Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 12 December 2023, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 12th December 2023 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the December meeting of the Planning applications Committee. My name is Charlie Belsen, I'm a Labour councillor for Battersea Park ward, funnily enough in Battersea, I am going to ask people here on the top table to introduce themselves and speakers when they get to speak, so I'll let me start with
Good evening, my name's Nick Calderon, the Head of Development Management, at once with, and getting my name sunken moss on the external legal advisor and, as I boringly always say, must cut trips off the tongue, the most important person Pixie notes that everything that we do good evening everybody my name's Collymore in him Democratic Services Officer,
OK
I've seen the minutes I take it Yves Hudson Councillor Humphreys, is it OK if I sign them as a correct record?
right we have a fairly brief agenda, I think we'd all accept this evening, I wonder whether anyone has any interests that bar them from taking part in any of the items, any personal interests, Councillor Cooper, thank you very much Chair.
my name is councillor Leonie Cooper and I represent the first-hand ward which is Tooting, I am also the London assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth and just in case any issues come up in any of the applications relating to the Greater London Authority services I would like it declared for transparency but I don't believe there's any pecuniary interest in any of these items thank you Chair, thank you all the members are here, sorry, will you coming in?
interest, yes, Councillor White, yes.
that I'm a member of community renewable energy Wandsworth, I don't think it has any impact budgets or state that just in case okay, we're all here except Councillor.
Justin
we've heard nothing from Councillor Justin on either side, well, let's be nice to him, amalgam his apologies.
perhaps we give him a note or something tomorrow morning, disease, OK or someday, ignore it, okay, now this is a pretty short agenda, we may just conceivably agree one or two things on the nod doesn't mean to say we haven't taken them seriously, members will have all read their papers,
Northern brazier seriously, it merely means no one's disagree with the council officers' recommendations, so I ask, having said that, I'll move on to the first application, which is for 5 Beechcroft, Road and disabling, because all the items are so simple. I'm not actually asking for a formal introduction on these items, just in case there's any late comments or anything that might be mentioned, sir, Mr grandeur, anything at all that might be mentioned. Thank you Chair our nodule Grange, when I manage the East Area Team
yes, just to bring to the committees.
noticed that we have a late item for this. It relates to a condition relating to trees. The actual date of the Arboricultural Survey transpires that it was a lot longer than we thought it was 2017, and we only recently that supported a different application that was approved and we've only managed to ascertain that the date of this of this particular survey. So we've him proposed to amend the condition to require a up-to-date arboricultural survey, excluding development to take place in order to secure that documents and be able to to assess its context and hopefully approve it if this is approved tonight, thank you. So, with that small condition change about trees, any members got any comments about this particular Beechcroft Road application, Councillor White Council of India,
I actually spoke against the this.
a last plan into 2017 and
it was very disappointing to see the one of our Asian community groups, as she leaves the area because of the change that was agreed that night and.
it hasn't come to fruition, so we are now.
asked to allow this one, we've we've a loss of community floorspace, we should think is very, very regrettable.
and also
no affordable homes at all, so there is not much for the community really in this. I don't think
and
yeah, I mean, is that is the is there any way that we, we could actually make sure that we continue with the at least the the same amount of community floorspace, the reduction and community floorspaces I recall really it is about 20% just under 20%, I think.
Mr. Grandeur, any comment about the observations, thank you Chair, firstly on on affordable homes, we haven't this application doesn't breach the threshold or 10 of, or more new homes in order to to require affordable housing, so that's something that we couldn't have negotiated into the scheme.
as regards the the reduction in the in the floor area, so as proposed it's 195 square metres and approximately we have 237 square metres on site, the the existing buildings on site are quite there were obviously very very old and they are modern in terms of their layout or the the amenities that they provide for the end users within so this proposal does rationalise the floorspace, admittedly, there is a reduction but it's a far more rationalised floorspace with modern standards and overall,
we've looked at this reduction in the context of what actually would go back in terms of that improved facility and think that the the loss of 18% isn't significant enough to to demonstrate failure against that policy objective.
j any comments, Councillor Wright, by the way, did I'm sorry, I can forget these things, did you introduce yourself?
I didn't I'm a man in this situation at the moment, so I I'm Councillor Paul White, I'm a a Councillor for the ward where this yeah planning permission is and yeah thanks.
Councillor Boswell, I think Councillor Gavin 0 sorry, I beg your pardon, you are quite right, Councillor India. Thank you, Councillor, given the a Conservative councillor for East Putney ward, one kind of comment and one question. There is a comment in the paper about this being a parking, a car, free development, and yet there are, of course, seven units at a fairly close to very tight junction, where parking is probably not that easy and the road is got significant parking pressure. So I was just wondering how we are going to, in a sense, deliver a car-free development without any conditions, about parking 10 and going to the point about community space. Councillor White raised
in essence, the reduction is probably.
in what the old space was less usable and and the new space makes it more usable, and so a reduction might be more bearable, but how we need thoughts as to who might occupy this space has any indication been given as to what group or what type of community usage there may be.
Mr Chidley parking, I understand that the church next door has quite a few large, quite a few Hirst's posits frankly, and that is also a problem, so perhaps you can tell us about the traffic.
thank you Chair David Titley, the transport strategy ahead of transport strategy, just to clarify, because I think the paper could probably be a bit clearer on this and will make sure that others are as well, where we say car-free in this context, it simply means site car parking free not that people can then people can still move into the site and have a car and apply for a permit provided that the numbers of
the numbers of the numbers of units is less than 10, which is the threshold at which we've sort of assessed as being the level at which we would then need to do. A review of wider parking policy that numbers being recently quite tested through the local plan process about whether or not should it be higher should it be lower. So we're relatively confident at that level. Doesn't result in significant increases in traffic looking at public transport capacity, car ownership levels, the numbers of parking permits that have been issued over the years and so were generally, except. We generally are confident that, where numbers are less than 10 that can be accommodated within the highway system, that doesn't mean that nothing that we'd also don't look to see whether there is any particular individual safety issue with every single application, so it might be occasionally a very rare occurrence where we propose a car permit free solution, even though the numbers might be less than 10, but in this case that hasn't been something that we've recommended or considered necessary.
so I think we certainly makes a fair point, because this is not the only paper where the reference to the development being car-free and being under 10 gives an impression to the reader that there'd be no parking pressure, and yet there is no leverage that this Council has to deliver a car free development that the paper gives the impression of.
while it can't deliver occupants who don't have a car?
but again deliver it can insist on development, doesn't have car parking space as slight difference, but or untaken access to parking permits, which is the kind of clear web doing you might another commenter, Mr grandeur, certainly are on the community space.
the the end teaser is not known, which is the reason that the
obviously working through the paper, the discussion around the BREEAM score identified the fact that the end user isn't known, that's why there they are providing this a shell only, so unfortunately we we don't know the end user and the building gives gives a degree of scope for anybody who occupies it to fit it out to their arrangements.
