Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 21 November 2023, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 21st November 2023 at 7:30pm
Speaking:
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
come to the November meeting of the Planning applications Committee, my name is Tony Belton, I'm a Labour councillor.
representing Battersea Park Ward, I'm also the chair of the planning applications committee, I'm going to ask members of the Committee to introduce themselves when they are speaking, otherwise I think it's difficult for Members to remember all the names in one flood, so I'll leave that until when.
I can assure members of the public, but we've spent all a lot of time reading these papers if anything goes through as they say on the nod, and I don't think it will be the first item that doesn't mean to say we haven't read them we have it's just that we don't disagree with anything that the officers have said and it's just an agreement.
I need to sign the minutes of the last meeting, is that agreed Councillor Humphreys?
thank you, and if I may clock, I'll.
all sign those at the end of the meeting, I should just introduce the people on the front table, because I think that's important that people know who's sitting alongside me, so I will start with Ms Jackson.
thank you, Chairman, I'm Jennifer Jackson, and the Assistant Director for Planning and Transport Strategy for the Council.
hi I'm Nick Calder and the Head of Development Management here at once with.
it doesn't want to meet the speech, and my name is Duncton, Moss and the external legal adviser.
the young man on the right who is running around fussing about the technology working, I think here he comes Michael, would you get to introduce yourself as well?
good evening, Michael Flowers, Democratic Services Officer, OK, thank you, I'm going to ask members if they've got any interest declared to declare and anyone who doesn't understand what that means, that doesn't mean interest in the normal sense, we're all interested in the obligations it means in a financial or personal sense, so has any one Dr interest to declare Councillor Cooper
thank you, Chair, my name is Leonie Cooper and I'm a Councillor in the first-down ward.
in addition, however, I am also the London Assembly Member for Merton and Wandsworth, and there are frequently references to the Greater London Authority and to Transport for London in the papers that have come to this committee, so for reasons of transparency, not for pecuniary reasons, I would like it to be noted that I fulfil that role, thank you.
thank you, does I mean to say you're going to retire from the course of the discussion?
I was going to talk about that when we get to item 1, OK, OK, well, we're virtually there.
Humphreys,
sorry, Councillor Humphreys, I beg your pardon, thank you, Chairman Councillor Les Humphries, Councillor for South Fields in Putney, not really a declaration of pecuniary interests but again as Councillor Cooper for for absolute transparency some years ago my son was an employee of All England Club as many family members have been I'm sure over the years during the course of the tournament.
the poor public, who had to suffer his baguettes being made for a couple of years during the tennis, but it's 15 years ago not not a pecuniary interest, I'm sure, but just for total transparency I've got to say that.
I think that's getting over scrupulous, I'm not going to declare an interest and I've actually been to Wimbledon.
a few times that no, that's not a matter of interest, I think in that sense count.
Councillor White.
I can declare that I've never been thank you, but also a member of community renewable energy Wandsworth which could be constitute some impact on at least one of the papers, but I draw no financial benefit from that group.
OK.
now, moving on to the applications and obviously the main one, I beg your pardon because Michael's multitasking, he does not catch, which application Councillor White, started a cheque or later.
moving on to application number 1, which is the Wimbledon Park Golf.
boss application, it's obviously long and complex, we have four Councillors from local wards here, Councillors cat, I think I've got with some right order for by their duty to speak Councillor Caddy, Councillor Island Councillor Hussain and Councillor Grimston, who very kindly not very kindly very cleverly arranged between themselves or order like speak in and what they're going to cover so we're going to have that.
but first of all we're going to start off with.
Councillor Cook yeah, thank you, thank you, I'm doing quite well without the other interruptions thanks first of all, I was going to ask for brief introductions and at this point Councillor Cooper needs to say something. Thank you very much Chair I have explained this to a number of people have written to me about this meetings, this evening's meeting, probably about 200 of them, but because, as I've just explained that, as well as being a once with Councillor, I sit as the London Assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth
I have discussed this impending application at length and publicly before I became a member of this Committee, and indeed as the Chair of the Environment Committee of the London Assembly, between 2016 and 18 and I sit in that role now and I was the deputy chair in between those two periods I have spoken out.
quite strongly on the issues of building on metropolitan, open land parks. Keith's comments are on a regular basis and have also made my opposition to the concept of building on metropolitan, open land within Wimbledon Park very apparent. I did not know when I was making those remarks that I would be joining this committee in May 2023. I was not aware that I was likely to be a member of this committee when this application came forward, because I have made those remarks. I have spoken to the officers and I have taken advice from Mr. Moore's, whose here is the independent legal person and under the circumstances, I think it would be fair to say that I am fairly comprehensively prejudged on this application and therefore, unfortunately, I am going to have to recuse myself from the rest of the discussion of Item 1, it within this agenda item and I will go and sit at the back and take no further part
thank you, and I think that's a very correct decision now if by mood what may move on, I get to ask Mr. Jackson to introduce the list in a broad sense of the legalities and the position of this application in the round of applications, most novelty consider the week or so ago and what happens?
after this, so I think that broad outline needs to be.
understood and are asked to Mrs. Jackson to do that and then ask the officer Ben hiatus sitting down here to introduce the item, then move on to the for councillors who want to make their Deputy won't make their positions clear as local councillors and then I've got a structure for the rest of the discussion which I think all Members know about already so first of all it's the Jackson,
thank you Chair, so, as the Committee is aware, this is a cross boundary application, which means that parts of the application site fall within Wandsworth borough and also the London Borough of Merton.
the regulations require that the application is identically made to both Councils and both Councils have the right to make a decision on that application, it falls to this borough to make a resolution in accordance with the development plan which means the ones with Local Plan, the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework as set out in the officer's report. As the Chair mentioned, London Upper London Borough of Merton has made a resolution on the scheme itself that is not relevant to your determination this evening and neither as the officer report sets out is the matter of restrictive or positive covenants on the land, a material planning consideration.
the application is referral to the Mayor, who may determine that the application be called in or may obviously response to both authorities at stage 2 of the process, but furthermore, due to the Metropolitan Open Land designation officers are of the view that the application is referral to the secretary of state for levelling up homes and communities pursuant to the Town and Country Planning consultation direction all that means is that the secretary of state has the power to call in and take a decision on the application and that stands even if the Mayor decides to call the application and become the Local Planning Authority.
so from that description I'm sure you'll understand that your resolution tonight is the first part of a decision in a longer process, this is quite a complex set of considerations in planning terms and, as the officer report sets out, there are three balances to be considered before you reach a resolution and I am sure that the Chair will ensure that we are taken through that you are taken through that appropriately over the course of the debate.
I just also wanted to note here that the Planning Committee, for the benefit of the gallery, has been out to the application site and that the planning application committee has also had a technical briefing led by officers, to explain the facts of the application proposal before them, Councillor Cooper wasn't present at either of those because, as she set out she has recused herself from the decision.
thank you Chair, the only thing I wish to repeat from that because I think it needs impulses is we are not a court of law, we are not in a position to make any assessment about the covenant with covenant is completely outside of our concerns and so any reference to that, but people should take note that our position now going to ask them to then Egypt to present.
his presentation.
sorry, Chairman.
I think
I just wanted to say before Ben starts his presentation that, as Members will be aware, the sorry sorry, you introduced the soapier salaries at Amledd Richards, I'm the team leader for the West team.
we know that there has been an awful lot of representations received from various residents and societies, and so on.
the consultation that we've undertaken as a Council is set out on pages 38 to 54 of the report so that took place since August 2021.
and the tables set out the extent of representations received, but I would just like to draw the attention to the late items because, since the application was sorry, the report was published, we've received over 125 further letters of objection, we've also received further objections and signatures on the petition submitted by Save the Wimbledon Park.
group.
and also we've received three letters of support, as well as further 200 or 96 support on a petition as well.
I would also like to just take this opportunity to highlight and clarify a few.
points that were raised by those objectives so that they're aware that these matters have been taken into account.
on page 26, that is written reference to the height of the proposed show court, which is an outline quite few people raised the fact that it was stated as has been 49 metres but that's above ordnance datum and the overall height is indicated to be 28 metres.
also, we wanted to raise specifically that Wimbledon Park Residents' Association.
we're not mentioned in the list of local societies, that was an error and Wimbledon Society was mentioned twice, so we just wanted to say that we are taking into consideration your concerns.
and also that they raised a couple of queries about the overall sizes of the central maintenance hub which is clarified in the late item spew, so that.
not a confusion, and also we've received additional submissions from the applicant in response to some of the points raised by Wimbledon Park Residents' Association that were circulated to members in advance of the meeting, and they've been set out in the late items as well, but these were sort of direct communications if you like between.
the representations from the applicant and this is and the Residents' Association, thank you.
thank you, Minister, just to say I didn't mean to get you out of this, the mistake on my part, sorry about that, Minister Peter.
Bennett a case officer for the planning application.
as we lay the planning applications for the development of Wimbledon Park, of course.
the site is located in Wimbledon Park and which is south of Wandsworth Town and south of.
South Fields.
as we can see on this plan, the borough boundary runs across the northern part of the site, which is illustrated by the dashed blue line, so it's just the triangular northern section of the site that is located within Wandsworth.
the application boundary is signified by the red line on the plan within the centre of the site as the Wimbledon Club, which is not does not form part of the application and is under separate ownership.
to the right-hand side of the plan is the existing public park, which was shown by the stripped stripped shading area.
and then there's the existing All England Club site on the left-hand side and the main constraints of the site are it's located in metropolitan, open land, it's within the Wimbledon North conservation area and the site, and the site is Grade II star listed and is a registered park and garden.
so what is much more slippery land is defined in the London plans, strategic open land within the urban area, which protects and enhances the open environment kind of some people might describe as the green lung of London.
it is afforded the same level of protection as Green Belt land, and this plan just shows in the light green, the extent of metropolitan, open land in London, and then the dark green is.
Green Belt, and
in terms of Metropolitan Open Land in Wandsworth, there is Battersea Park on the top right-hand side of the map, and then there's Putney Heath from the bottom left-hand side, and then the application site is to the right of that.
in terms of the application site itself, the entire site is located within Metropolitan, Open Land, as is the public park, the existing public part of the right hand side and then also part of the All England Club site.
in terms of what is the registered park and garden?
is the Register of Parks and Gardens of special historic interest compiled by historic England?
inclusion delivered on the register isn't a material planning consideration.
and the reason why the site is the main reason why this site is Grade II star listed and a registered park and garden is because it's a remnant of an 18th century landscape designed by the celebrated landscape architect capability Brown,
and then we can see on the map the original capability, Brown landscape, with the remaining lake, in the centre of the site and then the scattered tree planting, and the original manor house is in the southern area of the map that we can't actually see.
and then in terms of what the original capability Brown landscape looks like, it is on the left-hand side you can see the lake remaining and then on the right hand side is the extent of development in this play 18 0 s early, 19 0 s you can see in terms of the original Brownian landscape most of it has disappeared but there's still the remnants of
ancient woodland in the northern area of the park.
obviously the remaining lake and veteran trees as well.
so, turning to the application, it's a hybrid planning application, which means parts of the proposals are in outline only and partial in detail.
the aspect of the application that are outlined, as is the the larger buildings proposed, the aspects are in detail, is more the landscaping the 7 maintenance hubs and the 38 tennis courts.
so in terms of what the applicant is proposing, there's the 38 tennis courts as the
entrance areas and an orphan self of the map on the right hand side, as a shared quote on the left-hand side.
as the like boardwalk that you can just about make out.
and then again just sharing some CJ as if the proposed plans conceived the show court, there's the lake boardwalk.
as the permissive access public park on the southern side on the left-hand side
and you can see the entrance areas as well.
so in terms of the proposed missive access public park, this would be in the on the southern edge of the lake, it would run from Church Road to the existing public park on the on the right-hand side of the map, you can also see the retained golf club house on the right hand side which were done.
the applicant state would be used partially for community use.
submit permissive access.
means a breach or whatever it of land, that the landowner has given permission for people to use, and public access to this park could be secured in a Section 26 agreement, as set out on pages 1 1 7 2 1 2 7 of the officer's report tending to the proposed lake walk.
on the left-hand side, you can see the extent of the existing public access to the lake, which is just the blue line area.
and then on the right hand side is.
indicating the proposed lake walk, which would span the whole, go around the edge of the lake.
on a boardwalk for about 50% of it, I think, or perhaps a bit more, and then that plan will show it is the proposed lake hedge planting.
tended to the proposed tennis courts.
seeded, indicating what the courts could look like during the championships, with the bat boards and the side fencing and the net, obviously, and then this is showing what the site would look like out so outside of the grass court season.
as you concede this.
there's no tennis paraphernalia outside of the grass-court season.
download the use of the courts, the applicant has indicated that during the qualifying week, the application site would be able to be used for the qualifying tournament and that there would be some indoor practice in the northern area and then during the championships,
the application site would be partially used for championship courts and practice courts, and then Junior Junior qualifying events and junior qualifying practice, and then during the second week of the championships applicants, are indicating that some of the costs that cannot be used for the championship events practice courts and then junior championships and,
other uses for the telescopes in the southern area of the site and they need a round.
