Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 28 November 2023, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 28th November 2023 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

okay, right, good, good evening, everyone.
to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee, my name's Michael Jobs and I'm Chair of the of the committee members, I am going to call your names out.
please put your bike phone on and confirm your attendance once you've done so, please remember to switch off your microphone so that we don't get feedback problems so.
Councillor Felton, I do not see.
Councillor Owens, I do see,
Councillor Owen's Northcote ward present.
Councillor Paul, I don't see Mark Dodson.
I don't see.
Roger Armstrong, I do yes, I confirm that I am here on behalf of that society.
Frances Radcliffe,
friends of Battersea Park.
thank you.
Adam Catto, better from the Putney Society, is standing in for Laura.
crisp
Chris Price river Thames society, I don't see.
it would Potter from near I be a.
note here Libby Lawson,
Good evening, LIBID Austin from teasing history.
Dr Farry ones with society good evening.
thank you, are there any formal apologies we've received?
OK.
we've also got the following officers, present Lauren Way.
Good evening, Chair and way principle, conservation nerve and design officer.
Ingrid Tortuga agreed that as a conservation officer, thank you and David on.
year David Andrews Conservation Area Design Officer
we have the Democratic Services Officer, Ruth Wright.
thank you.
can I just remind you two things again, just remind you to turn your microphones off when you are not speaking.
and can I remind everyone not to embarrass themselves by turning their phones off?
if they haven't already done so.
right are there any declarations of interest?
please declare it now.
quoting the item and the paper number to which your interest ref relates.
and describing the nature of your interests and whether or not you'll be taking part in the discussion.
any I take that as a nil response.

2 Minutes - 13th September 2023

you will have seen the minutes of the the meeting on 13 September, first of all, can I sign them as a correct record?
yes, thank you.
then?
are there any matters arising I'll go through?
page by page,
pay to one.
Page 2
Page.
3

3 Applications (Paper No. 23-418)

I note this will come up later in its in a later paper, but application 2 7 0 5 Broadwater Primary School has been approved.
application 2 8 4 1 6 Belleville Road has been refused, but has gone to appeal.
page 4
can you come one of the officers give give us a report on the latest state of play on first down Lodge?
that Ms Way, thank you.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 23-419)

thank you, Chair sorry, I had an update from the property manager within the council this afternoon, these there's an indicative timescales for for the Lodge in terms of the the lease, so they have secure are looking to secure a new tenant, I think I mentioned this in the last.
committee.
they're looking to hopefully complete an agreement of lease with that tenant by early January 2024 and then within five working days of the tenants grant well, actually forgive me, I'm going I'm reading this off of the e-mail so 16 weeks, from completion of the lease, they need to submit a pre application to the Council to discuss conversion works and repair works to the building and then following that, an application for permission, planning, permission and listed building consent. And if there's external works to the building, so it is hopeful that we should have all the works completed by the end of 2024, but obviously these indicative timescales are subject to the actual legal agreement taking place at a certain time, so there may be at any point between now and the legal agreement being signed that that tenant could walk away, but it's looking pretty hopeful at this stage and obviously, as part of the engagement process, the properties team are also checking the property on a regular basis to make sure that it's secure, if, at any point, any committee members do notice that there isn't secure, please do let one of the team know so that we can have report it to the properties team, because obviously it needs to
be maintained to a point to make sure that the tenant is not has a greater onus on the tenant to do more works, so it's all looking quite hopeful at the moment, but obviously at the next Committee I should have quite a firm indication of timescales in terms of when that engagement with planning will take place because that that lease should hopefully have been signed by them.
so we can expect on a planning application at some point in in the future that's correct, hopefully kind of early to spring next year, hopefully.
any any questions on on that.
no.
the the final item or under previous matters arising was the plans for
a new exercise on local listing.
can you give us an update on that? Please certainly so if we progress quite quite a lot on this, so we should be hopefully going out to public consultation before Christmas, and this will be a public consultation to ask members of the public and society members to provide information on the existing locally listed buildings. So we were hoping to enhance the list in terms of detailed descriptions. Think we did this before in 2018. We're hoping to enhance it further and also to recommend new buildings for local listing, since this is supporting the London Borough of culture bid for Wandsworth as well.
looking to enhance the local list and understand from members of the public, what's special about the borough in terms of heritage and culture, but this is hopefully going out to public consultation before Christmas, but it will be running for at least six months, we're hoping for it to be running for pheromones time to give people with lots of time to to add.
their information and recommend buildings that they wish to add to the list, thank you.
thank you.
can I trust?
welcome, firstly, are Councillor Cooper.
to to to the meeting and and secondly, Mr. Potter from the R, I P A.
I've just for the for clarity, I have actually replaced Councillor Paul, I came onto the Committee at the October Full Council meeting, the Councillor Paul will no longer be attended, and the other thing just to say is that Councillor Belton, who I was in contact with earlier on this evening, has had to send his apologies because he's got a clashing meeting so unfortunately he can't be here this evening.
thank you, so I think that takes us on to Item Item 3 on the agenda, which is the four series of applications.

3 Applications (Paper No. 23-418)

and the first of these is
2 7 5 9 application 2 7 5 9, which is Dial, House.
on the corner of Baston Road and Upper Richmond Road, who's going to lead on on this right to her, Ms Way, please, and you've all received, and I hope had a chance, at least a glance through the slides which,
Ms Waze is now going to to show us.
thank you Chair, so yes, there was a request in the previous committee to provide the slice in advance, I appreciate it was sent today, there is a reason behind that in one of the applications which we explained later on.
so we would try to get this out earlier to walk to two committee members in a bid to help but the committee to run smoothly, so the first application is Dahlhaus on Baston Road in Putney, you see the building here, so it's a modern building on the corner of Burton Road and Upper Richmond Road so this is is a modern building 19 70s four storeys as you can see red-brick of its time it's situated within.
