.
so this
is the decant sites for the Frances Barber pupil referral unit, it's a series of off.
of modular prefabricated buildings.
censored within the the playing field, it's got a cut out, as you can see, on the site plan on 1 6 2.
with the inclusion of the MUGA, which is on the south western proportion of the school, so there's a MUGA there, it seemed totally proportionate and logical for the proved to be able to use that new graver corridor to essentially.
whilst they refer
there are sites in Tooting, so again, there's this has been assessed that there are, there is very little to say about the amounts of old buildings other than they've been placed in the most.
sensitive Centre, they Dave they've been cited as far away from existing residential occupiers that they can, and the the only differences is the opening up for Rogers Road that would essentially be opened up anyway for the future functioning of the now approved Sen site so officers of have recommended this for approval for a period of temporary period of two years and one month but they might need a bit more time.
no doubt we haven't helped a few minutes ago, nonetheless temporary recite required any comments or just we agreed Councillor White, just to the Ghanaian Councillor Boswell.
yeah, I achieve Councillor Boswell would probably make this point again, but the you know the the removal of trees, you know for a temporary.
or for a temporary is a sigh, is not bright.
but also, I presume, we're not going to endanger the the area, it's all such that you know the the quite impressive plans for for the second school garden, if you like, would be made difficult.
this is the the coordination here was for the was you, there was a condition for this particular temporary proposal to restore the actual condition of the land as as they were at the end of the 2 2 year 1 month period, to restore it as as though they'd never been there that there is obviously overlap with the Sen school because they want to create the image that imagination, space and the sensory garden for the Sen so that space will be returned to a far superior.
area
designed specifically for the the needs of the Sen children. So once they vacate it would you know there is a condition that would get them to put a playing field back, but in all the in practical terms, the Sen would remodel the entire area for their their future and bespoke landscaped area, but the trees you know, we've talked about that, the in the previous application, it's the same. It's the the same set of circumstances where they need to provide these secure boundary treatments, and some of the central located trees have to have to be felled, but they are very much of a lower standard than any others.
Councillor possible.
thank you very much, yes, I had on this is rather detailed, I suppose my question is, Will the temporary structure on the playing fields delay the opening of the new Broadwater it will be called the paddock school for children with C and D.
and will the new soft, landscaped area be ready when the school opens, because it will have the temporary building on it, and then that will have to be removed and the soft landscaped area will come in, and that is so important to those SEND children who are coming in that they have that open space that's one of the reasons that school was chosen.
for this particular UN purpose, I'm sorry if that's not clear, no, that was very clear
this was coordinated, meet all of these, these officers thought it was very important for full members to be able to to look at all of these school applications in the round, hence them on the same agenda, so you know a lot of works be gone behind the scenes in order to achieve this for all members but,
the the objective is to have this temporary use and remodel the Broadwater Sen School all for opening in the for the autumn term in 2025. Now that a lot of work behind the scenes from the project teams, they know what they're doing in terms of that, and this potentially would've could've you know was on target to do that, but what's just happened with the you know tonight, in terms of deferring the the pupil referral unit, main application will have an impact on that, and we don't know. I can't answer what that impact would be at the moment because the discussions haven't been had, so once there is an update and there would probably be any updated report for the pupil referral unit could obviously update members on what the developments are and what the the corollary of of the delay would be on to the onto the deep broad wards. I think that was the purpose of my question and maybe it it's not for here that I absolutely wanted to confirm that this news is conveyed to the people. It needs to be conveyed to of the decision on the earlier item as quickly as possible, because I can see it's gonna have a domino effect on all the way down the line on here. Unfortunately,
my other question, I just want to be really clear on Sport England because on
the previous presentation, we were told that this would have to go to the secretary of state because Sport England have objected that on on this one, it says Sport England have said No objections, subject to a condition requiring the reinstatement of the playing fields to its precondition pre existing condition.