I believe the permissive access public park on the southern area would have regular public access and the rest of the site would be restricted.
and tending to the proposed maintenance hubs that are proposed in detail, as we can see, three of their proposed maintenance hubs would be in Wandsworth.
the applicant's intention was to site the maintenance hubs in as discreet location as possible, which is the reasoning for their location, as well as being nearest to the courts that they would serve in terms of maintenance.
and then we can see that the proposed maintenance court maintenance hubs would be surrounded with wooden fencing and then they would have.
I see them brief.
I turned to the Shaw Court, which is proposed in outline, only subject to design code.
as we can see, the intention is for the show court to have climbing plants climbing around it, if suggested that would be Virginia creeper plant, similar to what currently climbs the outside of Centre Court.
to note that the maximum height of the chokehold would be 28 metres.
and you can see an idea of what the external appearance of the showed court might be like.
in terms of the to play or hubs, which are also proposed and outline again subject to a design code, and we have an indication that the northern player hub would be appear similar to the maintenance hub spoof, a sedum roof and wooden cladding, and then a southern play hub would be,
appear as a boathouse on the southern Lake tip.
the use of the play hubs outside of the grass court season, the applicant, has indicated a clear use from outside the grass court season, so there would primarily be used during the grass-court season for play facilities.
an essential maintenance hub, which is also in outline, subject to design code the intention is that it would appear buried beneath the landscape and the maintenance hub would have all the facilities for maintaining them.
permissive access public park, as well as the wider site.
I can tell you to some of the transport impacts of the proposed development, the applicant has indicated a desire to close Church Road during the qualifying and championship events.
it is important to note that this is not part of the planning application as it would be subject to a separate traffic management order application with Merton Council, although it is material to the assessment of a planning application, as they have indicated that that is their desire, the plan is just showing the potential pedestrian and cycle diversion routes whilst on Church Road is closed, you can see the two alternative routes in blue dashed lines.
the indication is that these diversions would add approximately 5 6 around six minutes to journey times.
and then the closure of Church Road also involves the diversion of the number 4 9 free bus route, again this adds approximately five to 10 minutes onto journey times.
turning to another issue in terms of construction traffic routes, this is only indicative only if the application were to be approved, final details of construction traffic routes could be negotiated and secured via condition, and the applicant has indicated that the construction period would be approximately 8 years and the applicant has estimated a maximum of
600 construction vehicle arrivals per month.
the plan indicates the route.
of construction vehicles to the site, which would encompass Wandsworth Town and South Fields.
the applicant has stated that the route away from the site would follow the same route as to the site.
so
vehicles exiting the site would essentially go the opposite direction to the way they arrived, so that plan is indicating both to and from the site.
in terms of the proposed car parking, the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of car parking spaces at the site significantly.
during the championships events.
from around 3,300 currently to 1,295.
this would involve they stay a desire to remove car park 10 from the existing public park, and the terms of this removal could be secured via a Section 106 agreement.
I am looking at the impact on Southfield station, the applicant is estimating a 24% increase in those travelling to the championships by train and tube.
and the majority of them would be arriving from Southfields.
which would increase the numbers of people using Salfield station during the championships and upon discussions with Tiafoe, they state that there will be a required increase in staffing levels, and funding for this increase in staffing could be secured via the Section 26 agreement.
as we can see on the plan at the proposed entrance would now be much further north, the route from the site, the route from Safin Station to the site would be shorter and therefore potentially increased.
the pressure on on the south fields.
but officers are of the view that these impacts could be mitigated by conditions in terms of an event management plan, and also it could be secured under section 1 6 agreement.
in terms of the proposed tree works, the applicant is proposing to remove 296 trees, further details can be found in pages 88 to 90 of the officer's report and in their place the applicants are proposing to plant 1,500 trees.
which officers think would mitigate for the loss of the existing trees, and on the left you can see a plan indicating what the trees would look like as soon after they were planted and then on the right.
when they started to reach maturity after approximately 20 years.
the existing site has strong biodiversity value.
this is largely from woodland edge, planting around the lake and tree, planting along the fairways, which supports a number of species, including bats and species of birds and invertebrates.
the proposed plan includes.
this is a different level of acid grassland planting in the southern permissive access public park area.
and then the obviously, as we said before, about the tree planting and then the lake edge planting and meadow grassland as well.
maintaining two officers' assessment of the application.
officers have identified substantial spatial and visual harm to the openness of metropolitan open land which, in accordance with the NPP, creates a presumption against the granting of planning permission the onus is therefore on the applicant to submit to very special circumstances case in order to justify the inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open land.
in order for the applicant to demonstrate very special circumstances, they are required to demonstrate that there is a pressing need for the development that there is no viable alternative sites for the development, and that the development will deliver significant benefits that could be not that could not be delivered if the development were to not go ahead.
so, in terms of the harm caused by the development identified by officers, as we say, substantial spatial and visual harm to the openness of Metropolitan Open Land.
loss of open space.
less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets, increased pressure on local transport network harm to ecology during construction and loss of trees.
officer's assessment is that this home, the other harm, could be mitigated by conditions and Section 1 and 6.
but this doesn't remove the harm in terms of the assessment against the very special circumstances and then some plans of the proposed hardstanding which, as you can see as extensive, particularly in the northern area of the site, which is within Wandsworth.
and in terms of the main benefits of the application, we acknowledge that there are many benefits, including permissive access, public park the boardwalk.
funding for the improvements to the existing public park, which would be over worth over 8 million pounds funding of site-wide conservation management plan.
the sorting of the lake economic and employment benefits.
community space tickets for local schoolchildren, the use of seven early 7 courts available to the public, albeit just during the grass-court season, potential ecological enhancements and improvements to walling and club facilities, further details of how these benefits would be secured is set out under.
appendix 1 of the officer's report,
in terms of officers' conclusion, we've identified substantial harm to Metropolitan Open land and we've identified other harm as set out.
on the previous slides.
and officers do not consider that very special circumstances.
exist, for the reasons set out in the report, primarily to do with the applicant not clearly demonstrating a need for a development of this scale, the applicant not clearly demonstrating that they have considered other sites for the development and, due to the weight officers have given to the benefits outlined by the applicant.
which which we set out on pages 99 to 115 of the officer's report, and just highlighting the key paragraph in the NP, which the assessment is based around that very special, very special circumstances, will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness,
inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
thank you, Mr later.
we move on the Battersea Battersea I do buy your button, once was Planning applications, Committee processes allowed ward councillors so affected to have their say on applications, and that's where these folk come in, I think Councillor Caddy, you're speaking first, please introduce yourself.
good evening, I'm Councillor Kim Caddy and I represent South Fields ward. Thank you very much, Chairman, for the opportunity to address this committee. I'm the first of all for local ward councillors who will speak on behalf of residents and to use the Committee's time efficiently. I will limit my contribution to areas not being covered by colleagues. My comments are a con, a combination of my own views on this application, having taken a keen interest in the plans from the very start and a reflection of the views of the very many residents I've spoken to or corresponded with on this application, including several residents organisations
I am a huge supporter of the Wimbledon tennis tournament and the benefits it can bring, and I've worked on bringing community benefits to South builds with the All England Club during my 10 years as a councillor.
so I have considered these plans with a completely open mind and I have engaged with consultation events both with the Olin England Club and the local community, having carefully considered the costs and the benefits of this application, I would ask the committee to agree with the planning officers' views that the permission should be refused.
the loss of green space and the harm caused to Metropolitan Open Land are not outweighed by the potential benefits of the scheme, there are no very special circumstances here which justify a huge 8,000 seat stadium in a green belt area, in addition, I think the Committee should consider the precedent that approving these plans would set in respect of other green spaces in Wandsworth.
another area of serious concern for South Fields is the disproportionately detrimental effect that the at least 8 year construction period would have on air quality and road safety in the area, there are many schools and nurseries along the route proposed, and the additional lorry and other traffic movements will just worsen the already poor air quality in South Fields.
as well as increasing road safety risk.
the children attending those schools and nurseries will be growing up over the course of those eight years and will bear the brunt of the pollution that's created.
there are also concerns that the benefit attributed to the proposed conservation management plan and the de-silting of the lake should be weighted less highly than it is in the report, because both the park and the lake have been deliberately allowed by Merton Council to deteriorating condition and therefore that deteriorated state should not be taken into account when making a planning decision.
overall, I have been disappointed that the All England Club has not been more flexible in adapting its plans to reflect the very reasonable concerns of residents, including the continued use of Wimbledon Park as a temporary car park and the total closure of Church Road during the tournament.
I welcome the recommendation of the officers and I would ask the committee to reject the proposals.
as ever, thank you, Councillor.
we we can do with Councillor Ireland.
thank you better hello, thank you.
my name is Andrew Ireland and I am a councillor in West Hill, I'm also a tennis fan I go to the tournament every year I live in Southfield sign job, they enjoy the atmosphere in Southfield during the tournament but I have concerns about this application and I would like the committee to reject it now.
as well as the concerns about loss of metropolitan, open land and loss of open space, I would like to talk to you about the lack of benefits to the community, including the residents and communities, and the Council managed estates in West Hill.
in West Hill Ward, many of whom live close to the development and who will be directly affected by it.
and whose lives would be disrupted, but whose voices do not seem to have been heard. Now, hidden among the smart houses, along with Buddha Park Road Princes Wayne Woodspring Road, are these Council managed estates. Now these estates are a mixture of communities, many of the occupants are doing well, they've got good jobs, they're fine, but there's also a very high level of poverty and deprivation, and these are the residents that are often forgotten, their views are not sought and their voices are unheard. Now there are six accredited residents association based on these estates, but there's no mention of them anywhere in this report and they seem to have been ignored
I would like their concerns to be addressed, and I would like the development to include benefits to them which addresses the socio-economic inequalities.
this includes providing jobs and opportunities for apprenticeships and training. both as part of the construction and then after completion if it does go ahead, and I would like job opportunities, skills development and training for local unemployed residents, there's nothing about that mentioned in in the report.
I think we need to identify local needs and to make sure this project does deliver benefits that meets the specific needs of these communities, don't just choose from a menu of options, I would like to see more integration with the community and other local infrastructure projects which would maximise the benefits to this community.
no,
I don't see the assurances that all these residents will have access to these facilities or the opportunity to use them, because they're excluded because of the cost, no tickets for schoolchildren are welcome, but what about other residents?
wellbeing is important, there is a mental health crisis in these countries, sport can help with this, I, I want to see more assurances about security and access to these facilities so that the benefits can be shared fairly amongst residents in these communities. So thank you very much I would like you to reject the application, thank you.
passionate as ever.
thank you, Councillor Hussain.
on Daniel go saying I'm one of the three Councillors for West Hall ward.
as a Westhall councillor, I'm honored to represent the area where I grew up, Wimbledon holds a special place in my affections.
it's the first major sporting event in which it took an active interest as a child.
as a teenager, I think it's safe to admit now I bunked off school to queue for tickets, and to this day I live within a shot of Centre Court. I'm proud to have the world's pre-eminent, tennis tournament in my community and what the championships go from strength to strength. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I stand before this committee to urge it to reject this application. For the last two years, I've been acutely aware of the deep and abiding concerns of Westhill residents towards these plans. This has been evident from the two public meetings which I've held, my many conversations on the doorstep and my discussions with members of local residents' associations, 100% of which object to the plans. Residents are clear. They're not opposed to development. The scale of these plans, however, is disproportionate and insensitive to the needs of residents and the environment.
the All England Club has not engaged with residents in a way that is commensurate with the sheer scale of the proposals and let's be clear what this is, the building of a stadium on metropolitan open land, the colossal environmental footprint that entails.
and the best part of a decade of disruption to daily life. With this in mind, one would have expected the All England Club to have made some attempt at constructive engagement with residents, addressing the key concerns and finding some modicum of common ground. This is distinctly not happened. The substance of the application remains essentially unchanged from what was put forward at the start of the process, as a result of which our community feels ignored and disenfranchised.
resident engagement should be a meaningful, not token gesture, and good community relations should be a foundation of a successful tournament, not merely a platitude.
if, as it says, the All England Club wants a stronger Wimbledon, something we all want to see, then being a good neighbour should be a cornerstone of that.
how is it possible to begin to have a world-class tournament without the goodwill and support of the community?
the All England club's in flexible approach to this application has sadly ensured that local goodwill and support is at an all-time low.
I shall be urging the committee to reject this application and the All England Club carefully to reconsider their plans to make them more sensitive to the needs of residents and the environment.