West Putney conservation area within what was classed as a character area F which is Putney Town, the building is situated within a fairly changeable immediate environment. It has been identified within the conservation area appraisal from 2009 as a negative building within the conservation area. Which officers agree with? What's interesting about this building is see here. It actually doesn't follow the building line along Upper Richard Road, Richmond Road, so it set back at a slight angle and you have the street trees that run along roughly in the location of what the historic building line is. There's a reason behind this is because it was set back from the street on the basis of some road widening works that were proposed
in the in the 80s which never actually came into fruition, luckily which would have required quite a few now locally listed buildings to have been demolished, including the fox and hands on the corner, but obviously a very standard design of building this is looking at the rear elevation from Western Road just to see it's it's rather lacklustre in terms of its architectural treatment.
and just to give you some context in terms of the wider environment, so if I show, hopefully you can see my cursor on screen to the building here, you've got a locally listed building.
in this location here, which is the fox and hounds, and the conservation area reps round at this point quite a lot more changeable and then this part of the Upper Richmond Road and then I think there was a discussion about potentially having Putney High Street as a conservation area which hasn't come forward at this stage which was hoping to can wrap around this part of the site, but this is where you can really see that that position in the streetscene and how it can have sits at an a really awkward angle.
and helpfully, there's some distant idea of the heritage designation around the sites you can see where it sits situated within the conservation area and all these buildings at this junction point to all locally listed.
so the proposals for the building is not to knock it down, but actually re-clad the building.
so you'll see here that it's not increasing in height, apart from one point, which is this point here, where they're adding on the front quite a large stair and lift core, and that will break the roof line at this point and come up to the same height as the Les as the steak or along the back now that stair core is visible when you look towards Fox and Hounsdown from this road towards site so there is a potential visual impact at this point.
I raised this because this is the main concern that's been raised by officers within the conservation team and we have requested that visualizations are provided to show what that visual impact is so amazing it with with the Committee but we don't haven't had that information provided to us but it has been requested the basis that's the main change apart from obviously re-cladding this looks at the back of this is the original step this is all as existing in terms of massing and height.
so there is no height increase at this point, it's purely re-cladding.
the cladding is going to be a mix of stone and quite a lot of cocoa, so this is going to be stone.
and then a lot of this, a lot of this features, it's like a grid pattern, some sort of taking off, so you'll have the core of the building retained and they're taking off the facades effectively and putting and recladding a new facade on the front.
another view just from that back. So this is from Burton Road, looking back towards the site and then again this is quite a good image just to show this this name change. So this is the existing stair core just towards the back which you can see picking up and then you've got this match largest decor right next to the entrance on Upper Richmond Road which is proposed to break that refine at the moment. It's just six. This sits at this point, so it's the the only element that is rising up higher than the existing building. So it just shows you quickly the site plan and you can see that core there. That's the new addition to the building
this is what we can see in terms of street scene elevation, so they are a little bits can hopefully you can see this, it's it's a bit difficult to see because the actual imagery in the in the design and access statement is a bit grainy her apologies for that you'll see from Baston Road here, so this is the the building at this point.
and this, more importantly, is, is existing and then proposed with that Stokoe and added in air at the same point, the stakeholder.
and just finally, this is just to giving you an indication of those materials that they're proposing as part of the recladding so at the bottom here this is a slight that I just popped in, so it will be in the original slides just just to give you a good illustration of some of the some of the materials and design that we will feature on the building say these these because will be the stone like a white stone here and then you've got these features would be the copper cladding
you got copper louvers and you've got some cladding along at these points with the windows so.
the actual buildings not changing in terms of height other than listicle, so it's just to get an idea from the Committee and I appreciate that without those visualizations in terms of visual impact of some of that stock or the front be good to get an idea from the committee members of what your views are of of these proposals, one last thing to add, as we did have pre-application engagement on the voting but it was looking at.
not just recladding but adding height which officers did raise concern over, so this is looking at a compromise which improves the appearance of the building increased circulation but retains the core of the building, so you don't have the embodied carbon low impact of demolishing the whole building which they have considered as part of the kind of options exercise for the for the site so it's
it'd be good to get committee's views on it.
although any questions, first of all.
that?
members want clarification on.
Mr. Armstrong.
I just wondered whether the warm red brick that the building.
is built in was originally chosen to fit in with the Fox and Holmes and other local red-brick buildings, no, the Fox and houses in J is in a pale gold brick, they like it or not, it's all the neighbours are in the, there is nothing that read anywhere near it.
okay, okay, any other questions before I asked for comments.
Mr. Farr.
do the proposals involve a change of use
no, just the recladding of the building and then you stop and lift core.
okay, comments.
Mr Catto, I think to start with, I thank you, they've put the Putney Society obviously have looked at this one when it came out we've sent a letter of comment, a formal letter of comment which hopefully is on the Council's website back in October, basically, the immediate surroundings to this building are so varied that it really doesn't matter what colour it is.
and I think we have no particular concern with changing one particular idiom for another one that will be equally out of place, but then so is every other building round it there is, there is no coherence in this corner, so we're not actually worried about the building itself nor the starter, but we are very concerned that,
the trees you who saw in the the view from the street, the photo from the street don't seem to appear on any of the drawings which is a bit of a more than a bit of a worry, these six trees now 40 years old.
all in magnificent condition are the saving grace of that corner of Putney, and it is really important that they be kept, and we also commented that the landscaping proposals don't seem to take up the opportunity.
to sort out what is at the moment, a dull windswept and often dirty front paved plaza and put in some proper planting and generally green the place up that way because, by the way, changing the cladding is not good for the environment, it's gonna have more glazing and need more cooling.
thank you.
okay, any other comments from from members on on this.
Mr Potter.
OK.
e any other
so I, Mr Mr Catto, has has suggested that the
the Bill, with the changes to the building itself, are unobjectionable.
but that there are clearly issues about the the existing trees and about possibilities for include a for improving the landscaping, particularly at the front, but the rear is also pretty dreadful, isn't it?
there is pretty dreadful, but I think they're ownership runs out within about five feet of the building, so you can't blame them for that.
do I take it that lack of comment means that of where we don't find this proposal objectionable?
there is perhaps a question that needs raising, and no doubt can be raised by by the officers on the use of copper cladding, I'm I'm not sure.
how how quite how important that is, but it could be raised clearly, but with the caveats, particularly about the trees and improvements to landscaping are, we are we saying that we are content with this application?
yes, but may I suggest that?
that we, the the our comments, should be that we are neutral about the appearance of the building and but, as you say, are very concerned and has been said by the Putney Society very, very concerned about the lack of any evidence that the trees are to be retained.