I was equally surprised with with that approach, but they've taken the view that they write these these observations back, but they took the tape, took the view that for this proportion of the side, because it's not the entire playing field that it and the in conjunction with the condition in order to guarantee that it will be reinstated like for like that they decided not to raise an objection.
so.
thank you well, I clearly our previous decision may raise question marks, but I'm sure we officers put their best endeavours to achieve that date of 2025 is the item agreed greed, thank you move on to the next, which is, I think 150 to 100 158 Penwith Road.
application 2 0 2 3 2 9 5 2
thank you, Mr Granger, and his team for your efforts in the last hour, so this Richards.
then thank you, Chairman.
members first considered this section 73 application in August 2022 it sought for a amendments to the mixed use development that was approved at appeal 4 for the site in order to change some layouts, increase the number of units residential units from 17 to 19 and also to allow the basement level be 8 unit that was approved at appeal to have a flexible due will be a you Sand class E use.
the current space for PH storage, as approved, was a circus 650 square metres.
officers considered the loss of the B 8 without restriction would undermine the Council's policy for protecting industrial floorspace in locally significant industrial areas such as this and, at the time applied a condition 28, which restricted the basement use.
J purely for a pH, storage or light industrial use, his Members granted planning permission subject to the conditions, including condition 28, and to the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement. The applicant didn't raise an objection to that condition at the time
but has subsequently refused to sign the legal agreement with that condition attached
applicants have submitted a marketing report.
supporting their claims that the condition is too restrictive for future occupants to operate and to allow a more flexible classy use would make it more valuable, they've also submitted a legal opinion setting out why attaching such a condition is unreasonable, given that permitted development rights exist to enable the flexibility between the classy uses to occur in the market.
and the applicants also reiterate that the provision of 6 shared ownership units on the site
which are not, which is not a viable scheme, is a benefit of the overall scheme, however, officers remain of the view that the condition is reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable either condition number 28 to limit the use to light industrial or storage in allowing the appeal the Inspector acknowledged it was contrary to policy but afforded significant weight to the fact that in light industrial floorspace was being re provided and there was an uplift in that floor area.
and s, and so that was given considerable weight, also, the current proposal, without any restrictive condition, could result in a in no light industrial floorspace being provided at the site rather than it could be used for anything falling into classy marketing.
submitted suggests that there is no demand, however, the Council's recently reviewed local plan indicates otherwise and says that there is a big demand for light industrial space such as this.
the condition was not for restricting the the use was not considered necessary by the Inspector at the time of the appeal, on the basis that the scheme offered be 8 light industrial space in any event, and so the the the Inspector didn't think that the further condition was recommended, however,
as far as officers are concerned, without that restriction in place, it removes potentially all industrial uses on that site, and so officers on page 1 9 6, actually recommendation, sorry are recommending that the application be refused, that recommendation be.
of the original permission is, it is actually followed and the application should be refused.
while the recommendation is that we stick to a position of century that we took before and that we refuse this application, that anyone want, does Councillor Andrews?
thank you Chair a couple of things, first of all, I should declare that I live very close to this site, will have not been involved in any kind of communication with the Africans, are not involved in the scheme in any way, but just for clarity I do live quite pretty close to the site.
this is a long chequered history, and this one is the roof of what I've been through the thing in the past up in fully supportive of the Council's position are very conscious that we have limited light industrial space in the borough as it is every little bit we've got we've always managed to try to hang onto as best we can and make best use of changing law around as it's difficult sometimes to sustain that we've done our best and even when we've gotten to mixed use we try to manage to keep the same amounts of light industrial increase at where we can and increase the density of it.