West Hill and the Wimbledon Championships will be better for it.
thank you very interesting, Councillor Grimston.
thank you, Chairman, Malcolm Grimston, the the other myself Ward Councillor, up to my two colleagues.
and thank you to the committee for allowing us to represent local views and also thank you to the officers for what I thought was an extremely lucid and effective report on what is a very complex issue. Colleagues have outlined some of the many of the concerns that we've all heard from our local residents. The one thing that has run through all of our presentations, of course, though, has been the effect on metropolitan open land, and just to reiterate what Ms age soldiers at the beginning there, that officers have concluded that the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the openness of metropolitan, open land and therefore constitutes inappropriate development metropolitan open land, the new stadium, it's not entirely clear to me why it needs to be a permanent new stadium at all to be there 52 weeks of the year, casting its shadow over the views from over the lake, particularly from the south and west, but it is very, very obtrusive for this wonderful, open space. The new paths, this five and a half miles of new paths 31 and 31,500 square metres are trying to get in my head a picture of things I reckon for those who know their if you started Southfields tube, you'd have to go all the way up Augustus Road. As far as Albert Drive, you'd have to go down the railway line almost as far as Kingscliff Gardens join that up as a square at the point at the bottom of Briardale, the block on the Wimbledon Park estate, an area that represents the area which is going to be completely covered in concrete and and asphalt
as part of this development, when you start to get to grips with the effect this is going to have on this wonderful area of land, you really see the force behind the officers report, the new courts themselves are only just short of that 28,000 square metres pretty much the same sort of area and although we talk about grass courts but only about 10% of the actual substance is the grass and as the report says, the new earthworks will just change the nature that at the moment,
until recently, as a golf course it just felt as you looked over it, we were looking at part of rural England. This will now, however, well it is done, it will be done. The All England Club does things well, but it is going to be part of a and industrial complex, and all of this, as the officers say, represents substantial encroachment of built form into the metropolis to open land, causing substantial harm. So this proposal can only be accepted if the All England Club has demonstrated to a very high degree of confidence clearly demonstrated that there are very special circumstances that outweigh this, as the officers say as residents say, as we say, they just simply haven't
perhaps most importantly, they haven't demonstrated that we understand why the report says we're going somewhere, they'd like to have this development next door to the present grounds, but they haven't demonstrated why it has to be here that there aren't other areas, other sites where they could have got most of these benefits, without destroying swaths of metropolitan open land in the setting of a Grade II listed listed park. Just to finish, I'd just like to come into the officers' only actually identify two substantial benefits of the of the schemes long, long way short of clearly showing the very special circumstances, but the one about the new permissive access public park
and I have to say here, there is considerable scepticism in many people's minds, the All England Club could, of course, have set up a trust to look after this park, so being guaranteed in perpetuity to the local community, it could even have given the land to Merton along with a dowry for for four for maintenance and for running.
some didn't do that, it has set up a permissive park where it has to say for how long that it will be open during the day and indeed into the future, and the problem is that the assurances which are being given about the future of this park they just sound rather like the words that were used by the then chairman of the All England Club in 1,009 93, when John Kerry said we completely understand and support everyone's determination to keep the land open and we purchased the land on that basis and incidentally, of course they purchased it at a price that reflected that now we're told that the reason that this promise is not going to be on it is that things change
well, yeah things change and we wonder at the moment of what point things will change. The extent of the All England Club wants to build on this new on the park. That's available to us. This might be a significant benefit, but it is not a bankable benefit. So in summary, while the All England Club does have huge support and Councillor Hussain, I fixed spoke for for all of us and for many local residents. It gives us a sense of place. Here was something special about the area, and that's a very valuable part, but the facts of the matter is that this particular proposal is just two to too big and the benefits of it come nowhere close to outweighing the demonstrate damage that this will do to our precious, metropolitan, open land and, as such, I join wholeheartedly with my colleagues in urging the Committee to accept the officer's recommendations and to turn down the proportion
thank you, Councillor Grimston, I'm launching a new gadget at the other three, I'm pretty well sticking to their two minutes play, afraid you, but I'm a very generous Chair, would you care to switch your microphone to the police facts right now we're going to.
to the members we discussed this a little between us beforehand and what we're trying to do, I think Councillors will find this difficult, but we'll try is to break up the discussion questions in terms of heritage, Metropolitan, Open space trees, sustainability is one kind of category.
secondly, buildings show courts and hubs third, the transport implications during construction and afterwards, perhaps and finally the benefits and then.
if we explore any questions, we have about those kind of issues, then open house for what our actual views are and what the decision is going to be that we make, so if we can try and stricter structure, first of all I haven't got any comments or questions on the heritage and my accounts of India.
thank you Chair, I respect entirely your way of.
splitting the discussion, but there are one or two issues or mistake, overall, are overarching across the whole application and there are very brief questions I'd like to ask them and perhaps officers could could answer those and that will probably help us carry on with your line with your permission, I was hoping Mrs. Jackson's intro is going to finish a lawyer's blow, bound have been wrong, go on open up with a cross. Very briefly, I mean, I think the decision by Merton means that Martin would have a 106 agreement
and I just want it to be clarified that that such an agreement would have ones with influence, even if we decide the way the officers have recommended us to do, and the second issue on the 1 6 is that, if there are any financial gains to be incorporated in Mertens 106 agreement can we clarify that one's worth in so far as ones that will be affected would also be able to have the advantage or benefit of those 1 and 6 incomes.
the second point is about and it goes to some of the things about where else could they have gone, we know that there is a Roehampton facility and I know it's not in the application but the applicant argues that this is the only place where they can do it, so I wonder whether the Roehampton facility has been fully assessed as being suitable or unsuitable and whether that burden of that suitability has been discharged by the applicant and if so, there will be a loss of economic advantage currently accruing to Roehampton and whether that's been netted off in the assessment that this paper talks about. Thirdly, the Wimbledon club which is not part of the application
has an access route that runs through the site, which is within the application, and I just want to understand the long term viability and and continuation of a club or whether that will in the future, get gobbled up and whether we know anything about that. And finally, on the issue of consultation, which colleagues from the wards have raised and some of the residents have written about, and this is about the organisation called your shout and there's some question from residents about their methodology and clearly Councillor Ireland's point that some groups of residents were almost excluded from it, and so I just want to see whether, if anyone has any idea about what their methodology was,
and in to what extent did the applicant change the plans between one two and three consultations they engaged in to what extent did the design review once within Merton had resulted in a change to to show whether they have listened, which is one of the arguments from local residents that they have not listened, I think if I was a judge I might say some of these are out of court.
but let's tackle one or two anyway, the first one from members of the public who may not have understood the jargon.
is a century I think, Councillor, given you will forgive me for saying this is if we decide to refuse the application.
but Mertens agreed it and the sick, and the whoever else agrees it does this mean to say we will lose out on any negotiations in terms of the benefits, because we've that's essentially the question, Mrs. Jackson.
thank you Chair, so Wandsworth would need to be party to any section 86 agreement, because part of the application site falls within the borough boundary, so on that basis, yes, we will have some influence, I think, was the word you use Councillor give India over those discussions and that's why we actually set out in Appendix 1 of the report where those discussions on what we call heads of terms.
have got to, and ones would have been very much involved in that through Mr Hayter.
obviously, some of the financial gains as you refer to them are specific to what happens in that part of the application site within Merton, so the the park, the de-silting of the lake and things like that obviously do fall within that borough, so I don't think really there's a provision where there's almost a formula if you like this X amount comes to mate and exam outcomes to Wandsworth because we've actually looked at specific benefits that have a financial element to them save for things like the tickets for schoolchildren and what have you?
so at Southfield station, yes, that's a very good point, I think Mr. Moss wanted to add something on the section 1 0 6 chair before perhaps.
I could pick up the Roehampton Bank of England side point, Mr more, thank you, Chairman just to pick up on one Mrs. Jackson were saying about the the financial contributions under the 1 0 6 I agree with the point that she made in relation to where the mitigation is required to be provided is where the spend will be, but there are a number of heads of terms where we've specifically sought to capture.
financial contributions that ones which will need to implement mitigation measures, for example, matters such as a travel plan monitoring.
controlled parking zone review.
just looking at the list in local employment and training strategies in Germany if I may probably a good opportunity to pick up on the point that Councillor Ireland made about her concern that the development would make any provision for economic benefits for local people, I would just say that we've sought to include within the heads of terms in section 1 0 6 agreement the Council's precedent clauses which do require the developer to make job offers to local people to involve local companies in the procurement process and also to make a financial contribution to enable our economic development officer to help place local people within construction jobs and use jobs and also to provide apprenticeships.
and the questions about Roehampton, which I'd normally rule out of order has been nothing to do with this application, I want in this particular case, because it is obviously part of the special circumstances or could be part of the special circumstances if that if it was considered so Roehampton Jackson.
should not volunteering or volunteering to give that give that I stopped, I think, as we know, Councillor of India that qualifiers are currently held in Roehampton at the Bank of England site and I understand that there are arrangements in place for that to continue. Were this to be granted permission during the construction period and before obviously moving to the new facility where permission granted, and I think insofar as the Environmental Statement has considered reasonable alternatives, they have looked at
how that might come forward, but I think it would be fair to say in our assessment in the officer report we don't consider that that perhaps has gone far enough in considering what other options might be available and the Bank of England site could be one of those which,
is its only relevance. I don't think it's material to your decisions, specifically as a site, it's more wrapped up in the have other alternatives been appropriately considered, and when it comes to the Wimbledon club I know Councillor Gruen, India likes to take a holistic view of the world as indeed do I, but it's not strictly within the terms of the application and he knows it, but do we know anything about the
so the the applicants would have to reach an agreement with the owners of the Wimbledon club, so that would be separate to the planning application, they'd have to reach some kind of legal agreement in terms of access, and your force point I can't actually read my note I do so various consultations consultations,
so, sorry, I was just going to say I mean this is in response to what was raised earlier, I think, by Councillor Holland about certain residents perhaps not feeling like they were consulted with enough, and it wasn't mentioned in the report I just wanted to clarify really that we've mentioned all of the
representations we've received from the various groups in the area that have communicated with us, we wouldn't comment necessarily on the public engagement that the applicants have undertaken or how you know how effective they were.
but clearly, in our report I see a substantial amount of the report actually is 38 page 38 to 54 sets out the full extent of consultation that we undertook as the CA as the local planning authority in respect of this and what those comments were, I think you picked up on the point about D R P and whether or not
that there were any changes undertaken and on in paragraph 4.7 on page 67.
there are actually comments in there about what changes they did undertake following that review panel, but if there were any other amendments, I'm sure Ben can.
I, like those are gay, can we get back to my structure, if I may?
heritage, Metropolitan, Open Land, miscellaneous trees, sustainability, Councillor Boswell, thank you, I'm Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting backwards.
we've been furnished with all sorts of interesting details on about the historical background on of this ancient open parkland, and thank you to the All England Tennis Club for taking us on the tour last week on the plans for the show caught on.
breathtaking in many ways
but to me no more so than the proposed capacity to seat 8,000 spectators.
I check the capacity of other stadiums this afternoon to get a perspective on what this really really meant.
an 8,000 seat capacity is more than half the capacity of the Hollywood Bowl, the half the capacity of Madison Square Gardens and nearly half the capacity of the O2 Arena, so, however tastefully built and however likely trodden, this is a massive intervention on this historic site which has remarkably survived various kings and queens on the English civil war for a remnant to be here today is a Grade II listed registered Park and Garden. So my question is, are there any examples in England where a stadium of this capacity has been built?
on registered parks and gardens, a permanent stadium of football stadium a concert venue, are there any examples of that, thank you.
I doubt whether we are prepared drawings as they prepared understand what I mean, maybe lunch, 1948 Olympics, what was that built on, but were not aware, I don't think we were aware of any no, we're not aware of any.
that said, I said football stadiums, and I think we're not having a to and fro, probably I'm sure gangs should be, it should be going through the Chair, the point that I'm trying to make is that this was such a president right, I understood.
our comments questions there must be plenty of others, Councillor Coldplay Councillor airs.
thank you, Chair, Councillor Cook, A Councillor for St Mary's Ward.
I wanted to ask about the trees and sustainability we've been given rough estimates in terms of the whole life carbon impact of cousin down to hundred and 96 trees.
loss of which are mature and eventually replacing them with 1,500 by that calculations, it would take 15 years to offset the carbon lost by removing those trees.
by that time it would be 2038, which is five years until Wandsworth, has their aim of being a carbon neutral BOA, and we would have only just reached square one that we are out today.
and this isn't really a question just common nerds, there's no reason why that Wimbledon can live.
outside of this application engage with Muslim ones of count, so to plant more trees on the application site, and it's regrettable that it's only considered that they want to turn to these trees, which would undoubtedly be a good thing but regrettable that they need to first cause so much damage to the park in order to provide that sort of environmental benefit.
I couldn't we couldn't help noticing as we travelled round, and there's pointing out to us a fair number of the trees plan to go.
hardly fitted anyway because they were under the canopy of the vintage, oaks or veteran oaks, and I think we'd all agree they could be removed, but you're quite right, that's different from the like could have been looked into separately and there isn't an assessment, frankly, of every single one of the ones going and how long it would take to for the carbon balanced, equalised, I'm not sure anyone frankly in the world could position to be able to do that, I think the science is not quite as far developed as that, but clearly it's one that matters to be considered, I am going to be corrected on that later by a colleague of mine who knows all about these things but Councillor Eyre's first.
yes, Phineas from East Putney, I wanted to make a point about the tennis courts.
it seems to be minimised.
by the 0 only tennis club the effect of the tennis courts on the open land out of season, they're showing us all these clever diagrams of removing the screens around.
but they argue there is still visible, as some are completely alien piece of ground throughout, I mean, there are 39 of them, they're going to be dead flat, they've all got to ground beam around them with drainage into them and the grass will be completely different, so I'm really refuting the suggestion that really all these tennis courts are gonna be nice bits of grass when they're not being played on.