Councillor Councillor Boswell,
thank you very much, Chair I am Councillor Sheila Boswell are also Tooting Bec ward and this application is in the ward, and I know this corner very, very well, and my comment is also like Councillor G of India, about traffic and that being a very, very tight area down there on the corner of opportunity road, it's massively years we've just managed to get an eight year ban on H TVs going up there but there's still that they still are.
there certainly isn't enough parking space for any more parking. I was very interested, Mr tiddly, when you said just now, that it is possible to put in on a condition that the parking permits would not be issued, even though this is below the numbers where that could happen, and I would make an absolute case for this being a situation where the travel and the the movement of vehicles on that corner is so tight. There is not enough space for everything. That's happening on that corner of the church is heavily, there's always traffic outside there, and people wouldn't be able to find anywhere to park in the surrounding roads. So as a local Councillor, I would make a real plea for what you are saying is sometimes possible
even though it doesn't meet the numbers, which is that you can't have a car parking permit, if you live there, it's it's got public transport to die, for it's 250 metres from the tube station you can just roll out of bed and get on a bus or a tube, there's no reason for anybody to have a car there. I notice on page 25 8.9 condition 15
I just wondered what that is, it says it's recommended for construction Environment Management Plan, given the physical constraints of the site and its proximity to up Tooting Road, which sounds like that that is linked to what I'm saying about that, incredibly busy corner with far too much happening in one space.
any commitments to grandeur, or sorry Mr, until you to deal with the second one point first, yesterday's A a condition for a construction management plan which is relatively common for sidelight based in this sort of location, which is effectively the methodology of how it would be built and how construction traffic would get there and get away from it, so that's a relatively common feature in terms of the first point about a condition on,
eligibility for parking permits. I think the difficulty or problem would simply be that it isn't a site that we've recognised as being really need in such a condition. We have nothing to evidence that, as such, like a parking survey that would demonstrate there is a problem, and I imagine if we did go out there and cut count cars, we would find a few spaces from what I said earlier about the fact that people in this area, probably the majority, won't have cars in the first place that there any sort of car impact from it could be accommodated on the site. So I would certainly say that we just don't have the evidence to suggest it could couldn't be so. So if I may indulge this from the Chair from my experience of Latchmere ward, which doesn't exist now, but you probably know, has almost no private parking space at all, and there are no permit developments that you don't want a Councillor cases of people on your door all the time because they can't get a permit, and what are they meant to do? That's the reverse side of of your argument. I can tell you to be careful what you are wishing for
I think Chair, if I may, I be quite happy that in order to reduce the congestion of traffic and the pollution down there, in Tooting it's something I feel very strongly about, I wouldn't mind if people were banging on my door about that.
spew comments Councillor Brazil, yep thanks to Qashqai, help for his Conservative councillor for South Fields impotently, I'm afraid I'm going to drag us back to the community space again, sorry about that.
it is a little concerning when Mr Gwadar tells us that the reasons and end user insight, and it's just a shell, so my concern is that the reason this scheme is proportionately acceptable is because we retain the community space, the reason why one of the one from 2017 was refused was because it didn't have the commuter spaces Councillor White reminded us earlier.
so I just want to be reassured that there is going to be a significant effort by the applicant and perhaps by our radio, whatever to to make sure that it is genuinely marketed and they genuinely do try to find a sensible end use it because I wouldn't want to see in a year's time is for the applicant to come back and say we've tried to let it nobody wants it and we can turn it into risibly, so I just want to know how robust really we can defend the fact that that is preserved as a community space.
from a planning from a policy point of view, the the the position on community uses and the retention of them, or certainly moving away from a community use to an alternative use that doesn't obviously provide a benefit giving back to to a local area DAERA where applicants it's tighter, basically there is a a strict marketing evidence base required for uses outside of those areas for 18 months and within the actual local plan there are.
within and appendices. There is a very detailed set of of requirements that you have to achieve and prove through documentary evidence to supply to the Council in order to demonstrate that its it would be acceptable to move out of that use class on, I think 18 months is quite quite significant period of time, so that's the sort of if, if that were to happen, we'd need within that timeframe we we'd need all of that documentary evidence, so that's that's very much that's known by the developing community, so marketing it is very much in their own interest.
right there's a few reservations, few comments, but I don't sense that there's anything that's critical do I can I assume, no, why should I assume, do I take it, the officer's recommendation is approved.
sorry, you wish to vote against one against, committed or settled for that, yes, one against okay.
move on to the next item 176 Broom Wood Road
as I said, I don't think there's anything to introduce about that at all, this is fairly normal back land and back extension, any members got any comments, particularly Councillor White, just wanted to commend this application is, I think, it's excellent.
given the environmental effort that they've gone to, and indeed in including wooden windows as well, so.
I think is excellent.
they've got panels, solar panels and yeah, OK, thank you for that noted.
sorry, Councillor.
I was just going to say something because it's in my Ward Councillor areas and Northcote ward, yes, just about the best routes, obviously in some of the objections, the the location of the air source heat pump was was noted and the height obviously of the proposed extension being.
quite a bit higher than the rear extensions of the neighbouring properties, but I, just as as the local councillor I thought I would I would raise that.
is concerned.
while it is reasonable to raise them.
perhaps will take them together, Councillor Cooper.
I think, on balance and probably with Councillor White, in commending the people, therefore going for the solar panels and the heat pump I've installed in a previous life as a regeneration director, hundreds and hundreds of air source, heat pumps and
they operate on the same basis as a fridge and so occasionally they make some small noise, but I think that they're not really particularly noisy and therefore I think we should support the installation of the heat pump and continued commending the people for the application as it has come forward. Thank you, Mr grandeur, that Councillor Owen said that the extension was marginally. I think it would be fair to say larger than some of the neighbours any comment.
I it was larger, but we sought amendments in order to reduce the overall height and bring it in line with examples that have been approved at 188 to 190 Greenwood Road, so using those previously assessed applications as a template.
for the the height of the extension, particularly over the rear out rigour, then that was brought in line, and we think that that's that overall height lies within acceptable tolerances, okay, okay, all the officers recommendations agreed agreed so that once passed as well move on to Star and Garter application, which is a very interesting one I know Councillor S wants to say something.
yes, I am Councillor S Labour for East Putney, I'm delighted by this, I'm really happy.
o First scheme, when I've been on the planning committee, that's actually made me happy.
the starring Josh evokes, I hope you, you haven't been on the Committee for that long.
but.
that it's a splendid building, with all its sort of pomp and circumstance, but it gives out bad vibes, and has done for years and years and years, because of underuse and sensation of the grit that emanates from it, because it's a very big building above the bits we all know about the pubs and the bars and things, so I'm very pleased to see it happening. I think the scale of it has been very well handled
I think it almost looks as though it was meant to have another story on it, and I'm particularly pleased about the dome, but can somebody tell me what they're going to do with the dome?
elm sorry, it messages Helen Richards, I'm the team leader for the West team.