and I'm fully supportive of that and have been in the past, as I say always, however, in this particular case, in this particular example, charging each case on its own merits we've gone at we've gone a long way on this one and I'm wondering if it's worth fighting on the principle on this one if we can be very specific about why it might be acceptable, so I understand the applicant has offered to
broaden the use of ETI to exclude retail, which is quite a significant gave us it where on that kind of thing, I'm just worried in the scheme of things that this ongoing battle will rumble on a rambler and we've got a site sitting there empty, not being used for anything, it's not generating any employment, it's not degenerating any use to anybody, and it's going to sit and rumble away. It's not such a significant part of the site with all the other development has happened there now, with the retail on the ground floor and the residential above, to be a deal-breaker that nothing is not an empty sitting site is part of a minor part of site. Just sitting there, empty and useless, and I wonder if there's any scope on this particular example, without compromising too much on the principle to allow that slight stretch on the e use to exclude still retail, so you just get it up and running and working and doing something there. I have to say I personally think that is a problem with the applicant's own making. It seems like the way to design that space makes it very difficult to use for an applicant. So they've kind of boxed themselves into your own corner here, which makes me think well, that's their problem. They should suck on it, but the pragmatic part of me thinks should we not get this into some kind of use in the borough where it's providing an active contribution to the economy of the borough and all the rest of it, and if that compromise could be perhaps excluding the retail aspect of the EU classes as they've offered and give them a bit broader scope to get it, let one out from working. It might be a compromise. It's acceptable in its position,
interesting comment, anyone Councillor White.
it would appear that he's got planning permission to build 8 affordable homes and it needs, he says that now he only wants to provide six and if he doesn't get his own, why we won't get any.
OK,
and
and obviously this is very close to the won the river and we're talking about basements again, and it worries me that we're putting in basement its own really so things lucky to get away with that, so I think we should reject and tell him to stick to the original plan that was agreed.
at some point or other, I am not suggesting now, but at some point or other, the market has to have some relevance, but I think perhaps a little bit premature at the amendment, Councillor Humphreys suggests that the Members are probably going to refuse the application is that agreed.
great refusal, but you want to vote against or you are happy with that.
agreed refusal.
I move on to Cotton Drive Cotton Drive, you're going to introduce the restrictions.
thank you, and the application is for the construction of a five storey plus basement extension to the east side of the main block to provide three duplex units in the late items I've actually provided you with the floor areas for the duplex because this was actually not included in the report explicitly.
but each of the units 1, a basement and ground would be 3 bedroom 5 person, or over 100 square metres, first and second floor level, and third floors level would be 2 bed 4 person 2 flexes of 88 and 80 square metres respectively.
planning permission was granted in 2018 for a three storey building in this location for three 1 bed units, without a basement and without a or an upper level, if you like, this was never implemented, but it has established the principle of infilling in this location and that the proposal is still considered a small site that could help contribute to meeting the Council's housing targets. Images of the proposed scheme before you this evening and that which was previously approved are on page 2 30 and 2 3 1, so it just helps you understand what the the key differences are. What's evident is that there's a change in overall design and the scale of it, it now has a basement and also a fifth floor that set back and all of the units are larger duplex units.
the top floor is set back by over 6 metres at the front, this is largely to take into account the are the existing penthouse flat, ajo, or adjoining which has a an expanse of glazing along this part, and so the setback ensures that that's not blocked and doesn't impinge on visibility or sense of overbearing or issues of light.
there is a 1.4 metre gap that's retained at ground to provide access to the rear gardens, which is the existing arrangement for residents.
and overall, the the the gap between the property at number 41 to the east and the application site would be about 3.2 metres.
so the design of the building has been to match the main block in terms of scale and design retains the gap, and also you will know in the report that there are other examples of infill gap extensions along Cotton Drive which have been referred to.
the building is in outside of amid Zone, sorry mid-rise zone.
which is contrary to our newly adopted policy, however, this has been justified on page 2 3 7, in terms of it being designed in in took.
to be coherent with the main block and also to ensure that the fifth storey is set back,
officers, a review are of the view that it is acceptable in terms of the street scene and overall scale and design.
and also in terms of the impact that it would have on daylight sunlight and to existing amenity spaces of resident dental property surrounding our recommendation is to approve go, thank you, Councillor could release, so sorry to keep you waiting all evening.
that's OK, I've had the pleasure of your company, Councillor Belton, for the whole area.
thank you Chair for giving me the opportunity to address the Committee about this a planning application I just wanted to express the fact that local residents are quite concerned about the impact of this proposal, in particular the visual impact of the proposed extension and the previous withdrawn application 2021 5 7 7 8.