Councillor Owens,
thank you, Councillor Golton, and I just had a question about the lake works and the de-silting of the lake, and what will happen to the silt and and also why the late stage has not been managed properly by Merton Council, we've had some e-mails, so there's a arguing that it's not necessary and others are arguing perhaps that the de-silting should have happened before now so just wondering in terms of the SCR timescale and whether or not it's contaminated and and where the silt will be going, thank you.
anyone, and I, I think, delving into why Merton failed to clean the lake, obviously a party political point, so I'll put it the other way round while the government refuse to fund them to clean, the lake is always completely outside of what we can decide on here but actually the mechanics of cleaning the lake are interesting and an important one what we can say about mud.
so the methodology hasn't been finalised by the applicants, in terms of how they have they would do Salt Lake.
so that would be that would need to be secured by condition if the application was approved in terms of where the silt would go.
they have given an indication, I think, as far as I understand, a lot of it would would would leave the site,
I don't have a figure on how much.
I think the problem with that.
until you do it, I mean clearly anyone could argue all sorts of insect.
Dutch goodness knows what life might be adversely affected, but apart from anything else, there must be 10,000 golf balls in it, so I mean it's very difficult to assess whether removing all of those and flooding the secondhand golf ball market if there is such a thing it.
it seems to me just superficially, but actually having like having a good clean out and we know the state of waters in this country would be a benefit, and I don't think anyone's really arguing it with that, how much of a benefit and whether it justifies everything else is another matter, but that's the point of view, Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair a couple of points, if I may,
on going back to trees briefly when we went on our site visit recently, one of the things the applicant made, much of was that some of the middle ranging trees were going to be possibly transported, so dug up and moved to a different part of the site to sustain them, which sounds great on the surface, but I wonder if officers got any more knowledge or expertise as to how successful that necessarily is, because I know it's quite a risky business trying to move, which we are trying in my own garden to massive failure, but on the scale that they're doing it. It sounds good that it's possible what is the likelihood that those trees will actually survive and have a long life afterwards if they are moved
don't know whether, Mr heads.
so the applicant told us that the success rate is relatively high.
if the application was to be approved, we could condition.
a trio of health check and if if the if the tree dies or.
isn't poor health than we could require them to replace the tree?
if I could come back to replace it with an equivalent age and vintage as it was true, I suppose the the terms of that could be discussed under the under the condition, but it would be of a similar quality, but perhaps not the same age most likely on this image.
got another question, if I may, on a different overhang second.
with the trees my understanding is it takes a period of time and they have to cut the roots back over a series and then they get into a small bowl and then then they can move it and that there is a relatively successful obviously if it's a 40 50 year old tree they're not going to be able to replace it with a similar 40 50 year old tree because you've just taken it from somewhere else so it'll probably be a row of mature saplings sort of 16
it sets me to diameter quite quite a large scale one, but I also wanted to, if I may Chair just pop back to the issue about the de-silting and there is a clause within the 1 0 6 at the top of page 123. We talk about a little bit more, but I think the process will be that there is no high level of contamination within there apart from the aforementioned golf balls, but the idea is to take it out and dry it, so it's likely to remove the rather than putting it all in the back of a lorry, so there is a process, but it's all to be firmed up in a bit more detail, which which you can see at the top of page 1 to 3
Councillor Jim India, thank you, Chair I just on the de-silting point and I think one of the importance of it is that some residents of saying said it's not necessary, I don't know and no expert in this, but the important thing is where will the material end up which must then influence the the the route?
by which it's taken out, so, in a sense where the silt ends up will determine what roads in the borough on in Merton would be used for it, and that's the purpose of it, they just want to go to the officers' assessment of the heritage balance on page 97 98 and the two significant,
public benefit areas that they say are the permissive access to the public park and the conservation management plan just taken into the conservation management plan first.
surely as a landowner.
one landowner of a significantly historic landscape there have, as a landowner, a duty, irrespective of this planning, permission to look after it and come up with a management plan that behoves its status and I'm therefore I'm intrigued why the plan, which should be their duty, is now being ascribed a significant benefit in the assessment and then going to the permissive access the public park.
we don't get a feel for what it actually means. I mean Councillor Grimston raised a number of issues about it. I might say that giving a delivery to Merton might mean that he won't get looked after would be a risk from some from the dairy givers point of view, but I just wonder whether we have any idea about what would it mean, how many weeks a year, how many hours of sunset sunrise, what about early morning joggers, or will that sort of stuff? So I wonder whether we have any feel for the scale of permissiveness that the applicants prepared to allow
I'm just going to.
as I understand, it, is used as though it were a park, except for those particular days or weeks of the year when, but Mr Hayter, so the terms of the access to the public park would be set out in the section 1 and 6 an idea of how that would work as under head of term 8, in Appendix 1, the applicant has indicated that the opening hours of the park would they would try and make it the same as the existing public park, which I believe is in the summer. I think it's until 9 pm and then in the winter, it's dawn-to-dusk. I think and sorry, if I just say someone and page 1 to 2, and it does set out what there are actual weeks and how how many weeks in advance of the championship and so on, they intend to close the park and also note that there was part of the park was proposed for parking as well. Car parking during the championships and provision of a path from the top.
South end of Wimbledon Park through to
stands now through to the new era, and the boardwalk all assumes that it's publicly available.
except in those specific periods.
a roundabout the Championship I do not, quite I can't remember, the day is exactly Councillor Humphreys.
I'm happy to raise this.
so one of the one of the problems with the historic landscape is its fragmented ownership, so the capability Brown landscape is owned by the All England Club.
the Wimbledon Club and Merton Council, so the difficulties in getting all the landowners together to come up with a management plan, so the sexual one in six had a term five sets out that funding would be made available to Merton Council, and then the intention would be to get all the landowners together to come up with a management plan.
my point was the duty of the landowner, it doesn't matter who the lender owner is and in this situation one is a public authority, and presumably the public authority has the same duty and should be in discharging it anywhere, all England with it.
both interest and resource availability should also be doing it and Wimbledon clubs, and doesn't not, neither is it.
short-term Roberto, it's by knocking heads together and I'm not sure knocking it together, is such a vastly significant benefit, and all I'm saying is somebody should have been doing it anywhere and as a landowner and maybe all England should have been leading it.
well, that's terribly interesting whether we should be doing it anyway or whether Merton should be doing it anyway, perhaps they should, and I blame the previous administration in one source for not having done so for years and years later, but that is not the application travel check check now.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you, Councillor, I'm sorry, you are trying to make a point that I have not made, I have specifically the way I see it yeah I'm sorry, you're wrong, I am specific last thing on that. I haven't given the perfectly interferes. I am specifically talking about ascribing significant benefit to what I think should be a duty. That's all I'm saying I'm not suggesting who is at fault here, but is ascribing that level of benefit to what I Councillor, given you've made your point, can I say I could have spent an hour, at least on every single one of these, let me, for example, the de-silting at Wimbledon Park Lake has given moderate benefit. I happen to think
real expert that I am, I happen to think that's significant walking round the lake on the boardwalk, having the whole walk is given a degree which I thought was very low and should be given a much higher one. We can all have different views about this. Unfortunately, as someone else quite correctly said, this is not a scientific and mathematical exercise. If we could ascribe numbers to everything in a simple way, it would be simple and we wouldn't have things complicated things like committees to decide it. We just don't happen to agree on that. One Councillor Humphreys
thankfully, I think the key point is that we're here to discard this while they see those benefits and assess them in their merits, and we will have slightly different views on that, but that that's our job as you say yes, you describe those merits and we have to criticise and analyze those merits for what is asked in the report and to what the applicant is saying and what we think of those assumptions.
anyway, I go back to where I was the permissive parks. Sorry to drag us back to the moon as well, I think and again from the from the vast amounts of of correspondence which had a lot of residents, I think the phrase progressive park it's not that familiar expression to most people and is somewhat misleading, as Councillor Grimston has told us as well. You know, it's something that is of concern to residents and could I get some reassurance from officers that because I think what a lot of residents think permissive means is that if the applicants so chose, they could turn around a week later and say Well, actually, I'm not going to act, it openly more, we're gonna lock the gates and you can't get in, so could we please get a little bit of understanding and reassurance, perhaps from the officers that the legal agreement and suchlike would have a long term impact for residents rather than it being impossible to be able to cattle? I agree with the absolutely unfortunate choice of words perhaps as stand-alone elsewhere, but unfortunate,
Mr Moss.
chairman, thank you to answer Councillor Harris's point, may I direct Members, please, to page 1 to 2 of the report, which sets out the heads of terms for the new parking that is being provided.
and yes, it will be captured in the 1 0 6, yes, both Wandsworth and Merton Council will be able to enforce should the club be in breach of the the terms of it being agreed and captured in that 1 0 6, so the 1 in 6 would stand unless and until it is amended if it is amended it comes before you to be amended and it's quite a laborious process, and is a difficult statutory threshold to get over for it to be amended or for any of the obligations to be discharged fully and Chairman, if I can, I don't really necessarily want to reopen the issue but to answer Councillor Cook, can I just come back on that point myself and the one you've just made
I think it would help Members and the public as well in the sense that you're saying quite rightly, we should look at these pages and thank you for pointing it out earlier in the week, the pages about the benefits.
what we don't know in a sense is supposing this was to be agreed and people went off and started making these agreements, we don't know the stance of where we're starting from, so I'm not putting it at this very well, but the Council's position has to start, does it not from this permissive means?
you are permitted to close it for two weeks, a year because of the Championship or something like that and the rest of the time it's public and open in the sense that anyone assumes about the public park and the permissiveness is not something that's up to the Hill TC to decide it's decided in this agreement that makes sense, it does happen, yes, and that that captured it.
so it is quite a detailed head of term for this particular obligation and so, as you say that there are permitted closures of the parkland era arising around the time of the qualifying event and for the championships and thereafter, there are abilities to close it for temporary periods and also closure allowed in the interests of health and safety and maintenance, so yes, the 1 0 6 will capture the arrangements for further Euston and the opening hours of that parkland.
again, I'm sorry, you went on to very, very quickly chamber if I could just answer Councillor Kevin Hughes point regarding the duty or otherwise to maintain a registered Park and Garden, I'm not aware of any statutory duty on the landowner to actively undertake maintenance,
registered parks and gardens, obviously, if it's, if it's registered, it takes on a greater status in terms particularly of planning applications.
there are statutory powers that the Council can have if land becomes untidy there's a power under section 2 and 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act which enables authorities to issue untidy land notices requiring the landlord to tidy essentially to tidy up the land but not usually issued where you have a large area of open space that's been allowed to.
become more wild as it were. It really does depend on whether the amenity of the area has been affected by the condition of the land, and I don't think that would be something that either council be looking to do in relation to this particular site.
as I say, as I rather suspected, the structure I had outlined is completely collapsed, people are asking questions everywhere, I understand that it's bound to happen.
but but can I ask whether any more questions about all this, because I think something ought to be said, if I read the meeting correctly and I think it's pretty clear what that means, I think it's only right and proper that the opposite case or some elements of the opposite case ought to be put if this could be a fair assessment and Councillor White.
yes, I think that this is.
a very complex planning application actually, and I know that some of our members are returning in their beds, are not getting much sleep over. They see that because I don't think it's completely clear cut, so I think it's fair to have to balance it out a little bit I mean this, isn't just this isn't a metropolitan open space in the work in the way that we would say open, because at the moment is obviously the HMO majority is a golf club, it's an exclusive golf club and from an environmental point of view to have a successful goat golf club, you have to spray your grass with a hell of a lot of pesticides, so it's largely inaccessible to the general public
and and it's unmaintained, which of course does have some biodiversity positives, I suppose.
and it, and the fact that it is actually in the hands of a private members' club is down to, I believe, in the economic settlement that we've had in this country, which has squeezed local authorities to sell it off to a private club, and I think if if a public authority had ownership of this land and maybe this land will have been put to better use, so I over the years that the all the TCF had it.
also, but the benefits are there. I mean that there is one one third of the fields will be publicly accessible park. There will be undoubted environmental improvements, multi purpose, sports and leisure facility, greater exodus, accessibility to the historic setting of the park, reducing grey car parking areas, six figure sums for employment, training opportunities, 44 time jobs, 268, part time jobs, another six figure sum for improving air quality, half a million pounds for active travel park park zoning, 8 million pounds for park improvements and tickets to to local schoolchildren to make them feel more involved. Of course, the biggest sum is 58 million pound going to exclusive golf member or golf club members, and we do have a president, we'd have a president in the Borough of Merton we have to Mitcham football club, which was actually built on metropolitan, open space and includes a hell of a lot more concrete and Astroturf spaces than that we're dealing with here
so it does have its merits and and it would bring in, as one of our Members here said, it will bring an aesthetic to the area, there would be pleasing to many, however, it does come at huge cost and, unlike Tooting and Mitcham this large sports venue it will be inaccessible to the public apart from a few weeks in the summer when a small proportion will be available for hire, almost 300 mature trees will be lost and a huge amount of carbon released and,
future opportunities for carbon capture lost and I think it's open to debate which has been discussed by Councillor Coakley's, it's been discussed about whether this will be in balance over the course of 20 years where this Council should be cow should be Net Zero, I don't think it will be and the metropolitan open land if it's true to be spirit of the signed covenant, I know we're not supposed to be discussing that, but I think that is important.
were and when the LTC would be custodians of the land, you know that that would be lost
to maintain the 30, I think, a killer line that the officers prepared in their report is to maintain the 38 tennis courts to a high standard, the land must be altered significantly significantly, increasing the artificial nature of the area with concrete in and engineering out would alter the views of the site and would constitute MA Metropolitan, Open Land encroachment causing substantial harm to openness.
as I say, I think the era of for local authorities to be offered titbits basically from developers, especially as this was once public land, must come to an end if we are to vote in favour of this encroachment on metropolitan open land, then the environmental damage, the public exclusivity, activity of the design, the tearing up of the covenant and,
that they made with the public and the opportunity lost for how this land could be, I think we probably need something better than this.
thank you, thank you, Councillor White, can I just add to that and first of all can I just say, by the way,
you gave an impression there that I want to correct because, as far as I know, it was never true.
gave the impression that Wandsworth Council, maybe Merton Councillor, I don't know, and for this purposes I don't care were given tickets at Wimbledon.