I'm afraid I don't have the answer at hand as to what exactly is going to happen within the don't you mean the existing, though no doubt with the new one they're building and you surely have a purpose for it if they're building. Sorry, sorry, I was thinking you were referring to, what is what's happening to the existing pavilions on the roof? Well, they're intended to be used as a garden sort of private areas that people can there's one garden room, so it's enclosed there's a roof terrace at the top and are another area to drink, and so the dubious are water bar
pattern or the new dome is a bar, then it's part of the yeah experience of the hospital, yes, yeah, OK, thank you should be very nice.
Councillor Korindo, your patch as well, I know it's chemical, but I mean when I entirely agree with Councillor as about about the significance of the building, but just a plea that when the matters of details and materials and some of the kind of details of the finishes is brought to the committee, the great care and attention is given to it. It's a very prominent, very significant building and I think it would be a shame if the wrong materials suddenly detracted from what it is. What is a very good application
Councillor White, I think Councillor Kevin Hughes preface, what I am going to say very very well because I think it's I I'm I'm with a Councillor, as I think it's a really good imaginative.
application and I'm sure it's going to add very much to the
to the attainment offer in in Putney, especially given its position right by the river, but there was one thing I was disappointed by I mean currently we have wooden windows in, and given the fact that this is quite an iconic building, I would have thought that they would have attempted to retain.
a wooden sustainable wooden windows.
so
I mean we, the the embodied carbon, are involved in in that fossil fuels being involved in producing those those metal.
windows and the possibility of bringing damp into the building as well. It is a backward step, a little bit, so could we add a condition at all that the material for the window would be from a sustainable wooden source? Well, let's first of all seawater. Mr Graham sorry, I missed it, Richard says to save anything about it, whether that was ever considered.
I don't think we could make it a condition, but we mean there is a condition in condition 3 and can.
is for details of materials generally associated with the development and me we could add, you know, a reference to the window windows within that, but I'm not seeing.
what more we could add in that regard?
while we're asking for samples and detailed materials associated with, that would include the windows because there are new windows proposed.
the current windows are largely wooden, I take it, yeah, we privately, I should privately sounds as though it is private, we informally discussed whether the building should be safeguarded or listed, or something in some way, because it is such a special building.
I don't know whether officers are going to pursue that, we mentioned that the other day, Mr Golden going to do anything about that.
sorry.
Ms Richards.
that's fine for me, I'm just reading part of that. Can you turn off your for a moment? So in terms of that way we can certainly investigate with our colleagues in conservation design whether there is any further protection, but I think it's being put forward for four for listing and not been successful. I think in terms of a condition, I think we probably could add a further condition about details of window details and samples, and it could tie back into Councillor Da Vinci's point about making sure that the finishes are right and the reveals of the right distance. So we can put together a little more detail of the windows condition to be added on to the recommendation if required.
sense, everyone's going to agree with that, yeah, I think we need to strike a balance between what we insist on and what we are innocent understood encourage because this building has been looking very, very sharp, or indeed a very long time, and let's not lose this opportunity for happening. Both of tá indeed understood Councillor Golton, sorry, did you want to come back in or perhaps wait for it, hear what Councillor Cook yeah? I just wanted to clarify that on pages 50 and 51 of the report does actually go into quite a lot of detail about what all the changes are proposed to the building and some of the replacement windows will be critical metal, slender windows
and others are to be refurbished and upgraded, so it's not a wholesale replacement of everything and I think, within the body of the report as well, it talks about because it's largely refurbishing the existing building, there is a limit to how much sort of
the sustainable kind of improvements can be achieved, so I'm that's as much as I wanted to draw your attention to in terms of windows and note Councillor, give India's comment about not letting the best be the enemy of the good or whatever the phrases the perfect,
Councillor Coakley, I just wanted to ask Councillor Cook, the Labour Councillor for St Mary's ward, I wanted to ask so with this condition.
you mentioned the wording of it sort of being the applicant to give details of the to give details of the material, but that it doesn't sound like in any way that would sort of comply them to.
compare them to pick the best option and, above all, like to pick burden if possible, once they have submitted the details, so could you maybe go into a bit more detail about that condition and how I would sort of help push the applicant to going on the direction that we want them to?
I could speculate on that, but I know the same stakeholder can speculate better than me. Well, I don't know about Labour, but I'll try what I would suggest that in light of what Ms Richards has said is that we have a detail which asks for those details and finishes, I don't think we can be so prescriptive versus say it must be from this source on that and you've heard that there's a variety of different windows and a lot of it will just be the refurbishment of existing rather than new windows, so it's where there's new new windows is to match in with the style at that position, rather than replicating all the way through, and that's why I think it would be important to have that sort of an overview of all the different windows that shall be replaced and looking at the quality and the design. But I think again we have to be proportionate because this is given to set out this building as being vacant and underused for a number of years, and we don't want to be so prescriptive as it stops any sort of development coming forward.
Councillor White.
I just wanted to emphasise that samples are also required in a lot of them as well, so we would be able to assess them really carefully.
Councillor White sorry, dish, I accept what's being said, but you know.
as has been said earlier on, we were not far away from this building being listed now if it was listed, there would be an assistant and insistence that this would be. They would be wooden windows, so I think that must be borne in mind, and I think the condition, I think, must bear that in mind. I think well I'm not sure that necessarily every single window has the same public perspective. Some might be hidden away in places on the roof and no one can actually see them for all. I know, so. I'm imagine that therefore the it'll be depending on whether the frontage river, but you'd have a different approach if it was on the front and facing whatever I can see to other places, so I think it is possibly best left in the judgment if we can trust some of the officers to try and make that out, but they will have heard what we say. Councillor Humphreys, thank you very much, along the lines of was going to say that you just did yourself because you were saying I think it's really important. This site has been a prominent site, being sat there empty for a long, long time, and let's not put so many hurdles up for the applicant that it doesn't actually happen again. It's going to sit there for another next number of years. I think it's an example of exactly what you were just saying chairs dissolving in Hobbs. We've got a very significant building in the borough which again the detail and where it's changed, where it's been modernised to suit the modern usage for the building can still be viable and still put the heritage aspect significantly where it needs to be. But there are, he said, itself, parts of the building where we could not be so scrupulous and make sure it worked fancily as a modern building and is still viable to actually happens. At the end of the day, he wanted to be a working environment that benefits the community and it's not a bit sat there empty.