opponents of this application would say that it does bear a similarity to the previous application, and I appreciate that the committee will say that the previous application proposed 4 units, whereas this only proposes three, however, I would seek to persuade the Committee the concerns previously raised by officers in in terms of scale massing design and impact on the amenity of the area are still relevant for this application.
the first thing is that we're talking about visual gaps, the the the the residents would argue that the proposals contrary to the Development Management Policy TMSS one because the visual gap between 42 and 41 Carlton Drive is of significant benefit to the urban grain of the area and it provides an important relief because Canton Drive is characterised by large buildings with visual gaps between them the proposal here,
it creates, in effect, what would be a terracing effect, which residency would harm the character of the area and the setting of number 41 and a number 40.
in a fake create this terracing fake, the setbacks and the gap between these villas and 42 Carlton Drive present well to the the public realm of the area and residents would suggest that the proposal in effect disrupts that general rhythm and character off of the street the the other issues it does does this proposal accord with policy LP 4 in respect of the proposals to respond appropriately in height scale and massing to the existing buildings in the surrounding area there is a new proposal is one storey higher than the adjacent 41 Cotton Drive.
again, I would draw the Committee's
or attention to the suggestion that the application is contrary to Policy DMS 1, which requires that the new development does not harm the amenity of occupiers, users or nearby properties through overshadowing overbearing and statutory outlook, or privacy or or sun sunlight daylight no particularly the
the Bihari report says that the rear rear garden benefits from 13.75% of sunlight, 2 hours of sunlight, at present the applicants daylight report no, in effect concede the fact that the new development the bike gardens according to the BA our guidelines will actually receive 0%.
so it's understandable that residents are actually can concerned about this.
I would draw Council's attention to the 2012 when the sorry 2012 and the original development was approved and the planning applications committee reported the demolition of the existing garages to the rear would provide a well landscaped garden for the occupiers of the buildings. The proposals indicate landscaping plans showing the back of the site would be enhanced by the proposals, so it does seem to be slightly contradictory in the sense that as a result of these proposals the back gardens of 31 Putney Hill and 42 to 43 Cotton Drive will be completely overshadowed. Wessex Court will be overshadow and well most of them.
almost will miss most of its morning, daylight block B 41 Cotton Drive will lose most of its afternoon daylight and the top apartment in number 9 42 Carlton Drive is going to lose completely the morning light, with a new proposed boundary wall, just a couple of points in in closing.
again, referring back to table CDMS one item I talking about access for people with disabilities, the present access to the back gardens at 31 Putney Hill
42 43 Cotton Drive is 1.5 5 metres wide, with a new application, the applicant has no increase the corridor width from the previous 1.0 7 metres to 1.2 metres.
the British Standard document them issued by his Department of Communities and Local government stipulate that for standard wheelchairs to turn 360 degrees, the space required is 1,500 by 1,500 millimetres, thus, the proposed design would prohibit disabled access to the back gardens of 31 Putney Hill of 42 43 can't drive it makes it difficult if you see, for example, you are putting a pram or garden machinery through it and the final observation that I wanted to make on behalf of prisons was
when this?
the applicant made the original proposal, it was for 4 9 flats
and of course, the dividend, in effect added on three flights, with nine fleets flats, application, this brought it below the level for affordable housing, and the residents are just drawing attention to the fact that perhaps maybe you could have made the application for 12 flats back then but of course if they'd done that then this committee would be looking to have incorporated.
affordable housing into that application, so those are the submissions I make on behalf of local residents, thank you, Councillor, really any questions or re Australian Councillor Cloake.
let us say thank you to Councillor Kavalier for his representation, I was also wondering if the residents had.
perhaps suggested any conditions or anything that could be secured to make the development more palatable or are they just pursuing a refusal of the application,
I think it is clear from the fact that they don't like the visual infill that you can't really make a suggestion in respect of art and alterations, because if the objective is to stop the infill than having semi infill, isn't really going to address that sort of thing or any alterations to,
thanks, Councillor White.
despite my same point of simply making or not long Bill, another basement going in, it seems to be a trend, so it's not over or not just overbearing Councillor Beverley is on the mining as well, so.