I've used some of those and make it quite blunt I have, but we weren't given them, we were given a place on the queue to get them we paid for them and they're expensive, so we were not even tickets, but I meant the new planning application 500 tickets would be given yeah I'd get you can't just add to your point that the overwhelming number of
e-mails that we've received and several hundred as won't surprise, anyone follow very much the same line and the fair enough that's the way these things go.
do you want to read just because it is not totally one-sided, I want to read if I made from one lady's letter, she says, each year the festive atmosphere comes to the local area for the Wimbledon fortnight, as well as thousands of people who spend their money in the area it benefits local businesses. Look at the extra tables put out by restaurants and the punnets of strawberries she goes on to say in future, we will have one third of the former golf club, which has been a no-go area for anyone who wasn't a member of the public park will be 50% larger, the lake will be cleaned up, golf clubs are hardly an example of écoles, as you said much of this yourself, Councillor White.
she goes on to say I've choked through the proposals, and it seems that the consensus should be as it is, but as it is status is an unused golf club, I suspect neither Merton nor Wandsworth council has funds to buy the land back or to maintain and maintain it in the future.
there are other points of views that's all, I'm really trying to say there are the points of view which should be acknowledged, but I think everyone's going to say that the main point is our job as a planning committee is to follow planning rules and to develop our metrics polite and open land whatever the rights and wrongs it require very special circumstances and I think that's being quoted several times and the question is has the application laid out any very special circumstances as to why we should have this?
structure on open land is not just a structure or concrete as well.
that's what members have to decide, and so if people want to talk about that.
by all means, but perhaps we can wind up Councillor Humphreys.
forgive me, I think we're a long way from running up, but I have to say that I think that we're all aware, I'm sure all of us aware we've all read all the e-mails and whatever, and our job here tonight is to scrutinise the applications before us by scrutinising and asking questions I don't think any of us are saying the relevant aspects of it that we like and it's a very mixed and balanced.
application forms, and that's why it's a difficult decision. If it was straightforward, it were very simple, so I don't think there's any point in sort of saying this person for that and that person, so that we know that lots of you sorry I said I meant that because I didn't personally I didn't think the other side had been put enough, we haven't I take your point Joe, but none of us actually we except for Councillor Wyatt, I've made any comments, yet we just ask questions so we've got time for that to come here, can I ask, are we still on technical, but where are we in your little agenda? But what I thought that I thought that has broken down because we were all over the place, but certainly if you've still got questions, I've got a lot, I've got lots of questions
cannot generally own buildings.
OK, we'll go back to that in that case, if I can go back to that, if you are happy to go back to that, let's say where that would be, the second section I had buildings show courts and habeas.
Councillor from India, I got several questions on this.
I may crave your and your patients but if you don't have it I am perfectly willing not to raise them because I don't want to have an argument with you about what's right and what's wrong, but I do think the most important aspect of the application is to some of the buildings that will go on the metropolitan open land and now the perhaps the one that irritates the local people the most and that may be seen by some as perhaps the most egregious bit of this application so if with your patients I have some questions.
it's been suggested that this might be world-class architecture, to start with that, who said it would be, and who shall be the judge of that, I mean I know that we don't ascribe much benefit to it, but I just find that kind of an irritating phrase in it.
the northern entrance, as I understand it, it's about 300 3,700 square feet metres, which is about 40,000 square feet which is quite substantial, so perhaps one of the officers can sort of say how many convenience stores could go into that amount of space, my reckoning is it's about 30 but maybe it's more or less when you talk about 28 metres of the centre of the sheriff court.
how does it relate, in layman's terms, how many storey block would that look like?
because that's what people understand in terms of intrusion into their their.
space, the Northern Hub we were told by Mr Hayter, would take 65% of the footfall.
in into the into the tennis enclosure
has that capacity is at a finite capacity and if there are more than 65% of people coming, has the that that entrance got a capacity to handle it and, if not, where is the kind of queuing going to be if that happens and what happens to all of these buildings outside the Championship periods, because the presumably the 65% 32 odd thousand when becoming outside the Championship period and how will they use it shrink, and therefore I don't mean building lies, but in terms of its staffing and so on?
and then on the Schalk show Court have.
the applicant has an estate on the other side of Church Road, and how have they shown why it can't be accommodated there and the the retractable roof suggests that play could go on until 11 o'clock, so there will be now three courts that are with retractable roofs. Is it possible that on some days all three work until 11 o'clock making a kind of grand total of about 27,000 spectators, leaving at 11.00 at night and what would the impact of that be? So there's a various questions, I think.
as I say, the most egregious element of this application is the show court and whether whether it's absolutely necessary whether it needs to be a permanent structure where there has to be in the location, it is at and whether it's wholly necessary, or is it just to compete with Flushing Meadows all the time?
I think my problems, Councillor in the friendly as possible way with your questions, is that some of them strike me as being rather difficult to answer like who said that they were world-class buildings, frankly no one here has doubted the quality of the I OTC product, everything does try desperately to be top of the world in its quality, I have even knows how it will turn out, I think those quantum conversations if kind of questions are incredibly difficult for an officer.
the answer, but it's an outline anyway at the moment, but he'd say so so can we it, can we perhaps just stick to the quantitative ones, which are very specific and fair enough, so, for instance on the on the show court 28 metres would be equivalent to what current size of block,
regardless of how it's landscaped or so on, what would it be an average block, someone can answer that counts.
Richards so chap if I might just take that more so in the Local Plan we define a tall building as being a building over 21 metres in height, and we say that seven storeys so broadly 3 metres and for a story, so that gives you nine storeys.
Councillor, give India just to reference that, based on a planning policy matter and in respect of the world-class architecture point, we in fact gave that no weight.
in terms of its materiality, because in our consideration our expectation is that schemes, any scheme will deliver high quality design and I think whether that's world-class or not, it becomes something that is in the eye of the beholder, shall we say, Councillor of India, so we were just saying that's what we would expect from any scheme other cognitive the size of the
the entrance area in the North, I think, was one of your your questions.
I don't have to understand the questions I have to pen.
I don't know what the size of a cornershop would be, so I'm not sure if I can answer that question but.
it.
I mean, you can see on the plans and the size of the entrance area in comparison to the the tennis course, so hopefully that gives you an idea of the area that that's the best I can do, I'm afraid.
some of us like in the public gallery or me who doesn't have the
in front of us, how does it compare with
tetanus got it roughly from what you're looking at.
we are looking at perhaps three tennis courts, that's just a rough estimate about three tennis courts, somehow two and a half.
two and a half something was said in somewhere in the papers, and people will understand if I can't remember exactly where it does say something about queuing, does it not,
so the final details of event management and things like that would be set out in an operational management plan that we that we would condition if the application was approved
so in terms of the event management notwithstanding, it varies each year and the management of the event is agreed with various stakeholders like to follow the local councils and things like that so it would be set out in an operational management plan that we could condition.
and I'm really not going to I'm sorry, Councillor Gambon nearby, I'm not I'm not going to ask the officers to speculate on how many times player might continue to 11 o'clock on three courts.
that's just so speculative other quantitative elements of a of your your questions.
now that's an interesting point I mean, is there any sign or inclination that the club will consider use of these facilities, I don't know of a corporate corporate events or to raise money.
but not that necessary the need to raise money, but any sign that there'd be any of them would be used outside, there is some in the papers again about the use of the of the show called, I can't remember again what it says, perhaps Mr Hayter can help me.
so, in terms of the use of the choke or the applicant has indicated that during the grass court season, it could possibly use be used for some junior tennis tournaments.
but most of the time in terms of the tenants use it, it wouldn't be used outside of the of the championships.
they have indicated that part of the internal area of the show court could be used for community use, that's thus included in the section, and 6 that possibility.
it also could be used for part of the museum.
the main uses, but obviously the Tree Court has an outline so in terms of the floor plan and what what the space might be useful, we don't have the precise details on that at this stage.
I think that's more or less your questions covered and other questions on count some buzzer and my question is actually on permissive rights, because we don't seem to be sticking chair to the headings that you'd asked us to to go through this in a structured way so forgive me and I'm going to permissive rights.
the permissive rights of this permissive park.
I think it's really a shame and really sad that the All England Tennis Club didn't as a gesture of goodwill.
give this the this parkland to the to the people arm in in perpetuity for public use. I think that would have been a really good move, and if this is refused tonight and refused down the line, they might like to think about something along those lines should it come back in future, but my question is actually about permissive rights into the future. Are they held in perpetuity or kind of landowner change of permissive rights on over time? I have some experience of this family farm in the Isle of Wight, where we gave arm
Land for a permissive path to make the roads safer in the village for people to get through and that was made into a pathway, and that was called a permissive path, and I I think this is probably the same legislation, but if Mr Moss could answer that that would be really helpful, Mr Morse indeed Chairman, thank you.
May I refer Members again to?
head of term 8, for the section 1 0 6 agreement on page 1 to 2, and hopefully that the late Councillor boswell's fears about the permissive nature of the park being withdrawn in the future, now this had a term covers what will be contained within the arrangements for access to that park and it will be in perpetuity.
and it will be maintained by the club, and so the access plan will be submitted and approved by the councils, and it will set out all these issues that are listed on page 1 to 2 and it will be captured in the section 1 0 6 agreement, so it will be provided if permission is granted see me.
thank you very much, and the Council Merton Council future override that.
can they override it if it fits in within the section 1 0 6 agreement there would have to be an application to discharge or to vary the terms of that plan, and HMP Wandsworth would be consulted and would be able to to make a decision on what's being proposed at the time.
OK, so it's forever, after they had lived happily unless they mutually decided to separate.
Councillor Humphries, thank you Chair, just a quick question about the courts and the use of the courts, they were in the right place for that, in Mr Hayter's presentation on his slides, there was that there was a really helpful one, with coloured indications of tournaments and when the different courts are being used for different things.
and on one of those sorry for people in the public galleries who can't see this, then we can stick it back up on the screen, but on championship week to
we've got a largest grey area at the bottom, southern end of the site.
which is described here as tennis activation courts.
what does that mean, and does that mean they're being used for the tournament, does it mean they might not be used, does that mean, what does that mean you served on Aslef Councillor Humphreys?
that was meant to be a joke.
go?
sorry.
and so.
I think it could be used for a variety of of a variety of things, I think they haven't completely decided what what they would use, what they would use the courts, for it could be the wheelchair tennis tournament, it could be a junior junior tournaments or a junior junior type events and,
but they haven't clearly indicated what what the what the use of those courts would be.