and it doesn't look good now, I've unfortunately, it's still not fully occupied, but it does look OK.
people have had a general discussion, largely, we were very happy with it, a little bit of concerns about the conditions, but on that basis and leaving the stretches to negotiate about the finishing.
are we agreed or agreed, thank you moving on to slightly more into it, well, not more interesting, more problematic, perhaps 51 to 57 Atlantic House any comments on 51 to 57 Atlantic House Council of India.
next year out I didn't actually visit the site and had a look at the space which is to be developed, and I can see some difficulties in in in well, some difficulty. Some of the neighbours will face as a result of this development, and most of those difficulties are probably not a planning matter. I recognise that I also recognise that there is a previous approval for or for this site to be developed. What is difficult in this particular application is that it is a little bit more than the previous approval and previous approval was at its limit, and this is going, in my view, beyond the limit, by creation those basements on. There are four units to with 0 amenity and 2 below park in amenity, and that's clearly a result of overdevelopment of the site, and that's the critical complaint from the residents in the surrounding area that this is a bit too much
I think it's a bit too much, which is the issue, namely the height and massing in terms of what the eaves heights are and so on, it's not any different but it is of course tighter and more debts, the other issues of of parking and this is back to Mr. Douglas earlier point about car-free development while this is technically a car-free development because they're not providing any parking for cars but of course if they own cars they might be able to park within the site.
because there isn't space, they won't be able to park on Upper Richmond Road, which is a red route, and there is no parking provision, so the nearest place they can go and park is Manfred Road across from from them, and those roads are heavily parked and under pressure all the time so in a sense this is this is creating a obviously a return for the for the site, owner and developer, but at the expense of the community across form there where there are huge parking pressures and my third point is about emergency fire access, I know the paper talks about, they're done the fire assessment and it's all fine and they've done
the vehicles should be able to get through, but I recall quite a long time ago one of the applications that this Committee or its predecessor had to deal with, where, because of the tightness of the site and access, there was a requirement or suggestion of a hydrant at the door at the entrance to the site so that,
there was no risk of engines not being able to access water and not to be able to get in now, I wonder whether that is an issue here, I mean I'm no expert in it, but residents are concerned about it and I wonder whether that's been looked at so my two key issues are that this is an absolute overdevelopment that the paper talks about it as effectively a nervy development because the amenity of 4 flats is severely compromised.
and the issue of parking is a serious concern in the local community and it's not really dealt with in this paper, and I do think that the developer here is going for more than the site can bear, and I think in that sense this is an overdevelopment.
interesting.
one thing you can certainly not say about this, usually people complain about, are pictures associated with applications showing the place was beautiful children and no old people around and and the sun out you can't say that about the picture, on page 8 on Kenya I mean that certainly can't certainly can't say that,
sorry.
in this afternoon.
I, like you, I happened to walk out at about two o'clock somewhere, although I thought I'd skipped a couple of hours and it was about six or something it was incredible.
indeed, and that's as you say when this picture was taken on emerged, any other comment, Councillor White.
yeah, we've got 23 homes being delivered in our perk tonight and has said none of them are affordable, this stops just one show of being necessary to deliver.
affordable homes.
and I agree with Councillor given to you as well that I don't think it's great design reintroducing basements as well and.
yeah, I think the loss of commercial space, of course, as well, and so yeah, I don't think I'd like to think it's beneficial really to the area.
and as a safe state, some affordable homes, at least you could say something positive about it really.
I think that the implication of your comment about affordable homes which, in the current rules, would mean going above the number of would hardly fits with Councillor Kabir, India's sayings and over development, and he's arguing for it to be rather fewer, you had theory for rather bore.
well now I wasn't saying that so I was saying that in the spirit of jihad whiteshill deliver some affordable homes.
while those two comments any other comments, Councillor Humphreys just to endorse what Councillor grindie were saying.
I do think they're just trying to pack too much in to the detriment of everybody. I think actually we got this development right the first time round, it was, it was, it was more moderate in scale, it was a balance, which is what we always try to strike between trying to fit in some more housing, that the borough very much needs for, not packing in so tightly that was going to be impacted by it and it ameliorate with loss of the business unit as Councillor Wyatt was talking to by the fact we do get some housing, but I think it has gone too far on this one. Actually, I think we were right, the first time, and that was six was enough. Noise was pushing it too far and I don't think the amenity spaces that are virtue for anybody either on this one
2,921
restrictions. What what's your view about, I realised that Mr Corbyn will tell me off immediately, as indeed will you say, we have to judge every application on its merits, but can we leave that planning, so to speak, for alone for a moment and what's your view about the this as opposed to the previous application?
thank you.
clearly, officers have assessed it fully as being acceptable in terms of policy and in terms of standard of accommodation, that's being provided.
just to make a point about introducing basements, this scheme has actually been revised White, since it's been submitted, because the scheme had originally sought to introduce more basements below one of the mews properties and that was proposed to house the main living accommodation for that property and they were slicing it all up.
which to the point where we felt that was unacceptable and so they removed that additional basement they tried, because officers told him that would not be acceptable for that reason, because it was resulting in a more substandard scheme than what we'd previously considered, I think from the
the the main changes in the apartment block that are two duplex flats and then for smaller flats above two of the flats don't have any external amenity space which is unfortunate, and again I hear what Members are saying we've seen this before, I think in a couple of revised schemes where they the sort of sort of tempo you know.
to
they reduce the quality and in a way, but ultimately, and on balance, it is still considered to be acceptable, I think two of the units still have a balcony edge so they do have some external amenity.
but overall, you know, we've considered it to be acceptable, I think the point about emergency vehicles, there's still full access into the site, the parking point I think we'd been made before, and the affordable housing as well you know it's below the threshold so we can't push for those elements, but I just wanted to clarify that to the officers are aware of the the dumbing down if you like, of schemes that we've previously approved.
and this was one and we got it to be revised a little bit, but as far as the overall envelope with the proposal is concerned, there is another point I wanted to make, actually this isn't a slight improvement on the previous one because I double-check this a lot of the objectors have raised concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy especially from Woodland Lawn Close and there is a condition recommended condition 12 that they have to be obscurely glazed.
the previous consent, we miss that
condition, so in fact, as as part of this scheme, they will actually be obscurely glazed now, which is a which is an improvement on the previous situation for for those neighbours.
what I think that sounds very much up to member Councillor Govindia wants to come back, thank you for your comment, I hear what has been said by officers about this, and I hear what Councillor White said I mean just going to Councillor White, sir.