I would I would say, yes, I think the the townscape, because if you if you walk along there, as I do every day going home, it's the trees, you see you, the building, the building you barely notice.
but you wouldn't, even if it was beautiful.
the
yeah, I mean, I said Just I'm presumably they're trying to modernise the appearance of the building, but I don't see anything wrong with it as it is, it's quite a pleasant brick.
good quality materials, so I now wonder why they're doing what they're doing, apart from just trying to make it look more up-to-date OK I don't think I'd what I'm hearing is no one is enthusiastic about this, but I'm not I'm not hearing any profound objections to it.
so we are, as, as Mr Farrow has suggested, but we were not objecting to it, we're not enthusiastic, we're neutral with the the major caveat about the trees and landscaping.
that is not what we're saying.
of good, let us move on to.
4, to for house application 3 2 6 1.
just really quickly on the previous item, just to give some comfort to committee members that, as the trees are situated within the conservation area, they need to apply to the trees team for works to those building to those trees therein and, as far as I know that no application has been submitted to to make changes or to take down those trees, so I think that they're not included in the drawings as sort of a worst-case in our effect to give the full visual impact of this cutting but I can get 100% clarity on that to give an update.
thank you.
trying to get people to replant what it is they supposedly were keeping, and we want to make sure that the messages loud and clear instead of just by default please.
OK, let's move on to waterfall house.
so my colleague is gonna, introduce this, but I just wanted to give you a quick update on this particular application, so obviously it's included within the agenda, but in the last few days there's been a turn of events which which my colleague income will go through it, but at this stage we were gonna introduce the item and give an update on on the situation with this building but it may not be pertinent for the Committee to comment on the application given the circumstances of this case which in goodwill,
set out of it further, thank you.
hello, sir Waterfall House, is a listed building Grade II, it's from the early 19th century and I went to the site busy last Friday, and all the wards have been already done without planning permission for that's. Why is not included on this meeting as this is now an enforcement case?
this is a front elevation nowadays, as I took a few photos of my site visit and as you can see, the Albert Tasmania has been removed.
yesterday and yeah, it's been all remove.
as you can see, yeah, that's the I just got these photos today because I asked them on my site visit how it looks like before.
that's the only photos I could get from now they told me they were gonna, send me a video ban from now we can see that a fear of things being demolish, I don't know, you can see it from fibre in the Violette wall says, go, they demolish that wall, they need to prove that the wall was an original because they can provide any kind of information and all the ceilings. Now they're being covered by a plastic we are sailing there, I'm gonna show you show you later on and we are afraid, and maybe the blasters sailing Ahmadis are being removed, but we need further information, I asked the planning officer and the enforced mental goal there and tried to get smart.
I say again because they need to remove of two things, because they are begun was unaware they need a planning permission yeah, Mr building consent.
this is the existing and proposed front elevations.
they remain exactly the same.
this is where you can see, the blue line is where it is now the existing clothing suspended ceiling on the blue areas I'm gonna show you later in the photos that I take and they also I don't know you can see it from far but they demolish one wall on that corner of the plan yeah over here they demolish these wall.
an
they change all the floors.
and they add the use of the pain, all the walls, but I am afraid of maybe here in the timber planet annually, it's gonna be some damage on it because it's just a plastic alcoholic pain on it.
as this is a section drawing showing the toilets, there was nothing original from there, because this is an extension of the listed building.
and this is the photos that I take the other day, it's already working as a nursery, there's a really open, as you can see, the new ceiling, it's covering half of the windows, as I thought that 4 dollars or so that's not appropriate for a listed building and you can see the new carpet they just fix our safety gate I saw in the other photos that they half light.
removal one, and this one is fixed to the wall.
as you can see here, the panelling on the walls and how the ceiling is covering also the fine light of the main door and the only thing they kept as it was is the cupboard on the ground floor.
there is also any issue on the parapet and the investigating diapers, as the building has few owners, then they are now trying to get that issue to another one, because no one wants to pay for that repair, so we are trying to fix that as soon as possible because there is risk of falling to the floor yeah.
so, just in terms of next steps, firstly, the works in the application are not in accordance with what's actually been built out, regardless of the enforcement issue.
the understanding is they are seeking to change, listed building consent to cover the works of ordinary taking place, as Ingrid has already stated that we need to ascertain some of those removal of walls to be what impact they have, but obviously it is quite clear the impact in terms of the ceiling insertions.
but enforcement have been and are starting to be involved and, if necessary, if the works are considered to be inappropriate, then we will take necessary enforcement action, so this is more of an update as to inform committee to let them know, as it was on as an agenda item and we weren't aware that they have actually started works until quite late after the agenda was was published so we've included an just for a conifer.
information update.
OK, it's FA, thank you before we proceed any further, I think we should thank.
Libby Lawson, for for raising concerns about this building, which has led to a visit which Ms toward Tozer has has just reported on, or it does seem to me, it's a particularly egregious example of unauthorised works.
I have unauthorised and significant works on on a listed building.
so I'm glad that enforcement is now.
it is now an onto the case, as it were.
can I ask for clarification on whether it is at all?
what's the word appropriate for us to comment further on the on the actual application, given the the circumstances which were now all aware of.
the application still live so that people can still provide comments, so there's no reason for some of the works that are gonna still be part of the application, for example, the ceiling works. They've obviously done the works and will keep them in as part of the application so they works, it would be. The Committee obviously can provide a comment on, because that's gonna not be removed from any application, they're going to try to pursue the unauthorised works as part of a listed building consent application regardless
and if we refuse it, then we take the enforcement action to rectify the works.