OK, thank you and the quantum of courts. This is what I'm trying to get down to, is that the necessity for so many courts, because there are the courts again on the main site that aren't necessarily used all the way through the tournament, so it's the justification for that number of courts on the new space if everything else isn't being used to its maximum on the existing site as well
sorry, yeah, we agree officers agree that could I move us on to transport, perhaps if we've got anybody else, got any questions on buildings and stuff, sorry, what do Surrey Transport that was going yesterday.
sorry, I'm getting mixed up with sport, but transport yes go on, thank you, because again, this is a key thing that ward councillors and residents of raises being a big concern for people.
there are two parts to the transport side of things, on the construction phase and the vehicle movements and suchlike for that of the lorries and things like that, and then there's the phase once it's up and running and how that's going to impact on the immediate neighborhood and things like that so I want to start off with on the the construction phase as with a lot of other aspects of this application we've had all sorts of numbers being bandied around by the applicant in a report here in front of us and from things we've heard from residents about the number of movements and stuff and things like that.
we were looking at 600, I think 1 4, but if we got a definitive number of vehicle movements because obviously it's not going to be consistent throughout the construction phase, let's talk about that phase to start off with and then there's the de-silting of the lake and if we don't have a this stage a clear methodology for the de-silting of the lake, how can we in any way estimate how many vehicles that's going to be to remove the silt from the lake and when we're constructing?
the show the courts again, we were told at the site visit that the Africans trying their best to bring the rings for the courts in modular form, so it's not have to be mixed, concrete on-site and things like that, but it's still an awful lot of soil removal and things like that to get that kind of operation done so. Can we get an idea in any meaningful sense of what numbers of vehicles because, as Councillor Caddy was saying in her presentation earlier on today, the thing that concerns me with the vehicle movements, particularly is the fact that it looks like from the demonstrated roots of the vehicles that a majority of those vehicles were going past. Residential roads houses, schools were not going straight out onto a major road which may have impact not only on the amenity of residents, but their health and welfare as well
sorry to.
if the application were to be approved, we would condition of phase specific and construction logistics plan, where vehicle routes and things like that could be secured and.
assessed by officers.
it does answer your question.
just I I am trying to get some meaningful number of vehicle movements that we're going to get on the intensive phase, I think, because this is a development the screen would spread over multiple years and multiple things happening before you even get to the so-called being built and it's trying to get some idea of the impact on residents as Councillor Caddy said, a lot of the children will be growing up at a time that's anywhere near completion, it's an impact on them in the meantime, Mr Hinchley, can you help, sorry, can you introduce yourself as an
you carry a technical problem, maybe go.
yeah hello Councillors, David, particularly the Head of Transport Strategy, with the submission of the application, it was a draft, well, are quite a detailed proposed construction management plan, as best as it could be provided at the time of an application because until you have an application effectively approved one contract disappointed, you know you won't know the final details of such a plan, which he says Mr Hay to mentioned what why a plan would still need to be conditioned.
or part of an approval, but with the information that was provided, HTV, traffic peaked at about, I think, they peaked at 600 and 7,695 vehicles per month.
and but the Jen for food throughout the period of the entire construction you're looking at about 300 vehicles per month, but just to give some idea of, as well as the profiling of this, the the initial phases of development would include the de-silting and that is quite a high intensive.
construction period, so HGVs vehicles would be touching somewhere along the bank for hundred vehicles a month for a banked.
18 months, through the period of effectively working on on the lake and doing some of the initial ground works as well for 4, do you have a bit of developments, then it peaks, as some phases overlap, at that point, to push it push up to 6 700 vehicles then that becomes a bit of a low for.
probably about another 18 months, two years until the show courts and the works relating to the construction of a tunnel connecting the PUP's sides of the sites and the works to Church Road occur but, interestingly enough, the works of the show court and that period, which again is a probably two to three, two to three year period during that period, the HTV traffic is about half the peak, so usually do you expect the construction of the stadium to be quite significant, but in fact it's the the first phase of the development which is the works to the lake and the initial construction of the first buildings which actually cause the the highest amount of traffic flows. Now, just talking a little bits about the wider concerns that people have raised here and with the Councillor Humphreys has mentioned
as the plan points out.
there are several ways that you could potentially access or access the site.
there is a proposal to use roads such as Granville, Road Wimbledon Park Road and surface, and clearly we recognise as traffic planners and engineers and transport planners how tricky and difficult that could potentially be and how carefully that would need to be managed there is mentioned in the information that was provided that perhaps a one way working of system could be better so vehicles are entered by one route and left by another to avoid effectively a vehicle coming to and from the site for meeting head-on in the road, and that is something that is signified within within the report as something that could be could be considered.
in terms of schools, I think that again there's mentioned in the submissions that was provided that the route doesn't go past directly past the school, but I think that that doesn't really wash too much because Granville Road quite clearly has an awful lot of small children go into St Michael's there and when I committed the station I often see quite a lot of schoolchildren going in and out waving a variety of uniforms actually so clearly the working with the schools and trying to avoid the school peak periods would be quite quite important.
we would normally expect, and I'm sure Merton Council would as well, at any developers and contractors would be members of the appropriate standards, so that would be the freight operators, recognition scheme and the construction, logistics and community safety guidance which is called clocks.
so there would be ways at which we would try and mitigate and manage the traffic, and of course we do have experience from Battersea to Putney to once, with some considerable amounts of traffic and construction that we have successfully managed.
2 to 2 days and including the works previously at at the All England Club itself, but clearly not, or probably not at this scale, and then I suppose the only other thing I would just say what's those numbers of HGVs are high.
we would clearly like them to be lowered would clearly like to boot them in time, them appropriately.
if you just take the number of buses, for example the 37 and the 4 9 3 this, I think 10 or 12 10 of those going down Wimbledon Park Road every hour already, and that would multiply up to several thousand in a month, and then of course you've got Sainsbury's, you've got the articulated vehicles that serve Marks and Spencer's, so it's not unusual to see to see some heavy traffic there but,
I really do recognise the concerns of trying to make sure we successfully manage it if the application is approved at some stage.
thanks I think that's helpful, I think all the ward councillors understand that people think it's a leafy corner of the borough, but in fact there's a lot of heavy dense traffic issues with traffic management as it is at the moment coming off the A3 there so it's not like it's an empty playing field to start off with a good excuse the analogy I've got another question about some the parking, Mr Hayter again in his presentation referred to
car park, 10, which is the one that is currently sits on the the public park and in the again the indication is that the reduction is expected in the amount of vehicular traffic there by 2030 is is to be fair significantly reduced, but I'm just looking at how that's going to work in the management of things and at what stage of this proposal is it that part of the parcels not be used for public parking anymore because if we've got to wait until 2030 when it's finished,
it's quite a long wait, and when the inheriting of acquired such a significant area of land, given its rather of a kick in the teeth for residents that are still going to put public parking on the park for several years to come.
in the section 26 draft head of term 18 on page and in 24.
it sets out that.
the clatter of cop-out 10 would be carried out by a target date agreed by the parties to the sexual one Essex agreement, so the closure of that car park could be negotiated as part of the sexual one and six and there is, I think there is the potential for it to be brought forward before 2030, but it would depend on the outcome of those negotiations. Thanks Mr Hayter, with with the best will in the world, you can negotiate as much as you like, but if something sitting in one place and it can't be done until a certain time, it doesn't matter how hard you negotiated, there's nowhere physically, to put it other than where it is at the moment. I've got some other questions about after the construction phase of I'm A Councillor Welton and the transport implications of that. We've had a little bit about Church, Road closure and things like that, but I have some concerns as Councillor Felton was referring to earlier, with the capacity of the northern side we were hearing again at its peak. We're looking at a 24% increase in the footfall coming through the tennis, which is a significant number of people, 65% of which is predicted to come through the Northern Hub Norton northern entrance apologise and that's again expected largely to be dealt with by Southfield station, and it occurs to me that there's a contribution for extra staffing at the station if anybody has visited the tennis in the vicinity of the station when it's kicking off time or going home time, it's a capacity issue rather than a staffing issue. The platforms were only so vague, and I just wonder if there's any indication there that there's a contribution to improve that situation, to make it actually manageable at the quantum that we're expecting.
ultimately, as opposed to what we've got already, which is pretty crowded.
Minister Hector, so Tiësto, were consulted when we were discussing the draft terms of the Section 26, and they they said that they only wanted a contribution towards increased staffing.
the reasoning for not wanting a contribution towards improving infrastructure was due to the nature of the event only being 3 weeks a year, so that was all DFL asphalt basically.
I think some of us with respect.
it's quite correct that if you've got traffic going anywhere near to Wimbledon, it's going to be going through residential streets unless you're planning to build a motorway, and you're not suggesting that are you that is obviously the case and we just take into account, don't we on as a negative what we're not taking into account as a positive here, perhaps people might be sceptical about this is the substantial reduction in car traffic to Wimbledon that this presupposes everyone's very sceptical about that, but actually we have reduced the amount of car traffic in London, especially by people who live here enormously over the last 10 years, as you know, so parking through planning methodology so that's there as well, but we all know that,
if you really want to, I mean.
I could well agree with you and I know some of my colleagues do, because I've said it to me, they would have thought TfN would have negotiated more out of it. Well, maybe they should manipulation, we've got the application in front of us as we got it Councillor given and then cuts. Councillor Councillor Carter, sorry, two questions. There is in the there's a table showing in future there'll be a greater use of bicycles that, I think, grows about two and a half times the current cycle usage. I didn't see any
cycle parking facilities on that point, and I just wondered whether that's going to be increased, use of Lime bikes and such like, which would fill a lot of us with horror if it was so that's one question and the second one was that I looked through one of the several hundred but I think it's about 885 reports attached to this application and one of them is,
Buro Happold study on construction traffic, the I downloaded the 21 St of October document, which talks about the topsoil removal and the de-silting and then gives a figure which is slightly south of Mr Hatter's figure of 600.
it doesn't include delivery of materials construction materials, but the one thing that it does also the documents shows is how the traffic would be spread over the 8 year period and actually, for a large part of eight years, the traffic is north of 200 additional vehicles and it doesn't. That fact doesn't come through when we talk about eight on an average of 8 vehicles and 27 in the peak, and what it also does in countries for everywhere could coming in there's a return journey, so presumably we should double the terms in terms of the kind of amount of traffic on the roads. I thought was respect again, I thought Mr did lead covered this completely by saying Behr at this point 18 months it wouldn't be so high and then it'd be twice as high because as doing something else I thought was to tiddly outline, but very clearly, can you outline is any more missing totally
I don't know if I can, Councillor Coveney is absolutely right, the two way traffic effectively doubles the numbers of vehicles.
which is which is which is normal.
in terms of the again the monthly figures, I'm just looking monthly HTV figures.
for the period of development, it would be around 200 or higher from about half the development, and then it would be lower than that for the other half of the development period.
I can clearly show you the plans later.
Councillor, cosy and the drop materials delivery, I mean, I know you want to rush through this, but I just wanted I asked specifically about the delivery of materials as well as the demolition spoil you do indeed.
have you distinguished, between the different types of delivery and Mr. Sydney?
and do you want that, do you want the precise details of that repeated, are you OK with it, if, if you could Councillor very quickly?
the Hapoel Studies says in summary, the net reduction of 53 59,000 square metres of silt to be cubic metres of silt to be removed from the site offset by 26,000 cubic metres of net increase of material to be removed from the excavated material to be removed from the site and it comes up with the kind of net figure it just talks about two elements. It doesn't talk about in the overall construction study, the kind of stuff that has to come in bricks and steel and concrete, and all that, and that was my question, is that been missed out or is that in a separate study and if it isn't a separate study, do the figures in the papal Hobhole study change?
that that is included, that is included in the numbers I indicated that clearly the vehicles that are arriving into the site carry in things, in most case there's clearly empty vehicles, taking things taking silt and spoiling, but there's clearly large numbers of vehicles of arriving into the site to deliver the materials for the for the boardwalk and for the construction of the of the buildings.
Mr tiddly, if you're out on the 59,000.
it turns in 10 years' time by a hundred, I want to know the reason why Councillor Coakley, thank you Chair.
while I welcome the aim for the all-English tennis club to reduce the amount of parking from around 3,500 to 1,200, why I noticed is that a lot of the reduction seems to be on their existing site, and yet then they'll also go into plonker massive amounts of their parking on the what would be the public park and so I
has there been any discussions with them about what the rationale behind this was, because it seems a bit sort of Sydney Quarter to offset some of the parking on their existing site by pedant onto one of the few, we will have the benefits of the application.
much of that car parking is on the public park now, I don't know whether that's the confusion, but maybe I may be wrong with Mr Haydock and on the new park.
on the new parka than sorry good, could you repeat the question?
can you repeat it, you can answer yes?
there seemed to be a big on your on your diagram of the reduction in parking, there still seems to be a big sort of chunk that's around the around what would be the sort of the public, the new public park and,
do you want to get the dialogue maybe of the Balkans?
yes, that is correct that there would be a substantial parking area in the new permissive access public park yeah so yeah, my question, I was there, any discussion as to why it needs to be there or why they can just keep some of their existing parking and keep as much of the new permissive public park without any unnecessary additional parking.
as I understand it, the car parking would be used for.
and disabled attendees debenture holders of hospitality that kind of thing why would it be for, why would it be for disabled rooms and hospitality when it's really far away from the main courts?
perhaps that was to stay on, I guess, but definitely debenture holders and hospitality were being, who've been the areas for us to understand, yeah yeah, it still seems yeah.
on a Saturday when we already have existing parking to create new parking on what would be above the ground, so it seems we were.
I would just say yes, Councillor.
Mark Justin Councillor for Nine Elms.
we heard from the officers that, in the introduction about capability Brown to celebrated English country garden landscape, architect Launcelot Brown to give him his correct name was given that nickname capability duties, propensity to say to landowners that their estate had the capability of being transformed into a beautiful garden but only if he got the work it appears to me that this application,
has the capability of being approved, but not with an 8,000 seat stadium stuck on metropolitan land in the same way looking through these excellence, it notes that we've been provided with are unsure that the economic benefits have the capability to generate 54.3 8 million to the economy, but in reality, I can see most of that going into Wimbledon themselves with people spending their money in the improved facilities that they have provided over the years and it has been brought up that the two stations, South Fields and Wimbledon Park, I can't see that they have the capability to cope with the extra 24% footfall with just merely more staff. I mean, I'll leave it there just in case you start calling me capability Justin
thank you very much for your letter that I think we've given us a pretty good go, actually it we've gone round and round at any last pressing questions I would have thought most right in that case 0.