argument. Really I mean he's to an extent right that this is a development that does little for the local community. Now his argument about affordable housing is not actually, contrary to my arguing. Mine monument is that it is not dealing with the pressure that this development will create in the area to the detriment of the existing community. He's saying yes, and in fact they are going to be right at the margin before they need to provide anything like affordable housing which might have been tolerable if it has. It was there now. In fact, this is all take all take situation here. Now I take the except the point about obscure glazing and the not obscure Butler, but that's our failure and I don't see we should use this application to correct a failure by this department. In a sense, this is overdevelopment, a clean and simple to the point that it is actually if inflicting two flats with 0 amenities and 2 with below par amenity in an area where actually amenity is very, very difficult. To access. This is quite a busy area from two very major TFM roads
no public place pocket but public park within any reasonable vicinity, and therefore I would suggest that this application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and below standard amenity for four out of the nine units Councillor Gibbons.
appreciate all your arguments, please don't get in at a typical given India, Belgium and spat.
but I think it's a bit unfair for you to say it was the mistake of the planning department before, because it was this committee that approved the last one, so if it was anyone, it was as Sir.
good as long as you said that.
members, I mean we've had Councillor Humphreys, I won't stop anyone go on that sort of thing to get a second Councillor, given his movements who refuse on those grounds, okay, okay now I think it's a very balanced,
situation to be fair to the applicants, and we need to be fair to the applicants as well as the community they have had advice from officers, otherwise it wouldn't be here within bounds, and it is therefore in any sense compliant with our policies still up to us to decide.
so it's been moved that we refuse by Council of India seconded by Councillor Humphreys.
I chi, are you going to take that as just a vote against the recommendations that are normal style, so what I'm actually saying this is to vote for or against the officers' recommendation, those in favour of the officers recommendations, as that is to approve a Surrey I'm being advised, I think it is the case clearer,
councillor, but I've now decided so sorry, I'm sorry, so I'm moving the officer's recommendation that I'm not moving, the officer recommendation is that we approve, and if you support Councillor Bridges' position, you will just vote against it which is fairly simple, I think those in favour of the officers' recommendation please share.
okay, 1, those against everyone else fair enough.
now we've got to discuss should be clear about the reason he asked about.
Council of India now has, or has a responsibility, doesn't it really do to start as of on the reasons or, as I said in my in my YEP proposal, that this is an overdevelopment resulting in no amenity for two flats and below standard amenity for another two said there are four out of nine units with poor amenity space because it's an overdevelopment of the site.
that seems to me to be perfectly defensible and we are often advised to keep it simple are not going to other reasons, so is that acceptable?
well, that came on Blair's professional advice of each other, it is not.
there is certainly an argument, and now I would have preferred more than just were refusing on the lack of amenity space, but it doesn't comply with standards or our own standards, it still comprises national standards, but if that's what we'll go for then then so be it I can't think of an additional thing to add in which I'd I'd hope to overlooking issues have been overcome, there's not a highways issues as we have heard previously from Mr. Tiddly so it's solely down on the standard of accommodation, notably the lack of amenity space while it was overdeveloped or boats kept.
there was overdevelopment, you accept the the overdevelopment is indicated by the year before.
I've never never short of wanting to overs spice the decks, but I just felt that on this instance there was, there was actually little in terms of what the arguments were and what we could sustain when it came to under challenge. I mean, I recognise the parking whilst it's a pressure and why it's an issue, and there is little in policy terms that might sustain the parking objections. The local residents have, I know they're upset about the party walls and so on, but it's not a planning matter, so I realised that there is a lot of upset about this application but not in planning terms, and that's why I've kept it to a very narrow and defendable position in my view, and I think that's where we should stay. Councillor Hayes, can we be more specific about the lack of amenity for four of the flats
one of them being at basements, that two of them.
have accommodation in a basement, which is surely not ideal.
lightwell, having accommodation at basement level is not in and of itself unacceptable if there is sufficient.
light and ventilation through lightwells, and so on, and in investment levels they're fine from a from accommodation point of view, but it's surely an indication that it's an overdevelopment if the only way they can provide this amount of housing is by having to basement it only 9.
units.
was your thinking about button or white and just to come back if we cover that by poor form of accommodation, I think I think that's a cover, all of which would pick that up, sorry to interrupt Councillors now that sounds fine to me if it gets Councillor M Whitehand Councillor Humphreys, yeah, excuse me for my ignorance on this, but wow surely we could put something in or around planning balance as well because of the lack of, or the loss of, the substantial commercial space here as well.
Snow and and the you know, isn't, it is not offering really the the local community.
that much at all
having the opportunity to sue to do that.
sorry Mike, I just wanted to come back and say that that the principle of the loss of of the commercial space has been established through the previous permission. And it's not in a protected area, and so we don't have policy ground to protect that and there is going to be a commercial and employment space retained, so there is no ground to refuse on on on that. I'm afraid, OK, that's obvious. Just why do we need any more colour on the reason why the amenity space is particularly important? I think on this one, it's the fact that contact is all or nothing. A couple of colleagues referred to the fact that
in the context of this site, busy roads and there was no public park or facility for people to use anywhere anywhere nearby on that particular location are usually we can say it's compromised on the amenity space, but there's a park 200 metres up the road arising from this case you've got Worple away to once as part which is fairly flipped to get to there from here on a busy road, there's not much other option if we need any more detail to add into the context is all
right where we've now got all these arguments to back-up, whoever is putting whatever in an appeal, but essentially the basic grounds as unchanged I think these are PACA arguments to the central business about.
as Councillor commentary originally expressed, and I think we've got motivate every year, it's essentially overdevelopment indicated by a poor form of competition, including a lack of amenity space, OK, thank you, and we move on.
o
I take it that those grounds of objection are agreed by the folk who voted it down.
I don't need to die in the circumstances.
OK, thank you, so I'm moving on now to Granville Road.
any comments about grandeur road shoulder, probably are no Councillor Hussain.
get it right in a minute, Councillor Govinda.
back to the parking issue, and this is another one that claims to be a pocket golf free and it isn't going to be really nothing that we can ensure that it remains, they're not going to be excluded from parking permit applications and there are there are traffic issues on Granville Road as we regularly are told about by local residents.
but my mind took the sense that this is an area which is dominated by a particular style of family housing, and there are houses as opposed to flats and blocks of flats, and here we have a situation where one family house, originally of three bedrooms and now with a bit of extension is being taken down and replaced with a whole series of flats which is alien to the area and I know the paper makes no reference to that, but I do think that that is a matter of some concern that the predominant feature of this area and because the Sutherland Grove
conservation area.
talks about it being houses, and this somehow escaped that bit of of definition, I mean, I do think this that concerned, my other point would be that the evergreen trees on the boundary of the property I know they're going to be replaced according to the condition and landscaping. Can I just ensure that there are proper and decent trees placed are included in the landscaping details to be agreed,
I mean just our observations, rather than a serious challenge to the approval right now, I think restrictions possibly has a comment about the trees.
searching some, perhaps may be the other comment to thank you only insofar as that there is a landscaping condition that would secure some replacement trees on the site.
and the conifers themselves are quite ropey, I would say, but.
to be removed.
and as for the style and nature of the area
I rather suspect,
there's more subdivision only Lee the casual eye notices, but this certainly doesn't look very out of camp.
does it, I mean, it looks pretty domestic to me.
any other comments counts Celtic, but we are at first think answer Cooper.