OK, I'm J, going first of all to take Councillor Cooper and then Libby Lawson.
thank you. I was going to suggest that we strongly support the enforcement action being taken because, obviously, as Councillor Bilton Owens and I know we do get a regular paper on enforcement action, but sometimes they are listed as not expedient to pursue and I think it would be a real shame not to pursue this, I mean it looks absolutely disgraceful from the outside. I know I knew the last building very well, but I know this building very well to, and I just think it looks absolutely horrible on the outside, and the pictures on the inside are really you know, it's just outrageous that they've done this, so I think we should strongly support the enforcement action being taken and that the elements
of change that they have been asking for listed building consent, that they should only be granted anything that is completely respectful of the existing building, which at the moment I'm not seeing much evidence that they are able to to do the hats, but I think that anything that beyond the enforcement action we should insist that they're respectful towards this building, thank you Chair, thank you are Libby Lawson.
thank you. Well, we don't know that this has ended re sealing has done any damage. I visited that site to and from the expires it's you can see the cornicing and one and we don't know what damage was done before or what state it was in, and I know that's the difficult bit, but obviously this building has been a concern for Tooting history Group for a long time, not necessarily these tenants that are the well, although they perhaps it's an unlawful repairs and and change a viable purpose of that building would be good to for that building to be well maintained and in particular, but my concern is is. This is great that this is being pursued, but also a lot of work has taken place outside the building, and I have had some correspondence to suggest that the cracks and the lack of repair at the front is actually a historic thing and that is you know, so there's there's there's some confusion as to who is responsible for that building, but whoever it is, there have been works carried out to the outside, including the removal of a turning circle and in the just the planning application. They talk about the heritage bit about enhancing the outside as a way of adverse sort of
to enhance the outside that they might be permitted to whether it works inside someone that they've actually scalped that place, they've dogged in in.
advertising panels that you've now taken down, but in fact historically there were a number of panels on that. That is a dental practice too, and there are three or four warnings on there that haven't got permission, they've never been pursued and it's a fantastic building and it may look in poor condition at the moment. There's no reason why it shouldn't be in good repair and it's a gateway building to wonder if it's the first buildings you come in over the bridge from Colliers Wood, and it's it's been very much the pieces of its land over time, but it's actually needs some encouragement and actually that what's really obvious is that this had to have the the tenants have no idea of what to do
we did speak to them, we did alert once with two, and it's good that it's happening now, but the re the return of the turning circle, but I've had a correspondence to say that they'll put in some plastic plastic turf and reduce sets and make the parking.
well, you know, it's this, you've got quite a lot of work to do there and I appreciate your work to come on this because it's a great building and it's the deserves to be better Cheeseman.
before we move on, could I ask for clarification is is this building on the Buildings at Risk Register?
would I get consent from the committee to urge that someone should be in touch with historic England to make sure that he is put on the outbreaks register?
okay, Conwy Conwy asked for action on on that particular point.
so I think I'm sure that we all agree in strongly supporting, as Mr Catto said, the the enforcement or action, and I had each shouldn't be sorry, sorry, it was Councillor Cooper, sorry, sorry, sorry,
I so I'm sure we owe all support that, is there any further any comment on the on the application as it stands at the moment?
although it does seem to me that, until we have a full report on the state of the current building, it is very difficult just to to make any useful comment on on the planning application, that's as it for the other people may take a different view.
so is there any comment on on that yeah, I'm unconcerned.
there may be a loss or may have been a loss of historic joinery, I mean no to the doors that they put on, there are completely inappropriate and that what happened to the original joinery has it been stored in the basement or where, wherever somewhere on site could it be reinstated?
yeah. That's the problem we're here, and there's a very fine fireplace with carry out it's in the in the entrance hall, hopefully that's still there yeah, Mr Katter, just a brief one, I've seeing the master of the building as it is at the moment. I did a reverse Google time search, which I always found quite useful. Those posters, those banners have been hanging around in some form or another for 10 years, so I have a terrible feeling that if that's the degree of care on the outside for the last decade, there's quite a lot going missing inside to, and so it's a good thing in a sense that this
application has got
got the Council alerted, thank you.
OK thank Mr Potter.
but we must keep an eye on this building, and I I just say it's beyond the planning application, but there ought to be some body that keeps an eye on this.
what?
a tidying up exercise.
OK, I don't so, I think what we're doing is to say that we strongly support the the enforcement action that we await a, we will wait to make comment on a planning application once we have a a detailed report on the state of the current building instead is that unreasonable?
thank you, in which case let us move on to application 3 double 9 1, the bungalow in Ralf Road.
thank you Chair, so the next item is the bungalow that's not long come in for.
for planning applications so.
this site is, as you can see, here, single storey bungalow on one side of Bath Road, it's situated within Wandsworth Common conservation area, the building itself, as obviously I am.
modern building, but it's more than one bungalow along this part of the streets has generally the garages are bungalows on this side of the street, here you can see the conservation area boundary and the arrow is just pointing to the site so originally the site where the bungalow situated is was stoically in the garden of 41 to 43 life Lyford Road along,
along here and then, you've got some late Victor Victorian terrace buildings along the south side of Wrath Road which give the impression of being Kenneth a semi, detached pairs, but they have just got very well set back
recessed elements.
so this is showing you, the existing elevations you see here, you've got a further bungalow on the side of albeit it's got an attic storey within it, but very low rise.
and then you've got garages on the other side of the site.
and effectively they're seeking to demolish the bungalow and are proposing to a pair of semi detached houses.
as you see, the elevational treatment seeks to try to replicate some of the detailing on the opposite on the south side of Bath Road apologies should have put a Street View, elevation of the south side of of Ralf Road to give illustration, but is picking up on some of the queues of the
those Victorian buildings, but obviously situated within a site which is quite tight, so here you show here this is the street elevation with the trees in existence, to show it in relation to the existing situation with the with the bungalow on one side and the garages,
this gives you the site layout, so you can see how it's situated within the plot.
to note that it's quite an awkward shape of the plot and the buildings are obviously taking up most of those plots with very little garden space within the plot.
and this is an illustration to show you how it relates to the streets, so this as this is the Victorian terrace along this side, and this is effectively giving you the idea of how the proportions of the the house on this side and the setback and they've sought to try to introduce some form of setback here, obviously because of the way in which the site is not very deep and the amount of development that is seeking to propose on to the site with two houses it does make for very less of a setback compared to the buildings on the other side.
and this is just some illustrations, obviously they're not full, render illustrations to give you an idea of some of the
materiality of the building, but it sought to introduce a similar materiality to the other side of the street, with with brick and stone dressings.
in other words, so you've got you've got parking on this site, so the actual garden spaces is quite tight round side because you have to have introduced the parking on one side, and that's all as it is, there is some of some of the limitations in terms of the 3D renders but just if I take you back to this just to give you an idea, so there's parking on this side just at this point so this has got.
a slightly larger par garden, and this has got quite small one, but.
it's it's had pre-application engagement with officers.
it has moved forward from pre-application engagement.
it was a lot bigger, there's always been concerned about actually having two buildings on the site.