Councillor Coakley, sorry, go on, I also want to ask them to touch on a little bit about the effect on Roehampton.
to serve.
clarification because we've been talking about, or at least one of the benefits as the economic benefits, but I still find it concerning that we don't really know the economic effect that's going to be on Roehampton which is inside up and it could end up that that area loses out on a lot of that benefit to areas in in Merton by losing the qualifying courts and also as a second point,
the future of those tennis courts as well, that could have been another potential public benefit, the Roehampton ones could have been maybe.
turned over and used in Wandsworth and understand that there might be a separate application, but just also wondering whether there were discussions on that and just solved more consideration for that area and the effect this development will inevitably have a night. That's very interesting. Of course you could invert the lot gumshoe I mean, except if it's a disbenefit to have more traffic in Southfields, then there's a benefit, perhaps less in Roehampton, so it could be benefits as well, but in fact we've not covered that at all and it's not covered that because it's not part of the planning, application and
do you want to add any more to that, so it is not covered, sorry that?
what we do, I think it has been mentioned, I mean Bank of England, are out those courts, I think, for public use, so there'd be available for two or three weeks longer for public use benefit the sort we all know one one of our council of colleagues Donnelly who loves his tennis and probably he'll have to find it easier to Van der Court. I don't know, but we haven't looked at it frankly because it's not part of the application. That's not. When I said we haven't looked at it, frankly, that's not an admission of guilt. It's not part of the responsibility of this application
right now have I got now? The item on the table is to approve approve the officers' recommendation would no, I do beg your pardon, sorry, Councillor Feldman, I I to take you back to your synopsis, but I thought we were going to do summing up comments before.
I thought we have refrained from making comments, we've just been asking questions, so I'd like an opportunity to just say something a bit broader, go on and go on.
no, I mean it's not a joke, it's a serious point and I know I can do I had thought that people have made their points were pretty clear, though we might be wrong, I think most ground versus rain from making comments is asking actual questions for context thank you Chair,
to kick off before anybody else wants to have a go.
I my overriding feeling about this application is is is is, unfortunately, something of a disappointment, because it's a caddie. I think it said in her opening remarks that we've had a good working relationship with all England for years and it's something that we've we know they do, as you said yourself, customer, reducing to a very high standard. There are assets to the community we've all had. I think I don't think there's a single person, I've had comments from Bailey or or a communication with or listened to in public meetings that hasn't said, they're big fans of the tennis, they're all supportive of what they
when we want to make the best of what they can. It's just rather, unfortunately upon about it in these terms, whether it's from the the consultation which, although extensive, it seems to be, and it says in that page in the paper we were looking at earlier, that basically nothing has changed from the original application being put in to what's in front of us tonight, which makes consultation interesting but very ineffective. Likewise, so we've had very little movement from all England in response to the very valid questions that have been raised by a myriad of reasons I can't I can I'll tell you I can think of a single other application that I've judged in all my time on planning applications committee where one application seems to have upset so many different people for so many different reasons whether it's the ecology or its abilities or the loss of the open land.
it's a long litany of reasons why people are upset and, of course, any application. Any development is going to upset some people, but we normally get is a situation where the degree of compromise between the parties to get something which is acceptable for everybody. I think the compromise part is what's absolutely lacking in this application, which makes me disinclined to support it and agree with the officer's recommendation. I mean, the overriding principle of Metropolitan Open Land has been said so many times is if only they could have demonstrated some better justification for what they were doing. They might have had more success, but on all those levels I think it fails desperate and thanked the officers, so it's a massive amount of work for everybody involved from officers and everybody to try to get to a state of such a complex development, and there's a lot of positives in there. Of course everybody welcomes the sorting out of the lake. Of course it would. He welcomes the open access to land that the public haven't had access to generally before there's a lot a lot of positive things in this application that I really welcome, but unfortunately I don't think it passes that crucial test.
of very special circumstances, and if the details were better, this is the basis of something in there. Maybe capability could have done a better job on that. Perhaps it's disappointing, let's say, and I would have liked to hope that in the future all you can come back with something which is more moderate and acceptable to residents and still give them their ambitions that they seek forward the club of which we all share their ambitions for the club to be successful. So I'm afraid on this one. I'm going to have to support the officers' recommendation and vote against the application. Councillor Humphreys us exactly what I was just inviting you to
to do so, does anyone else want to make a statement, Councillor Coakley?
I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor Humphreys and the the officers.
to I'm not completely against the idea of ever developing on metropolitan, open land or the green belt, but it's got to be a real benefit. It's got to be potentially life-changing and while there are some very good points like the application isn't completely terrible in every way, there's biodiversity benefits, there's economic benefit, economic benefits as a lot of tree planting which I would normally jump at in an application, but when it's still weighed up against the damage is going to be doing to metropolitan open land, I still don't think it's enough, it's not life-changing and so I'm not inclined to support it either right. That's move a seconder. Councillor Kiev of India
I mean, I think one of the things that I've learned in my years in planning is that whatever the merits of an application might be, there is often a plan in in there somewhere, and I think this is another one of those applications where there is a plan in there somewhere. This is not it, and I think what is not it in these two things that come out for me, the most, which is the kind of the balance between the national and international reputation of the tennis centre versus the interests of the local community, and it does seem, the applicant has taken their eye off the ball as far as the local communities are concerned, who will have as they perceive it, disbenefits
from it and not enough of the benefits from it, and I think we must accept that Wimbledon has a reputation which it wants to maintain, and it's in our interest that it maintains it bar and of course it needs to expand to keep up with others, but I think it has to do it in a way that is complimentary to the landscape it as tennis in an English country garden is its kind of
sort of a winning formula, and this is going a little bit further away from tennis in an English garden and in the most, the most damaging aspect of this, and I said earlier is that 8,000 seats show court on MLS and it's just a question of how they need to read, reshape these things and reorientate some of the things and in doing so they need to be more open in their engagement with the local community.
not just the immediate local community but the wider local community about both what they want, what they need, why they need it and how everyone could be part of the story rather than be done onto so with a heavy heart. I had to say that much as I would like this investment in the area to happen, this is not the way to make it happen and the way in which they have gone about it perhaps could be improved, and maybe that's where they need to focus their minds. So I support the recommendations, but I think this is not going to go away very far, as I am sure we all suspect, and so the next time this finds its utterance in this in this Chamber I hope it will be a more supportive but it will have a more supportive neighborhood of behind it.
thank you personally, I think that lots of people arguing that of course, Wimbledon safe because it's the peak of the grass-court season.
Wimbledon is there because of the grass court season.
I think that's wrong, I think, grasses there because of Wimbledon, I think the ought to invert that it's only because of Wimbledon grass this grass, when I was a youngster, was what was played on an Australian, Open and in the US Open both of those went from grass because they found it.
in the words of one player grass was for cows and not for playing tennis, and now that may be going a bit far, but it is obviously difficult it's difficult to maintain it's costly, it doesn't last terribly long all sorts of reasons, so I don't think when woodlands in the structure strong position as people assume.
I think they're done to see if I'm right a little bit of good to actually kind of admit that to themselves which I doubt I'd spent a bit more effort and time growing here with Councillor Humphreys completely in justifying the very special circumstances and making sure that the public locally was on board and the consultation, so whatever clash of words I think we are largely in agreement on this, so unless anyone is going to say otherwise I am going to assume that the officer's recommendation is accepted and I'm being told I can't for some reason or our Chairman.
you're very entitled to to put the matter to the vote, it's just that I need to raise an issue about a member leaving the room during the debate seems awfully harsh that during a long debate, any absence would dispel that member from being able to vote on the application but,
there are provisions within the the Constitution, I think, relating principally to when we had a virtual meetings that if a connection was lost, then if a member wasn't into wasn't able to hear the entire debate on a matter they wouldn't be entitled to vote and the same thing should apply to physical meetings, so I'm afraid that the the Councillor that left the room albeit only for a few minutes I don't think she'd be entitled to to vote on the application.
now I've heard that said before and I'd like to challenge that I tell you why I'd like to challenge that no one I've ever heard of, has ever said that MPs have to be in their totality or debate before they are allowed to vote, I thought they're always in the bar and being good in while the division bells and goodness knows what, so I would like to challenge that for the good of this Council because I've heard it said before and I've been a councillor long enough as everyone here will know,
indeed, with Councillor Windy on one occasion to have been across the road at a nearby hostelry and come back for a vote, so we have done it in the past.
and the two of us together, so he can't deny it, he wants to deny it, so I would like that in writing actually backed up, but in fact I don't want to make a point of it now because I don't think it's going to make any difference to the vote right now so.
you obviously know who it was, I was just.
so so, with the exception of that person, sorry about that, can we take a vote on accepting the recommendation as it stands those in favour and Lucy?
this is a 7.
okay, those against none.
and I'm keeping my powder dry pretty obvious with my last statement what it was, though, isn't it?
thank you very much.
I joined the members of the public gallery are sitting very quietly for which thank you very much, but as far as you're concerned, I think the evening's over we've rejected the application, we always say it's going to go on to other places don't make assumptions and meanwhile I need a very short break so whilst the public Gallery goes and so on and so forth,
but item 2, and I am for those people kept waiting in the public gallery apologies, but I'm sure you'll understand the importance of the last application and might even have been interested.
item two sites, York Road and Winston on the Winstanley estate, Mr he said, are you going to say a word about it or just?
I mean, it's fairly straightforward, sorry have I landed you something you didn't expect that's still Councillor, I'll introduce was our first Stephen headset Principal Planner in the Strategic Development Team Edney case officer for the two sites that are the subject of agenda item 2 and item free as well they are interrelated as the report set out in detail, so the essence of these two applications relate around the redevelopment of the Winstanley estate as part of the estate regeneration and what the applications are seeking to do is to change the tenure of two shared equity units on the land or for Graham Road site in Mitchell House,
2 sorry to two social rent units in Mitchell House, to shared equity and then, conversely, change to shared equity units identified in block 5 on the mainland standing permission to social rent. So there would be no net change in the delivery of affordable housing across the whole estate regeneration area or the balance of social rent and shared equity units, and to facilitate that. There'll be a deed of variation to both permissions because they are two separate planning applications and then, as part of the deed of variation to the Winstanley permission, the applicant is also seeking to amend some triggers around the phasing of delivery, in particular the restriction on private residential units and the delivery of the leisure centre, and block 6, so they are seeking to allow the delivery of block 6 before the leisure centre, so it still remains a fundamental early delivery of the planning permission, which was an important consideration of the planning committee. When that permission was granted in 2021
and then also around other obligations in terms of timings of submissions of details.
thank you very much very clear, I think what some of us many years ago might have thought of as housing management being done through planning applications, but there we are, I bought people agreed with the recommendations Councillor give India, and I thank you for that explanation and suppose during the sense we should read the two and three items together and I guess I get the point about swapping tenure.
the question arising from that is in a in a sense, the rationale for that change is to facilitate the agreed re housing strategy as a part of the planning approvals, and all I am asking is, is the housing, will this fully satisfy that rehousing strategy or is there some way to go?
the second issue is about the leisure complex.
it means that nearly I understand all of that, but in a sense it's what does it do about the delivery of the leisure complex will it be just shallow core, will it be in course of fitting out, but it might run over it's that question in both cases,
on the first one, as I understand it, is just making it easier to fit in current leaseholders as opposed to tenants in the new blocks and what's available, and that's it is that right. That's essentially a yes to help the delivery of the decant strategy, that's been approved and ensure that existing leaseholders of are able to stay within the area. So maybe I'm not expressing myself better, is this the end of the rehousing strategy, or will there be, or is there scope for more, and though it will continue as as such, this may come back and forth. We're not expecting any further changes, but this is so the continuation. There'll be a continual process of the decant strategy but, as the other blocks come forward and decanted from them separately, we're not anticipating any other changes as a result of that, funnily enough. I'm still involved in the in the meeting being my old ward about
but what goes on there are happily keep you in touch with how much decanting is left in panettone as I go along.
in terms of the leisure centre, it will still be still forms part of the detailed planning consent, so it will still be delivered as a detail element, what they change in over 600 6 is just looking to do is to allow the delivery of block 6, which is a mixture of social rented and private housing before the practical completion of the leisure centre to to help to facilitate that day the decant and wider decamp to the estate Councillor work.
so there's 63 affordable homes are shared, sorry are social rent homes.
in block 6, yes.