I just wanted to ask why in some of the previous applications we've had both mention of the carbon reduction and then also a BREEAM score, whereas in this one they mentioned the carbon reduction of the development but they don't mention a BREEAM report or a target for that so I was just wondering why that is and is it because of the nature of this application I think is probably the nature and size but I could be wrong Newbury arms for commercial properties this is residential.
that's very shorthand.
BREEAM standards are obligatory in commercial, but in in private residential, it's up to you or me if we're putting in an application to do it or not, is that the case that our through the other carbon reduction methods that were shown on that the BREEAM school would be for commercial commercial premises like the community facility we had like the replacement?
sorry, the replacement shop
employment use that we had in the previous scheme because there is solely residential, it's not applicable on this one.
and I'm sure everyone here knows what BREEAM is, but it's some fancy acronym for British environmental standards and obviously not that, but I'm not going there.
Councillor Cooper.
it's the standard developed by the British Research establishment B R E, who were implicated in some of the testing.
that was applied to the materials that were used on the Grenfell Tower, I'm not saying there's any connection between BREEAM and the work that they did on that at all because there isn't.
I just wanted to come back to this application, however.
I am not particularly happy with having four out of the seven flats.
in the basement area,
I tend to agree with Councillor gave India
that there are houses in this area rather than developments of flatted blocks, and I also have some concerns about units that are in the basement and therefore and underground, so close to the District line when all over London for underground pots of the the underground system but also overground pots.
of the underground system, including places like this section of the District line and also sections of the Central line there are significant both noise but also vibration, problems that have emerged are and are now having to be dealt with by Transport for London, so I have some significant concerns about this development and the way that it's currently laid out and presented to us, thank you Chair,
Councillor White.
yeah, I would go along with what Councillor Coopers has just said, also that we will lose in mature evergreen trees here.
and demolition, even though it says we get the I'll be this good obviously.
PVs here and associate palms, but the 50% reduction doesn't include the demolition cost and again this neatly sideswipes having to produce a report to state how much carbon would be lost by demolition, and it also sidesteps the need to put any affordable housing in again so,
yeah, I add, as I don't think this gives us March and as Councillor convenience said, I don't think it's really fits in with it with a locality either side.
what's the housing gain on this?
it's going at this point let out, so this has a gain of 6, that's a benefit, one would have thought in terms of London, Rye, possibly for local landlords and investors, I'm sorry.
that's a point with which I may or may not agree, but it's not a planning point.
it's a gain of 6 for benefit of the city, and the borough might be, on the other hand.
and I think I mean, I wouldn't have said that the architecture is exactly exciting, but I
know the area creased Nibley world, not black domestic enough, but it's not, I could find plenty of places that are not quite like that Mr Councillor Jones, I thought you had to hand up from saying sorry I must miss missing any other comments.
Councillor Cavendish,
would make an interesting point about architecture, but sometimes this is an attempt at a pastiche trying to mimic what's there and as always, it fails, because a pastiche is never quite getting it right because they're getting it right is a matter of detail and this isn't getting it right. I mean that's just an observation. I mean I rear by both Councillor Cooper and Councillor Whiteside. I mean I read this
paper with some disquiet, but I couldn't find myself find.
a sufficient number of reasons for me to mount a challenge to the recommendation by the officers, but, hearing what they have said, I am looking at and can, taking into consideration the impact of the tearful service on on this and therefore the quality of life in perhaps the new units maybe this is the time for us to pause and say Well could could this be?
deferred whilst those matters are looked at and whether there is a different way of delivering the site that fully satisfies the issue of DFL, but also improves the number of or reduces the number of basement units.
sorry, you get certainly again just in terms of the TFM, the CTF, I'll have an objected to this development. They've recommended a number of quite stringent conditions to to overcome those concerns. So I don't think there's anything more to go back and revisit on that aspect. It's an embankment rather than an underground section. You'll obviously be aware that there's a bridge nearby, so I don't think that there's going to be that sort of element, and let's also remember that these aren't used on units solely at basement, their basement and ground, so you do have that ground-floor level living in the way it's been designed is that if you're in the basement at the back, you're in the front of the house and vice versa, so there's there's dual aspects
it it's a scheme that's probably underwhelming in terms of its design, I would probably agree with you, but it's not in a conservation area that it was referenced before, it fits in and it's probably a modern interpretation rather than a pastiche, so I think the design is just about that.
I'm struggling to think of what was unacceptable and we have to look at these small sites, and it's a bit like the last one we have to as part of the London Plan, where we've got to provide 4,000 houses over the next 10 years on these sorts of sites, and there is a reluctance, maybe an acceptance from the members to to really engage in that because we're trying to reduce that. These sites are important, they provide the probably the majority of the new houses that we're going to have in the barn, and those are new houses and they might not be affordable because they are less than 10 units, but without the without new houses the existing houses go up in price and you are actually just making things more unaffordable for everybody else. So I haven't particularly got strong feelings about this, but unless there's really strong reasons to refuse, I would say that this this just about makes the mug. Can I remember that phrase I'd get down off one of my favourite phrases and interpretation, rather than pastiche as really good,
I like that.
Councillor Humphreys, do you did have your hand up and Jim but well which to call the said some interesting and useful stuff there, which is all very valid? I just think it is a little bit frustrating because it's kind of like it's just OK, isn't it? It doesn't really do any wonderful things and it doesn't really. I do feel that there's a policy principle here, which we don't have anything to defend it against again. The parking issue is an issue that skids it. It's going to yes, you're right, Mr, because it is an addition of housing to the borough, but at the detriment of the existing residents patient. He said their quality of life and nobody ever will be worse as a result of this, because the parking and suchlike in the leopard
I'm struggling to find anything that's significant enough in there to make it a defensible argument correct.
while Council.
Mr coda, it says but presented an argument, which I must say I, I find very difficult to disagree with in all sorts of ways, unless anyone's got anything else to be said.
put it to the meeting, then the officer's recommendation is to approve this application, all those in favour.
usually for six, but.