I I decided, I don't think we should dismiss this link, but environment is not a great idea at the moment.
you don't think we should just dismiss the basement argument.
size.
Y you haven't got the Michael Surrey, I don't want people to switch off just because I keep saying about basements, it's an important point and I think that is a trend, and I think that we should be looking to to.
make it much more difficult
noted, regardless of where we are on the hill or the flooding possibilities.
yes, I mean you have to type that in in oops into mine, to some extent, Councillor Cooper.
yes, thank you Aggie sort of made, half of my point for me, which is I, I am concerned about basements in low-lying areas, particularly or basements in buildings that are very close, for example like Penwith Road and Sunset, which are very close to the River Wandle I'm not quite as exercised about basements halfway up Putney Hill, which is where Carlton Drive is situated, I don't think it's.
one area that's, as far as I know, in a high risk flood zone, although I do also take the point of generally about basements being being mined out where there is an existing building.
but here we are actually talking about a completely new building, so I think this is a a camp and therefore I think this site needs to be treated on its merits and I'm looking at it and whilst I am sympathetic to some of the think points that Councillor Crivelli is making on behalf of his residents, I think there has been an attempt to ameliorate some of the issues with the setting back of the top floor of the building and I also quite like the fact that and thank you very much for supplying the information about the size of the units concerned, I also like the fact that it's not just now
I am going to be a building that will provide several one bedroom flats of which there are, I think it would be fair to say a plethora in many parts of the borough and it's now providing some larger sized units, so for those reasons and because there has been some amelioration in terms of the the light although obviously any building,
for there will inevitably fill up the gap, so he can't ameliorate it to that extent,
I, I think this application has some merit, thank you Chair, if you're moving a recommendation, but it could prove our second night, there's only one.
and is it agreed them?
application agreed, thank God to check it out, abstain from that is it allowed fine Councillor White abstained, thank you, Councillor Corelli.
thank you for your contribution.
move over the page lost when we were over the page, to application number 8 Deirdre Road and that some savings from Ireland benefit not anyone else's on page 251.
researchers.
thank you, this is an application actually for a basement underneath the the main dwelling, with lightwell to the front and terrace at the back and some replacement extensions at the rear as well, just to reassure you, this would have to go.
via consultation with the Environment Agency, who did raise an objection to it initially and requested additional information to be submitted to clarify how far the basement would be dug relative to the bund towards the river, and they are satisfied that it it won't affect the existing and defences for the River Thames.
but, other than that, we could do that just to explain for soldiers, I only came across the word very recently bummed.
I'm sorry, but there it is.
it is a word I have come across some blunt about purely to do with properties located along the River Thames, but I understand that it is a mound, it is a built cow uncovered, a defence wall that produces this sort of mound, if you like, what the Dutch might call a Dyke.
prefer not to touch, I wonder why we don't enter allocate funds.
Councillor Cooper added that the resist, the the risk of it's not quite that it's also if you go to bulking riverside, which is a big 12,000 dwelling development, the bund by the river, there is very obvious because it protrudes upwards as well, so it's not just a defence from the river, but it is also there to act as a
a place where the access of reservoir, where the rainwater can be absorbed into it as well. So it is also there to absorb rain, as it falls, not just to act as a barrier, but which brings me on to my main comment, which is that the bund might be at the right height at the moment. But given the announcement yesterday about the
Weston
ice sheet, which is now beyond redemption and is going to fall into the sea and create sea level rise of at least one metre possibly more, and if you talk to Thames Water and the Environment Agency about the adaptive pathways within the Thames 20 100 plan, is this really wise
PR. Coming back to my previous remarks about the basement, halfway up, Putney Hill is one thing, a basement being dug in Deodoro Road, which is inches from the river separated literally by the bund. Is this really a sensible place for a basement and in taking each case on its merits? So I think this is not a very sensible place in light of
further mitigation and adaptation, including the raising of the walls and embankments, and bunds along the River Thames, so I think this is not a sensible place for investment, thank you.