OK.
application to agreed.
thank you applications three agreed right move on to.
application for 113 Tooting High Street. Mr Grange, I think it's going to say a couple of words, perhaps yet, Nigel Granger, I manage the stereo team. In essence, this application is for application A which is a deed of variation to an existing section 1 0 6 whilst also capturing amendments made in a non material amendment, while application B is a variation of condition or section 73 minor material amendment application to further amend drawing numbers contained within condition 2 to allow
an overall reduction in floorspace and some internal alterations, whilst also amending the the specific details captured in conditions 40 and 41 within the application A, you can see there's a table on page 1 6 4, which summarises the variations to the deed which,
involves a reduction in the overall number of nights' accommodation for St George's and a reduction in the local employment skills and arts and training contribution and the deletion of the arts and cultural, and this is all in basically in tandem with the reduction in floor area from the deletion of basement level for 3 and 2 1 is retained, so the knock-on impact of that as a square floor area is just adjusting this whole application.
and officers recommend it for approval.
and you come, my door is just agreed, Councillor Gruen, India grants a cow, go Clay and Councillor White.
I and Councillor Hunt friend's wife.
thank you, I mean that late in the day, I think I had a letter from the Tooting history Group.
making representations that there should be refused because of various historic importance of this building, but I just wanted a confirmation that the grant that we have the permissions previously granted has already sorted that element of it out and in a sense that's been lost and this cannot revive it, that's the question I agreed to ask and that's my question.
100% basically, Councillor, it's got a massive planning history, you can see within the within the the report, it's been to appeal and the Inspector then concluded that there is no historical merit, the building no longer exists and asked me to ask it to Councillor Golton.
I just wanted to ask this of other a question of process why this was determined to just be a minor amendment when it's remove in.
almost two fifths of the amount of existing rooms that earth seems like a pretty major amendments is run, and why is that sort of change that the plans are allowed to submit a whole plan itself just for clarification?
it's a fair question.
the the permission exists as a sort of hype as a concept that's obviously been studied to, and supported with a lot of technical information.
the, but it doesn't exist, so on paper they had permission and went through all the necessary steps to demonstrate that they could excavate to four levels and not impacts on Crossrail, 2 or or CFL infrastructure.
but the deletion of those units being subterranean and not existing, it just doesn't overall impact on the materiality of the proposal, so hence it could be dealt with as a non material amendment.
Councillor Watt,
here are just a comment after last month, which could see that basements are on retreat now, and it's not in a high flood risk area, but
per year, it is with regret that this is a historically very, very important site, but at least the impact now has been reduced slightly so.
I'm trying to think of something clever to say it's not about Councillor Whitham basements, but I'd get I've given up Councillor Humphreys go there.
my wife is more recovered noted, I understand why obviously there's, as with the greatest says there's a long history on this site for many, many years, but it's just disappointing seeing that the change where we're at now with the loss of those numbers it's worth saying that we lost 10 k from the employment skills training, we lost 20 k for the arts culture budget and we've only got 241 movements Councillor, I think you said from the St George's people rather than 500, so what we were promised a long time ago, unfortunately, doesn't, we know it doesn't always come to fruition, but there's something for us all to bear in mind for next time.
well, were those points noted and particularly the safety of the 18th century wall, is it nonetheless accepted right, thank you move on to.
it goes downward item 5 1 5 7 Forsbrook any comments there.
no introduction, Councillor S.
I'm not leaving now.
I wanted to ask about the the project on the roof which I was a bit taken aback, I s very to object on the
the the food, the two flues of forward meetings overhaul.
it's already a four storey building largely from the three-storey area.
if so, I'm a bit taken aback about that, how is that not a material consideration?
it is a material consideration because this is a Section 73 application, so this isn't non material, this is a minor material application where we have to apply policy of charity, sorry, Fine, your your, your might still on, but sounded funny jargon.
I couldn't hear Mr. Greg now, nor may you so drunk.
hello yeah, so this is a Section 73 application that is we recognise this as not being non material, this is minor material in nature and therefore is assessed against the policy objectives contained within the Local Plan, the London Plan and NP.
I want to come back on and you are happy with an extra 4 metres factor on the route.
we have assessed this and we've found the impacts of the lift over, rather than the two smoke vents, to be as they contained centrally within the lift core areas, they're not on the periphery of the building and therefore will be largely masked from view, but yes, we are satisfied their nests in terms of their necessity and what they do for the overall scheme and the impact that they have, we've found it to live within acceptable parameters.
so how far they sat back?
it's two or three metres, it depends which way you look, I think it says 3.6 to 6.6 metres an hour, while I regrow in that case I think Councillor Harris has accepted it on that basis, that's okay, given that is the OBR Councillor White,
can I ask that this?
this application has only got 20% affordable homes, I mean, what was there or a commuted sum, a large commuted sum for the original amounts make up for the fact it doesn't make a third, and so is not.
once we're full GLA, compliant and also the carbon offset as well, so as you'd always rather that the building was was really good, environmental, environmentally sound building, but how much carbon offset as well as in the original to do we know,
we do currently the latter pay a question, the carbon offset on page 200 at just above 4.4 is 39,837 for the whole thing or is that just for the new for the whole vision yeah this isn't an additional storey? These are just structures, just rectangular structures that are highly functional in nature and the essence of the community to them that solicited as well as about 27,000 pounds that is that correct.
Philip, affordable housing. While there were six affordable housing, there were 6 intermediate units, so that will went through viability testing out at the time, and he didn't go through the fast-track route which starts at 35%, to meet the the over as compensation for the London Plan strategic objective of 50%, but through viability testing. It was arrived out at 6.00. Intermediate units was the maximum reasonable amounts of affordable housing that can be captured for the for the proposal to the site. But 27,000 pounds is probably get your front door for for a new ha
affordable homes, so I mean that seems a very, very low sum for what we could avoid was fruitful, new, affordable homes,
correct, but that is on top of what the the sums that were went to capturing the sixth, this is very interesting historical analysis of an application that has not before as and when an argument was held whenever it was, and I personally don't have any particularly great memory of it, can you talk to Mr grandeur about it afterwards or something like OK, fine?
apart from that is that agreed
o Councillor Cooper.
well, I just wanted to pick up the point really that Councillor S was making and actually it's an area where most of the surrounding properties or either 2 or 3 storey, so they're quite a lot lower.
and looking at the top of page 192, they just seem to be, and at the bottom of page 191, there just seemed to be quite a lot of increase in height, and that was one of the things that did concern local people. Specifically, we were just having a long discussion, you were having a long discussion, which I wasn't participating in, about the need for consultation and but certainly the some of the neighbour objections that have come in this time around as well do relate to it being overly dominant and it does seem
Strange that we've now got all these extra things that or an extra 3.1 metres 3.7 5 metres for point 5 metres further in height, given that a lot of people already felt that it was an overdevelopment and is out of keeping for the local area so.
I tend to support the view that Councillor Eris was
suggesting at the outset.
can we have a book voucher, yes, sorry, I'm the that mumbling about him that I was just slightly surprised, because I am slightly surprised s, so no one else got anything to say so the vote, those in favour of supporting the officer's recommendation.
which I think is one two, three, four, five, six, seven, those opposed three.
okay, the recommendation is approved.
item 6.
Manchuria Road again, Mr Granger.
so I'm unsure Road 98. This is a householder extension for an extant single-storey replacement single storey, rear extension with an extension over the existing. I'm sorry, I'm still having trouble hearing you, Mr grandeur, and Mike Zealand still on now. I've just put into our psyche that I was just wondering maybe whether you speak more closely to the microphone Yankee yeah, so it's got a roof terrace and extension over the rear addition and a single storey. Rear extension which officers have found to lie within acceptable premises parameters and recommend planning permission
right Councillor Owens,
thank you, Councillor Belsen, this is actually in my ward and, as you probably know quite well yourself, I just had a question about the impact of of this on Rose's housing on Roseneath Road because of course backs onto Roseneath Road and as I understand my talking to colleagues as well, I think what is at 1.00 Roseneath Road is perhaps single storey, it's obviously the height with additional roof terrace, I know we've had roof terraces backwards and forwards a few times in this committee but given the extension on the rear of the property and the impact on Roseneath, I'd be curious to hear
the views on that. Thank you,
the there is a single storey property with, obviously you would expect on the back of the the application site, so it's got no no windows and roof detail this proposal, there is an existing
extension over the rear addition that would be enlarged and extended to the full depth of the rear addition, however, the overall scale of that and the re configuration of the existing roof dormer over the main roof.
they are. They don't go any any closer than the closest part of the development it just actually increases slightly in height, so within that context,
we have looked at that in terms of its its potential oppressive nature and its impact on daylight and sunlight, and we found it to have an impact that would lie within acceptable premises, so any impact was sorry that would lie within acceptable parameters, Councillor Humphreys thanks just to pick up on the same same point actually as Councillor Owens.
it did concern me, was this is in 1.1 5, it's just didn't quite understand, so it is the proposed terrace would extend above the ridge of the main property, and it says in the next line that that's OK because it won't be visible from any road.
but it will be visible from as Councillor Ryan says from Roseneath Road, so it's not going to look a bit odd if it's sticking out above the roofline as opposed to what is next on it, especially being only obviously on the end of terraces more dominant than it would be otherwise
I I understand where you are coming from, but whether the siting of the terrace is at the where the rear addition meets the the main rear part of the roof, so it's contained not at the end it's contained very much within that sort of like that area that allows the that diminishes the angles of looking from the street and above you know with an obstacle in front of you that single storey and going up so we're confident that that it wouldn't be appear as a very dominant feature that can be visually read from all over those viewing angles.
sorry Chair just for clarification, so so what's higher than the ridge height is that the dormer for the door to get out onto the terrace, what's what's hard and the construction methodology, it's the the actual screening to the terrace itself would be higher than the ridge, so the trunk, the visibility screening has a small upstand that allows access through a set of internal doors or stairs and then it accesses the
the terrace area, which sits at at ground at internal ground floor level. It sits below the actual total ridge height, but then, because it needs to be 1.7 there is a small excess there's an excess of of of screening above the ridge height at the rear, it is a translucent, glazed screening, it's not solid construction and did you said it was a standard 1.7
yes, they have to be all 1.7.
not standard, it sticks up about the heart of the yes, I totally take your point,
oddity, but acceptable, perhaps is that agreed? Councillor Boswell, yes, I just wanted to add to the comments of the other Councillors. I actually was in that area this morning, so I pop round one and had a look at 98 9 carer and I it's particularly exposed as a property, because not only is, as is it some end of terrace but also the end of terrace backs on to a long garden from Roseneath Road, so I haven't looked at this in detail and I just looked at this property quickly this morning, but I was uncomfortable about that. I thought that would be a real eyesore
you're uncomfortable about it doesn't mean to say you want us to vote it down or just uncomfortable about it, Councillor Owens eager to push the point or you accept the
the explanation.
OK.
I'm assuming that this agreed, is it agreed, agreed, OK, thank you.
right move on to paper 23 4 0 3,
which is the delegated applications. Is that noted, questions are allowed, of course, but yeah is noted and then 23 4 0 4, which is investigation, for which one year on
or a 4 year councillor aged 2 to 6 item 23 grandsons dot business centre, I think this is an application we'd seen before or the issue we'd seen before, it's about the kind of poisoning of the trees and it was seen to be a kind of a deliberate and almost semi-criminal OK, I just want to know what makes it not expedient.
my ward, I was cold, and that's a big, amazing one of her big issue locally, a lot of fuss about it at the time, thanks for bringing it up, I have been told, but I've forgotten what the exact answer was.
some Councillor Bolton yeah, OK, Mr rebels, not with us tonight, what happens is we got a father as a prosecution, we needed witness statements which were part of the initial enforcement and we've had photographs, and we'd have images and and written statements from local residents to say what had happened and we had that as as evidence.
unfortunately we couldn't use that in court, Mr Moss might be able to give more information, but those people didn't want to go forward and appear as witnesses, and therefore we can proceed with a prosecution. It wasn't for lack of trying, it was for lack of witnesses. I think that Mr. Moore's got anything to add to that yeah just to say that there is a lack of evidence that that caused or the council not to take the prosecution forward, unfortunately, obviously in the public interest was that that test was met in doing so, but yeah, we did look at it very carefully with the enforcement officers and unfortunately in this instance we weren't until we weren't able to take it further.
as a as a ward councillor and as a retired J P.
there was so much complaint from local people about the Council not doing anything.
but I thought we were going to capture these people according to one of the officers, the amount of some poison that everyone can say, but I can't say you know which one it is, there's enough to kill a war would not a tree.
and they were really pleased to possibly caught some.
unsavoury characters and people wouldn't give evidence which is really sad, but there it is, but thanks for raising it.
other than that is the item noted.
and 23 4 0 5 appeals closed, noted noted, and that's it, I think thank you very much.
- Applications Front-Sheet, opens in new tab
- 1 - Report, opens in new tab
- 2A and 2B - Reports, opens in new tab
- 3 - Report, opens in new tab
- 4A and 4B - Reports, opens in new tab
- 5 - Report, opens in new tab
- 6 - Report, opens in new tab
- Background Papers, opens in new tab
- Late Items of Correspondance, opens in new tab
- Decisions - Report, opens in new tab
- Closure of Investigation Files - Report, opens in new tab
- Appeal Stats - Report, opens in new tab