6 year.
those against
one okay and one abstention, OK, thank you, as proved, even if a little tentatively.
under Springfield hospital.
Springfield hospital application, which Springfield just about, must be pitching for second place to Battersea Power Station for the number of applications I considered about it, this is about my 235th, I don't know what Councillor Humphreys would say, but suddenly not quite as long as me but more or less the same and he come into Mount Springfield.
Councillor Cooper.
I was a bit surprised to see this application to retain a single storey temporary portal cap, portable cabin, building on the south-eastern side of the site.
for a further five-year period and I can understand.
why it was requested during COVID times to assist with social distancing and perhaps providing additional facilities for the NHS at that particularly difficult period, but it's quite hard to see any justification for keeping it for another five years at all.
unless the applicants are trying to tell us that in some way they know there's about to be another pandemic, and so we're going to need this kind of facility, but I mean if we weren't gonna need this kind of facility and there are all these other lovely things on the site listed buildings.
all the other, very nice aspects of the development.
why on earth would they then want to keep a single, storey, temporary porta cabin sorry, I mean, if we are minded to to agree this application, I would like to suggest that we don't agree it for more than two years, I don't really see why they need to have it for a further five-year period at all. Thank you Chair,
I have a lot of sympathy, for I can't remember things page 181, the objectors comments can't be had in the way that you would want, it doesn't go that far, but it's.
but the paper a page, which has objectors comments and I have a lot of sympathy for it.
and asked Ms Richards beforehand to see if she had time to find anything out about the building schedule towels and perhaps we have or haven't got an answer.
thank you.
yes, so the applicants had submitted as part of the application cover letter that explained why.
this was requested for another five years and it is linked directly to the new site that's being developed, a toll worse that was granted permission in August at the end of, and I presume that would be subject to legal agreement and lots of conditions and approval so there will be a a further period of time before any real works probably start on that site, so it is,
because that provides it's occupied by coral crisis hub.
adapters provide 24 7 mental health response for residents of Kingston, Richmond Merton Wandsworth and Sutton.
and so it's for all of those five boroughs, and it is intended that this can stay functioning until they are able to relocate, so that's the justification for it.
for that length of time, that rather worries me on radio shows got planning permission when it was in 2021.
for two years.
the
of sub forgive.
the tollbooth was granted in August this year.
I'm worried in the sense that it is five years where I can see them coming back again.
I, I've had one or two experiences of the NHS and their estates, nothing to do with the medical services, which I think we all ought to defend to the hilt, but there are states management, I've had some problems with, I really do think we've got to make it very clear to them because I am concerned that we'll get one extension.
than another, and the local residents will be rightly not pleased.
we're talking here about five years, my only slight problem was accepting an amendment for being less, and I certainly my inclination is that if they haven't started we know we're going to come back in two years, I mean we can guarantee that they're not going to finish in two years I would have thought Councillor Cooper, why are you going to argue against me when I say Well it's going to be at least three to give them a chance?
I think my argument would really be, what does it actually need to be on this site at all toll, this is quite a long way away and is also quite a large site, and, if they want to in it provide the permanent facilities there, why don't they put if they need to have a temporary structure while they complete their works down there? Why don't they put the temporary porta cabin facility there instead,
I mean, I think we've we've all read what local people have had to say about this structure, which is on page 131 and and if you haven't seen it all in in its reality.
it's got a lovely photograph of it, there, it is very attractive, I can't you know, I can't begin to say how attractive I think that it is, I mean really, I just think this is you know, why don't they put the temporary facility where the permanent facility is being developed and then people who want to use that facility in that area will start to go there sooner rather than later? Gallen Sampras
quite so, Councillor Cooper. Are we already seriously expected to believe the and an anxious Trust can't find anywhere? It's an entire estate for a single Porter cabin building which has a maximum of 10 clients that any whilst on with 10 staff at any one time, it's just ludicrous, isn't it, and it's also also not only that, but it's what irks me is the arrogance that they come in at the 11th hour. The current permission expires at the end of December and assume that we'll just all, yeah yeah, that's fine of another five years or 10 years, 10 years. It's just it's an insult to our capacity to judge this fairly when they are so cavalier with the work they're handling. And yes, of course we all think it's a very valid, let's not get it wrong service and all the rest of it, but honestly as nowhere else can do so. I don't think we should give them two years anybody to give many years at all, I think we should say, veggie time, let's just refuse it and stick it somewhere else.
Councillor can give India.
I think they have taken advantage of the COVID regulations to stop plonk something in front of a listed building.
because Elizabeth Newton Wing is part of listing all of Springfield, had they come actually, without the benefit of the pandemic regulations, I wonder whether this committee would have actually approved the structure in front of it, and so I think they're taking advantage of of the situation.
and and I agree entirely with Councillor Cooper about this sort of being being taking the proverbial.
of course, the other thing is that we didn't know I'd like to deny that I use language language like that.
but I just wanted to use the word proverbial.
but I think we know perfectly well the building building works can take, can drift, the fire could become 7, the tall with legal documentation might take much longer time, the contractor procurement might take a long time and this could become a semi permanent feature of the area in the meantime the people in John Hunter wing,
Lane are having bought their properties or having occupied their properties, expected a great view of Elizabeth and Newton Wing, restored and refreshed have this in the way, I think we should say it will go away to say No, you've got plenty of land elsewhere, just do it that,
well, the attitude of all of us is absolutely unanimous, quite clearly it's just a matter of degree counts.
Councillor, Whyte is itching to get in and I will do in a second we've got Councillor Cooper, saying two years I have started out with three Councillor Coutts, Councillor Humphreys is going for numb.
known what you mean and we've got Mr Robot going down there on tomorrow morning and kicking off a week, I think, not, I think, not somehow.
but kept meanwhile, Councillor Lloyd yeah, I think that it was saying Well, you could pull it somewhere else. The fact is, it's stale and there's probably stuff inside medical staff, possibly I don't know there will have to be moved and and the the disruption. I think that you know when, when you are building something new, then obviously there is going to have to the there is gonna be need for temporary accommodation, so I think we've been a bit harsh. This is the NHS we're talking about after all, and I think that we should be as supportive as possible. I know, and I would go along with the Chair and Councillor Cooper, the possibly if we reduce it to 3 years, that would be a nice sort of balance really.
it's got nothing else to do against Humphreys.
her apologies.
yeah, I just thought you know we could. We could ask very nicely, Mr Raybould and his team to be lenient with their enforcement of having to be out by the end of December. We don't we we? We could be understanding that they might not be quiet and compliant with the time that they have to leave, that suddenly surely the most important thing whether we agree, I think we'd all agree, whether we agree, whatever it is, whatever it is. We agree that the most important thing is that Ms Richardson and the team put it over to them very seriously, because I doubt whether they're watching as I agree about it now that we mean it when we're talking about whatever it is, we agree, and we will be very, very unhappy if they come back in two or three years wanting a further extension. I mean that's the really important bit
but we will make it clear that that's what we're fit thinking, Councillor Coakley.