we've tried to get to a point where it is.
better form of design.
for two buildings, but obviously that still has has impacts in terms of how much development is trying to be.
added into a relatively small plot, so it'd be really interesting to hear the Committee's views on this one, it is a traditional design that they've sought, they did look at different options, but they have pursued a more traditional design that seeks to replicate some of the Victorian and Georgian features of this part of the conservation area so,
it will be interesting to see what the committee's views are of this, I will finish on this point, because sort of gives you the best idea of what that architecture of the building would be, thank you for loans.
thank you.
just a couple of things.
saying that the erection of a two times, two storey semi detached, I mean it looks as if it's got more than you know, it's got the third storey as well. Yeah, sorry, I'm just looking at that on the printed on page 8 yeah, so it's two storeys with what we would class as an attic OK, you're calling aesthetic, OK, I mean, I haven't you know this little stretch very well because I happen to live right beside it and strange, I mean, it's it's quite
yeah yeah is quite a small plot to have two houses on that, in fact, my actual house was on that map.
and I, I don't I I don't quite understand why, when you've got, I mean it's effectively it's in the garden of a Life Head Road house, it's not you know as well as you cross Trinity Road Ralf Road the houses are in the within the taste recur, obviously either side, but it's very much the gardens of life within the gardens of Trinity and normally in those situations you would have a a house that would be built, that would be sort of obviously a sort of more of a kind of him sort of smaller development and I just think that it seems very strange to me at such a lovely stretch of road, but thank you
our points of clarification about the application that anyone wants to raise at this point.
if not, I'll go to Mr Farrow.
thank you, I understand that it's only a recent application which is comforting because I regret we haven't been aware of it up until now, and that is the ones with society, I've only had a chance to have a brief look at it, I very much hope I can persuade colleagues of the Society to submit an objection to the current proposals I think the site is overdeveloped.
both in height and its footprint and those will be the principle.
grounds, I think on which we would object to it.
but secondly, and I think.
my personal view, and again I hope, I'll be able to said colleagues, are very much disappointed.
the applicant has sought to produce a capacity should replica of what is there,
I always think it's a shame where and developments like this do not try and produce a building.
that looks like it has been submitted in the current year, rather than looks like it is being built about 100 years ago,
I don't think at the moment we have any other comments on that, but as I say.
we will object.
Mr. Armstrong.
yeah, I know this site very well because I I bought in the 19 70s number 22 Routh Road, which I think this was probably part of the garden originally and the garages were.
and I, quite like the open aspect of this part of the conservation area you know this is going to set up massively in Close you get a sense of enclosure down that road.
not just the height of the building, but bringing the building line forward, I think bungalows are a bit of an endangered species, but I I rather like the settled bungalow, it's a shame that we're going to lose it.
I can quite see why they are hoping to reproduce something that's opposite, you know the sort of Victorian reproduction aspect because that way they maximise the accommodation on the site by mirroring a sort of two storey with attic a house design, but I I think probably it's much too much accommodation on this site because it's
as you can see from the the site plan, it's it's very shallow site.
and it really ought to be.
as it is at present, one house
so.
I I don't like what's the proposals suggest that they're going to build on some other comments.
Mr Potter.
I agree with Ms
okay, unless anyone else has any any further comments, I think the consensus is that this current proposal represents overdevelopment of a small former garden site, the footprint is too large and the height is too large.
and the God and the garden for the two houses proposed is exiguous, I think, would pay a polite way of putting it.
OK.
is that agreeable, yes?
in that case, let us move on a bit west to application 3 5 double 4 on Prince's Way.
OK, this is me this is one of the
original 19 30s houses on Prince's Way.
this is quite different in terms of the conservation area says Victoria Drive conservation area, this is quite an interesting little collection of houses because it it is a collection of different 1930 styles, there is not too much cohesion about the styles of the houses in this part of Prince's Way, but they are a collection of 19 30s houses and they they demonstrate a lot of the preoccupation brutal patients in
housing design of the time and we've got a modernist, more modernist one, we've got some more Elizabeth and half timbered.
examples and then we've got some sort of loose Georgian.
types of houses as well, this one hasn't been very well served by previous owners, you can see that there is a very poor extension there that has continued the front façade.
it has had some nice plastic windows put on it.
and that that front portico as well is is a later Rachel addition, but it's you know, it's it's, it's all still there needs a bit of needs, a bit of love, I understand it hasn't been habitable or habitat for quite a while and there have been a number of pre apps on this a previous application on this which proposed to render the building with an external,
insulating render.
which we refused.
now, although it, it has seen some fairly poor alterations as the brickwork is original, and you know that that's that's clear to see what we're now proposing as part of this application is to, instead of a render which we really didn't like, they want to.
clad, the brick parts of the building in brick slips which would also cover and insulating, render and demolish the existing extensions and rebuild in a well, I think they're going for a slightly more sympathetic way rebuild.
extensions to the side and then render, though so it would be a mixture of brick slips to the original building and render there are also proposing to replace the existing windows with these rather sort of 19 30s modern type metal windows and front door.
and on the rear elevation they're proposing to entirely render it, and also to change the fenestration on the back to very sort of 19 30s or into a Crittall type aluminium windows.
so this is, this is gonna be something that we see a lot more of in the future, with people wanting to externally render their houses and in conservation areas obviously we've got a lot more ammo to consider these the argument that they put forward last time.
was that?
there are no consistent housing types in this street, so altering this one would not have a deleterious effect on the group.
now I'll leave you to make up your own minds about that, given what I said about this being a collection of styles from the 19 30s, rather than the identical buildings.
but yeah, I mean that that's really the the proposal, they're trying to be more sensitive to the building in terms of removing and rebuilding some previous editions, but they're also wanting some adaptations for the building in the future for
insulating the better insulating the building was clearly this is a traditional building, it's gonna, have solid walls and they want to they want to.
insulate it for the future, so I will leave you to to comment, be interesting to hear what you think OK, any questions to Mr Andrews start with.