Councillor Whitehaven will surprise us now and really enviable.
I'm in favour of what a Councillor Cooper has just said, I I think that we are looking at today's situation and not really featuring in tomorrow's certainties really, and I think that's a you know.
I, I think, think this particular batsman is is is right, the way up to the river and and we should we should reject it.
Councillor Humphrey
I apologise again for being contrary but on a privately owned development carry out employees and introduce your easements homes cars if he wants to do something which some of us might think is foolish on his own property in his own land, it's down to him if it fits this is not an uncommon phenomenon along there and if that's what somebody wants to do, who are we to say they shouldn't do it's not going to impinge on anybody else?
I don't buy Brad, we tell lots of people, they shouldn't do what they want to do, all sorts of ways, whether it's smoking or drinking and driving, or those are the reasons why we tell people not like can't do what they want to do so I don't buy that quite the how let me try another one, though asthma colder really.
we might all think that sea levels are going to rise in.
five years' time, 10 years' time and that the Thames Barrier and the Thames was not going to be enough, and we can all be incredibly worried about that.
how will it go with the government inspectors?
in any inquiry, if we refused applications on the basis that we think that the probability is that there'll be serious flooding in some point in the future.
well, thank you, sir, it's an interesting question and one that obviously we've taken into account in the recently adopted Local Plan, which is why we went through.
process and involved consultation, the P L, A Environment Agency and and also the local lead for flood flood assessments commented on these applications so that has been looked at as part of the formulation of the Local Plan.
if they are, the Environment Agency are objected if they locally flooded objected, then we'd probably be recommending refusal on this because they are the experts on this matter were not and because they've said there's no objections subject to informative I think we'd be very hard pressed to win something at appeal just on the the idea that something might happen in the future which it probably well, but I would hope that the Thames Water and the Environment Agency would look into further mitigation before it becomes that stage, but I don't think we could take take out those premise on an application for for abasement.
there you have it, I mean with those arguments, I can understand the point being put by Councillor Cooper and White, but I think that's pretty fundamental point put by Mr Calder, do you want to press reviews or you do sorry?
you do that's a mover.
Councillor Cooper.
yeah
2 to refuse, obviously you need to identify which policies country 2 and the harm that that would cause, as Councillor White will only know from yesterday and on our induction, so here we go
so what on what grounds?
on the underground, but we haven't got that we haven't got there.
so.
yeah, I mean that there's no grounds in.
I'm planning low yeah, but so I can't on that basis, certainly.
so I don't know, can we can we abstain, you certainly can abstain, you can vote against if you want, but I mean you I mean someone has to someone has to be upon here out, there being defeated by the sensible people just to be proved right in the end, so we'll go for it, but I mean actually can I suggest that for the rest of us I will move it. I move that we accept recommendation and, by all means, vote against, if you wish those, and I would ask you remind everyone of this moment when we have breasts choking down today,
I will acknowledge it at the time, those in favour of approving the recommendation 1 2 3 4 5 those against two or no abstain, as I think OK, thank you moving on to.
they've got we've done that.
movie
sorry.
I do think there is an issue here there about them approving developments below ground service in in hyphen flood zone areas, and I don't know if there is a
planning a constriction around that, but we are talking about an area that is more likely to flood than many others in the borough, and therefore I do think this is something that we need to come back to as a committee and perhaps as officers to develop some wording that talks about how sensible it is I wearing another hat in my day job spend quite a lot of time liaising with Thames Water when we've had flooding incidents in other parts of the borough that are low lying near the River Wandle.
where people have experienced the horror of you know, the staff coming back up through their toilet.
and so on and so forth, from flogging their properties, particularly basement flats, with you know the kind of thing that we would hope to be flushing down the toilet, it's extremely unpleasant being flooded, and I do think this is an issue that we do need to pay some attention to because the more basements I understand the point that Councillor Hopkins was making but actually the impact on the neighbouring properties.