I just wanted to add that I don't agree with yours and Councillor Keith at this point I feel like having a two or three-year extension will be better because we'll also be able to see how far this other development has come along because if it's completely stolen and made no progress within two to three years then we know that it is not going to be done by the end of the five years that they originally wanted and so then gives us a lot more clarity on what our next decision will be Councillor Cooper.
I will thank you, I might like to seek somebody to second my proposal that we give them two years and, bearing in mind that some Councillors on this committee are suggesting that we give them about two weeks.
I would have thought is that.
I thought he was suggesting 31st of December when the current permission expires Councillors, but I would hope that someone was second to the proposal for two years, and if we tell them some people said you can have a couple of weeks, I think that would express the seriousness of our views fairly strongly thank you Chair,
councillor, you've stopped talking, I can second Duke.
I was hoping you'd second me, but there we go there, it's been moved and moved by Councillor Cooper, seconded by a Councillor is that we change this recommendation as it stands from three from five years to 2 2 years.
Councillor White.
he added of wages dismissed for years now, it was, I was, I said that I had thought 3 Councillor Cooper actually jumped in and said moved to so there's this. There's a difference between us. I mean if we if we weren't so tied up with formula of doing these things, I'd just say Hands up those who think 3 and handle
in fact, why not by I'm sure the clock won't mind too much how much that putting aside
is it agreed that we give them an extension, because some people will disagree with that, so is it agreed that we given an extension those in favour of giving them an extension time undefined at the moment 1 2 3 4 1 2 6 and those against three now, given that we're giving them an extension, can I be strictly of norm those who vote for two years, I going to say those over two years and those who vote for three years in my own personal opinion, I think two years is a little impractical
other people will say other things, but.
because I do think I do think in plonking for any period there has to be some logic and justification as to what is the basis on which to say three years because inevitably they have applied for five because they have some argument as to why 5 is necessary I can say no and I can say yes, but I think it once we are in between rewriting their application effectively there has to be some brief rational reason behind rewriting the application.
I am sure Mr our legal adviser may have a view on well, that's some very subtle position, but we've already agreed by six votes to 3 that we're going to be given an extension for some period, so.
I'm just going to stick to three and two at the moment unless someone is going to tell me otherwise, because otherwise we'll be saying 10 minutes on why it's too one survivor admits on why, at 3.00, so can I put those who would prefer it.
Mr. Ross.
we are glad to hear from you to see how you go drainage.
just trying to justify my attendance here
I introduced myself at the outset and, yes, on the external legal adviser, I wasn't going to answer Councillor given his point unless you'd like me to chairman, I don't think actually, I think it would be helpful, we're not rewriting this application there's no fundamental alterations to what's being proposed it's just the duration of the temporary permission to be granted.
whilst I see a lot of merit in the Hands Up for 3 and hands up for to approach what we can't do, is we can't.
not allow the Members who didn't vote in favour of the extension, to have a say as to where the two votes were sorry. Two years or three years would be appropriate, so I could I be a pain chairman and ask you to take a vote in the usual manner. Councillor Cooper has suggested two years in extension, seconded by Councillor S. If that falls, then you, sir, have an opportunity to suggest three years which I suspect may be seconded and that can run as a vote. I have now I stop. I'm going to stop talking now. I have no idea why lawyers are paid so much, but there must be a reason
I'll accept either separate advice, those in favour of Councillor Cooper's recommendation, that there's an extension of two years, please show.
5 and those against 4 by implication, so that wins extension of two years.
granted, and I'm sure, Ms Richards, you convey, if not all the details, a bit of the flavour to to your NHS applicants.
Councillor Kolker.
so now that we've talked about the nature of the extension, I wanted to talk about the the biodiversity of the site, because in it the we had a condition to maintain the trees which were.
according to some of the reports struggling because there were trees that were planted as a result of the application and we've got a condition to maintain them, but since again it is an eyesore and wood and were approved and were given them an extension, and I was wondering if we could amend that condition to have an improvement in biodiversity where that improve in the quarters or just changing the word and so we're actually bringing a bit more of a benefit rather than keeping it sort of the same.
strictly speaking, of course I should say we've decided this, but let's be reasonable, it's not exactly late, so there's something we can do to the conditions.
there is a landscaping condition, which I think you are referring to as that.
yeah, it was the sort of wording on it was kind of around, making sure that the trees in the corner and the corners at the wolves don't die, so I'd have more than actually like improving it and making it look better and like more more Pontormo foliage.
the wording of the condition is that's our standard.
there are a fairly standard condition and it does require any trees that would die to be replaced, I'm not 100% sure what your yeah yes it so asking for, in addition to that, I think I think the switches are saying it doesn't make any difference in the tools three years is covered in any event you've got to look after the trees.
yeah
have a say in that, like, can we not push for improvements to the site, because at the moment they've put down some trees to sort of apologise for having something that's an eyesore, and while it's good that we have a condition that we're making sure that the trees don't end, there needs to be replaced, can we not push for better in the area, more more trees better plantech average
I think that the application is seeking the retention of the structure and the associated landscaping for another period of time, as, as it currently stands, that the condition stand and it would just secure replacement of anything within that period of time should anything die, we wish we can't ask for additional landscaping associated with this.
I think we have to accept that Councillor Kilcoyne okay, okay now Blatt, and concludes the applications I can move on to the other papers which is enforcements, page 1 4 7
for those who are using paper and
on the enforcement Minister, are you going to take us through?
I kind of feel like chair Mr Robbo, planning enforcement,
just a small one to finish the night off the site at 149 Upper Tooting Road, which consists of a restaurant at ground floor level, called cheap meals with some residential flats above.
a large metal extract system has been installed on the rear elevation which serves the ground floor restaurant,
and this exits, the building at ground floor level and extent of the rear reservation terminating at second floor level discharges at the same height as the rear second floor windows that serve the bedrooms of the flats located above, the Council has received a number of complaints from affected residents that the extract causes noise disturbance, vibrations and discharges fumes and in close proximity to their windows and on occasion operates from 11 am until 3 am.
I think we can all agree all agree unanimously, can we not agreed, agreed and decisions paper for information paper on page 1 5 3 and closure of files anyone yell that they want to stop on anything noted and and close?
appeal is noted and just before we conclude that city-wide affected.
right.
traditional at a point like this for invite people here to come and join us, I think we can switch up from now.
thank you, the meeting has ended.