Mr. Armstrong, yeah.
adding the external, render bought of insulation and brick slips is going to bring the facade forward, isn't it,
so we'll that that's gonna affect the gutters, the overhang of the roof, which is one of the features of that building, isn't it, they're not going to alter the Park the eaves,
presumably to they're not gonna bring those forward, although no I mean, obviously it will have an effect on things like window reveals the eaves details and you know you've been a you're basically covering up the entire original elevation of the house, so I mean these are a thing if it got to this stage these are things that we could ask them to revise.
should we be going down that route of well, OK, let's look at this, but yes, I mean, generally speaking, when you're when you're cladding a building in render your even if you pull the windows forward in the reveals you're losing all those revealed details and you're making something,
you're trying to copy details, but you're doing it in a in a very modern way, even if you're using brick, it's still going to look new and you've got to do it very, very well to make it look convincing, essentially you're just rapping and hiding a complete building.
okay, comments 0.
I think I think it's Mr Kato's territory, well, only just yes, it's it's almost in Wimbledon and and an area where planning attention has been rather busy on the Wimbledon 0 A LTCs activities, but nonetheless,
I am more at my territory because there's David Andrews is aware, I have.
wearing my hat as an architect, I'm trying to promote an green register member, I'm trying to promote.
lots of x lots of insulation, and that is going to mean, and this panel needs to face up to it's going to mean a lot of more applications to put stuff on the outside of buildings.
because it is a sensible place to insulate, and I would comment that I am not averse to the the brick slips if it's done properly, I would point.
the Panel to firstly, one that.
I think, came through this, this committee on Charlwood Road, where
Work is now in hand on the back and side of a house where the Van has turned down, adding insulation on the front as well, on the grounds that it would bring the building forward by 9 inches, but that was an attached house at the end of a terrace.
I would also point out those who know Putney High Street may know the former NatWest Bank now it too on the corner of Disraeli Road and in fact there's that's got a rear extension which is all brick slips and I you would only know that because I've just told you it can be done well that's said in this particular house I worry that the use of fashionable
Black.
aluminium Crittall style windows is at odds with the the rest of the style of the house.
and by the way, on the side and were they're taking off the roof of the garage, they're not actually rebuilding that bit, they're just cladding the side in a different colour, so they're gonna render it and leave it white, which is one way of sort of hiding it, but I'll leave the fact leave you to make your own opinions on that one.
other comments.
Mr Parr.
yeah to ask for a sample to be made up, showing the the use of these, the insulation, the bricks, the window openings and as entrancing Armstrong comments on on the relationship of the the roof overhang.
however, if a mock-up could be.
made by the the builders or the people doing the work might I presume.
I looked around and.
professional colleagues here and for that could be conditioned.
it could be a semi we'd ask for sections of the building showing window, reveals eaves, details, all of that sort of thing should we be going down, that, should we be be mindful to approve it, we would ask for those as conditions and also details of the brick slips the thickness of those how they're actually fixed to the buildings that they don't fall off.
and how they interact with what's underneath them?
because there are brick slips and brick slips and yeah yeah, so we would we we would ask for detailed sections of building.
can you turn your microphone off, Mr Potter?
o
any other comments, Mr Farrow.
slightly incidental comment, they're very strategies you can adopt to increase the insulation of a building.
it seems a substantial building and I imagine the rooms are reasonably large and curious to know why the applicant hasn't considered between the insulation on the inside of the walls and to save himself the trouble of recladding it, I mean, there are advantages in putting are huge advantages of gaining access for tenants.
but nonetheless, as I say, not really any important business.
Mr. Armstrong, can I say that a long time ago they would have used mathematical timing.
so.
Ms Lawson, I'm completely sympathetic with the idea of the argument that each of us has as an individual and there's quite a lot in the building that isn't originals that the portico at the fund just you know so it's a change as historically there has been changed in that building and if you're gonna do something like this, then do it on a detached house, obviously so it meets the requirements of the look and the feeling that the brief works and everything but this is a really good opportunity to do that and do it well.
without affecting anybody's terrace or anything, so in in this.
and it isn't, I don't think it makes any difference to the conservation area, I think it's so it's a one-off thing, it's worth doing and I'd be really relaxed about that as long as it were done well.
Councillor Round yeah, I just concur with that as well. I I agree, I mean it, it does improve the building substantially, and I agree about the comments someone that they made about the Crittall, but it's difficult, isn't it because you know so you know the the, it's an improvement on what it is, but as you rightly say, of course coital is highly fashionable at the moment and that will change yeah, I don't know that the quit I mean it is very much has changed, but there's been changed historically there and it's no great significant milestone in that building in isolation. So why not let it be of its time now in that conservation area
Councillor Cooper, and then I'm going to try and wrap up yeah, I think.
for I mean, I don't mind the changes actually, I have to say I, because the the way that the building is at the moment has a number of problems and issues.
but when you look at it from the context of the conservation area, does it preserve or enhance the conservation area in the in the sense that the changes actually improve the building and I think it it does preserve the conservation area. It doesn't detract remit, and in and in many senses you could argue that it enhances it as well, so I am actually not against this. I think, on balance, I think you know what they're proposing to do here and bearing in mind all the issues admin, having worked in that particular area of the whole thing about making buildings more sustainable, it is gonna be tremendously difficult for many buildings and I think they've it's not a bad approach for a building in a conservation area too, to have gone down this road
OK, so I'm I'm getting, I think, a consensus that we are sympathetic to the level of approving of the concept.
of adding insulation to the exterior of of this building so long as it is done well and therefore a a condition should be.
added to any approval are that, though we need that there should be much more detail on how the how the render and the slips are to work or the effect on window reveals and and so on.
Mr Catto raised a caveat about the the new Crittall black Crittall style windows, but is anyone else concerned about that?
it just seems a strange thing to increase the size of all the windows bay rear elevation and then insulate they have suffered as the building to change back the trying to make it a insulation.
improved again, you know, it's just a really window, should be small, remain small or you know, don't do it at all.
my concern about the the critical was just whether they were the style of those doesn't quite tally with the style to propose the rest of the proposal, and I think that's enough, we're talking about it's OK, it's good to do it if they do it well and this that was the bit that I felt was.
could do better.
OK, so I perhaps wear a position where we say there might be some further discussion about the about the
the fenestration how it works,
satisfy that is fine.