at 38 and 40, dear Doll Road, you know must be taken into consideration, and if your neighbour creates a basement, it has can have impacts from your property or as well in a way that can be quite adverse, so I'd like us to consider this at some point in the future thank you.
we've got quite a record of it, actually I've known, as you all boringly know, I go back, caught memory and one of the early floods, I remember, a built-up road, which is why the council built that estate on stilts in 1970 or something like that.
and we've been dealing with it on and off for years, perhaps I can start by just asking Mr Cawdor, or whoever of muscle staff, perhaps to look out for us because, with all due regard that the Borough Plan is brilliant, massive document, the relative paragraphs or something that will help to give some context yeah I think that's thus fair enough, I'll put together a little document about
well, the key considerations for basements and flood rescues more generally, so you've got that to hand, but I do think we're at a stage where we've just adopted a local plan and we've taken on those on board and to revisit all of that quite an early stage, I think, further down the line, we could look at developing a separate supplementary planning guidance which might assist. I know that Councillor White previously talked about basement impact assessments, that's not something we we brought forward, but it was investigated as part of the local plan and that's really something that we will look at again as part of that, but I think I think my colleagues and policy have got enough work to go on with the other reviews of the local plan. So I wouldn't want to throw them too much more work noted, but nonetheless let's look at it in that context,
number 10 garage is Bessborough Road page, we've done dealt with number 9, and that's on page 271.
any agreed everyone is happy with it, I certainly good good everyone's happy with it excellent.
now a big one in some senses and it's only a variation to do with basements, I understand.
the Springfield hospital site, by the way, how many people have gone for a walk, round Springfield Park, not as a Tooting person I did it the other day as a very splendid, it was too needs to mature a bit, but it's very well worth looking at so anything to be said about Springfield hospital site as,
as I said, it's a variation fairly OK as anyone got me, Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair, not another a long one.
there's not a lot to object to, and in essence is the, but I'd have to solve, put a mark in the sand that I am concerned on this entire in the entirety of the Springfield development, that every time someone comes back it gets bigger it gets denser it gets simplified, they've had a good track record on the historic building and I respect everything they've done on that, but on the new builds that are coming along around, I don't see the material gain for us as a borough, particularly in making these houses bigger. We're losing some detail at the back, we've lost the dormers on the back that aren't as architecturally interesting as they were
I wish they'd stop this trend, it was quite acceptable as it was, so I'm not going to pick my battle on this one and fight against it, but I just think it's unfortunate that they've had to come back and revise it, I thought it was fine as it was enough said I think at this point,
noted any other comments.
okay, Dunlop noted, but nonetheless approved grade agreed, and that concludes thank you, and let's see if we can sort out the technology next time.
so, sorry, just for a moment you stopped the decisions reports.
I think, having done the TPO and so on, I I ignored just to hold on for a moment there was those papers at the end for information, the decisions, closure of investigation powers and closed appeals, if anyone wants to ask any questions about those are just for information.
otherwise forever hold your peace, and thank you that noted.
- Front Sheet, opens in new tab
- 01. 2023-0613 East, opens in new tab
- 02. 2023-2315 East, opens in new tab
- 03. 2023-2006 and 2010 East, opens in new tab
- 04. 2023-2705 East, opens in new tab
- 05. 2023-2952 East, opens in new tab
- 06. 2022-1029 West, opens in new tab
- 07. 2022-5172 West, opens in new tab
- 08. 2023-0986 West, opens in new tab
- 09. 2023-2484 West, opens in new tab
- 10. 2023-2779 West, opens in new tab
- 11. 2023-2851 West, opens in new tab
- Background Papers, opens in new tab
- Late Items of Correspondence, opens in new tab
- 2023-0244-ENF, opens in new tab
- TPO Report, opens in new tab
- TPO 474 ORDER - Appendix 1, opens in new tab
- TPO 474 MAP - Appendix 2, opens in new tab
- Decisions, opens in new tab
- Closure of Investigation Files, opens in new tab
- Appeals, opens in new tab