I think that takes us on to application 3 8 3, the the flour kiosk at Clapham, or just outside the main entrance to covenant.
me yeah.
the Igloo flower case is located with a Clapham Junction conservation area, but there is not any listed building around them and there is an enforcement case going on as the permission was granted for only five years in 2017, but it was abroad for one year or more, that's why we have now this application going on.
and, as you can see, the conservation area and the Blue Arrow is where it is located in front of the shopping centre, they can go through the main station and, as you can see, the size that's the proposed size of their new building, they are proposing the Nikkei kiosk bag freestanding got dark green colour, this is the existing one.
most of the people who've been there, we are aware of this building that is just in front of everything when you pass through and is quite crowded and is in a Beach Boyne of the station.
and it is the roof on the existing existing Roof Plan, and it is a proposal or plan they are trying to get like a smaller kiosk in a trapezoid shaped kiosk, and it's gonna be for Denis clear millimetres, the existing one is 22 and there is going to have a fixed glass panel to the rear to let people see through from the other side of the street.
you can see a better here, they're trying to get a more like a Victorian features to they're saying there's Victorian features, but to the near building on.
greens is quite similar to the existing one and is a smaller and in a different shape, that's the main do friends.
this is the sections of the proposed one, and the main issues that do not have planning permission to be there is not about the building is, if it should be.
on where it is located in the front of a shopping centre or should be remove it.
thank thank you any any questions, just a quick one, just to say that they're seeking for this to be a permanent feature as opposed to the previous one, but as a temporary feature for five years.
OK, any questions about this for clarification or
before I move on to seeking comments, Mr Armstrong yeah, what is their interest in the land, so do they lease the land from Wandsworth?
that's part of the public realm.
yeah, OK and what is Wandsworth spew of that and what it once was happy for them to to.
at least the you know and and what would be the term of the lease, be if this were approved.
we don't have all that information, unfortunately we can find that out, but we don't have it to hand.
OK, if no one else wants to pitch in and they say you're sorry, Councillor Owens, are you?
now just I was just thinking I mean, obviously I know the area is very close to to my ward is not actually on the Northcote ward, but we have a similar or almost now permanent structure with the Breadstone on Northcote Walk on Northcote Road, it's not technically in the conservation area because its corner was sort of Mallinson Road, but obviously there's a bit of a precedent I suppose for it to be permanent I mean it, it does strike me, I mean it is right outside the entrance to Clapham Junction station,
which is I I mean, I know I went through it yesterday minutes, it's I mean, it's a great flower stall as well, but at the same time it's sort of you know, it's in it's in quite a busy spot you know what the taxis and buses and all the rest anyway, that's just my commitment right I'm going to allow myself some time from the Battersea Society to make some comments about this.
I know it has a complicated history, there has been a stool of some kind there for many years, even before 2020 17 of when the the current.
approval was was given current current only in the sense that it ran out last year.
the actually the the application was recommended for refusal by officers.
and are Councillors.
on the planning applications committee, overruled the the officers and and allowed were approved, the a pre application.
so there's slightly complex, complex history that
I know that there are a number of local businesses who find the the thousand stores location a real problem.
and also the Breadstone, if I'm, if I am, I might add.
we, we will we, the Battersea Society, will object to this application on three grounds, firstly, that the
Even even with the reduction, small reduction in size of the
due to the store as compared with what it is now.
it's it's a completely inappropriate addition to the conservation area, it's completely out of it, we're not talking about something akin to.
to Dial House where everything is very different.
or in Clapham Junction is basically a late Victorian shopping centre and and and remains like that except for our.
debate outside clapping at the main entrance to Clapham Junction station itself.
so we think it's it's inappropriate in in design and harms the conservation area.
the second reason, though, is its location.
right outside the main entrance to the station.
which has to, in our view, a very damaging consequences, firstly, it limits access and pedestrian traffic along along the pavement and it restricts in a in a damaging way.
visual access to to the buildings on the other side of off of St St John's Hill, you can't see them as EWHC as you can come out of the station.
and thirdly, it restricts access to the station to the main entrance to the station itself because of the of the very.
great restriction in the in the width of of the footpath along side.
a a signalled pedestrian crossing.
so it's it's completely inappropriate and damaging in terms of its its location.
both in terms of through traffic through pedestrian traffic along the
the pavement outside the station and in restricting access to the the main entrance to the to the station itself, so on all those grounds we will be objecting quite strongly to to this application.
of course, what what happens to the I mean there is a benefit in having a flower stalls flower stalls.
are a feature of London street life, there are, and there are flower stalls on Northcote Road, there are flower stalls in other parts of of one's work, so were not again flower stalls but where again the scale, the nature and the the design, the nature of the design,
and the location of of this particular one, there are actually parts of the of St John's Hill, where the pavement is wider and aren't outside the main entrance to the station, so I think it's perfectly possible for it to be relocated, but it would have to be a different design and very close attention would need to be.
paid to the the issues of
restrictions on the the W, the width of the pavement or and and so on.
so I mean, I'm I'm giving a a really upfront view from the Battersea Society which probably goes a bit beyond my my role as Chair.
and at a stretch it could be considered within the once for society area, and I hope we might submitted a comment on this, and if we do, I think it will be.
very much in agreement with what has just been saved from the Battersea Society.
as I said, it is complicated history before the absolutely awful.
container was given approval in 2017, I think there was a flower stall where a flower stall, as you might understand, a flower stall to be, it was a stall that sold flowers.
what we have at present and what is proposed are sheds that sell flowers, and I think, as has been said, it's too big, it dominate the entrance to the station and it's wrong, and I think permission should be refused.
either way, sorry, I think it's beyond cheeky to ask for a full permission rather than a temporary one in this instance.
it was, it was full permission that they asked for in 2017 and a compromise as between Councillor advocates and officers buzzes informally temporary as as I I have gone back to the to the reports on I, and indeed the minutes of the
the 2017 PAC meeting.
whether the the members around the table could recollect, but there used to be a fire stalled there quite.
very simple arrangement, there was an elderly lady who used to sit there with rosy cheeks, with a series of baskets, yeah, attended by her son, and that was too far.
I mean, I can add to the history that the the original location of the flower store before the current building that
provides the main entrance to the to the station was built in the 80 s, there was a large alibi that went up to where the ticket barriers are now, and that was where the original store was, it was when the at the building was was completed.
when the shop stock shopping centre that the store moved onto the pavement outside.
do I do I get a PR consent for our strong objection to this application?
thank you, but then I think, moves us on to.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 23-419)

paper 23 4 1 9 brief sheet, which records
decisions on
on applications that have been through this committee already.
despite you want to give us an update on that.
St Mark's School.
yes, certainly so this came to committee a little while ago and got permission for listed building consent and planning permission for its conversion to officers for architectural firm.
they have now commence works on site to accord with that permission, we've agreed some samples, so things are moving positively in that direction. This is one of the buildings that was on the outrage threat register from its inception. I believe Councillor Belton was one of the main indicators of introducing it, so there is hope now that once the works have been completed, we will be in a position to remove that from the at risk register. There's still some outstanding
discharge of conditions that need to be addressed, but another positive.
an outcome.
as I believe for there have been some recent applications also about landscape, some are on detail, of landscaping, and so on.
I put my the former Battersea Polytechnic on Battersea Park Road, but there was an application refused in 2022, and a new application has has come in. Could you just give us an update on that
yeah, so we didn't include this as part of the agenda item for the very reason that SO 1 0 8 Battersea Park Road, it's currently in for per mission for change of use from a photographic studio.
an office to a residential dwelling, and that includes the lie, the former library parked space, so the previous application that was refused in 2022 did not include the library, it's now including that library as part of the residential use.
but the only reason why we haven't included it as an agenda item is obviously because it's been previously refused unless there's some significant changes as part of the application that.
address the issues with residential conversion, then it will remain the concern of officers that it will be refused is stayed open at the moment, because there is a dispute about the use of the library at the moment in terms of a public or community use which the Council are maintaining as the ECHR currently a community use.
but it's just to give the committee an update on that, because obviously it's quite an important part of that building, it's the only part of that site that's remaining in in technically public uses is the library, and it's one of the most significant parts of the site.
so we've included it as a hobby, as opposed to an actual agenda item I can give updates or committee at next committee in 2024, because there might be we might be at a position where we make a decision on that application.
so so discussions are still continuing on on that effectively officers, I will maintain the previous decision on that or on the previous application, this causes greater degree of harm because you're now including that area or its current public use unless considerable evidence is provided.
otherwise, to show that the use is the optimum, viable use for the listed building and does not result in loss of community use of the photographic studio.
thank you are Ms Radcliffe Chairman, I I'm not sure whether it's sort of appropriate to raise this or not, but just to make the point that there's a ongoing consultation on the one Battersea Bridge Road Glass Mill building with a sort of fairly astounding to me at any rate proposal to have a 35 storey tower, apparently the site is so significant that it requires a significantly high building or that's what it was said was said at the webinar, but I wonder whether people might just be alerted to that because the
consultation survey is open until the 6th of December and it might be worth people, logging, logging, their views, I mean, they do say that they are in touch with Wandsworth council's planning section, to presumably your your you're aware of this, but you can imagine that some of us are uncomfortable about.
such a building in such a site, and if I can jus, I mean, it's obviously in Battersea society's patch, as it were, and we are very much aware of it and we've had some discussions with the with the developers and and the architects Zachary for a 38 storey tower on a site which is identified in the Local Plan as suitable for.
I think it's four to six storeys, which is specifically identify that.
5 4 to 5 storeys.
so.
and the architects are off, it's Terry Farrell.
who is
not unused to building high
if I can, if I can put it that fact way.
I mean, obviously there has been no application yet, and so on it, it's outside the purview of this committee at the moment.
but yes, I would, I would support the the suggestion that Members should take take a look at.
the the proposals which are on
someone's website.
yes, I think I think that's right, I would add that the consultation questionnaire.
is
what was one of my colleagues said, it takes the biscuit, it doesn't even mention that it's a 38 storey tower.
it passes belief as an attempt at real Con consultation, it's the only thing that you can do is ignore it, I'm put in.
whatever feelings.
or objections you might have.
to the proposal as it stands at the moment.
Chair, just briefly for clarification is the Glass Mill site in a conservation area.
I know it's next to the River Thames, which is bad enough.
it's not within a conservation area, it's within the setting of the listed bridge, and there's a number of conservation areas in close proximity, including those outside of our borough, on the north side of the town.
and I am I'm reliably informed that the Chelsea Society will be objecting and.
sorry, yes, Ms Mr Farrow.
yeah
I was rather apprehensive when you said that.
because an application is not being made, it cannot be considered by this Committee, I'm not entirely sure.
I am afraid what the exact brief we have on on on on that, because what I wanted to do was to ask that we put the consultation, which is presently ongoing for possible development at the Fitzroy estate, on Trinity Road, on our agenda.
members may know that.
the
Estate has been largely unaltered since its construction in the early fifties there are proposals under the council's housing scheme to put an additional building on the site our society has objected most strongly to the proposal and I think that it would not be inappropriate for our Committee to consider.
what has been done either now or at our next meeting, there's a possibility that the second stage of the consultation may have advanced to the stage where we have further proposals, but I would I would not like us to have to consider an application on this site when I hope the committee would strongly support the principle that there should be no development on the site and that if we were able to act as a consultee on the consultation,
it would be more effective and commenting on what may be an application in due course, so, as I say, I will suggest that we put it on the agenda for the next committee, unless there are reasons why we cannot consider it, and I very much hope there are no such objections thank you.
there is, of course, a significant difference between that proposal and the Douglass Mill one in that.
in the fit, in the case of the fits you estate, the proposal is coming forward from the Council itself.
from its housed housing department, and I think that does make make it significantly different from the case where there is a private developer, who is consulting on an application on a proposal which may or may not result in in an application for for planning, permission and submitted to the to the council.
sorry, I know I'm not aware of this one, but I I I realise I've received the Fitzgeorge status between McGlynn, Road and route is that where it is on on truancy rates.
or Windmill Road and Trinity Road, yes, yeah, OK.
yeah yeah.
it's around the raw patriotic sorry that side of the road OK thanks.
think when we note your your your comments, Mr Farrow and we.
we urge that proposals from the housing department should should come to this committee in.
at our next meeting, which will be at the end of January.
okay, are there any any other items of?
off of business, if not.

5 Future Meeting Dates

can I close the meeting just with note that at the next meeting will be on the 30th of January and we have subsequent meetings on the 27th of March and the 7th of May next year, and may I wish you or I were not even in December yet but we nearly are so can I take the opportunity to wish all of you happy Christmas and prosperous new year before we meet again in January.
thank you.