Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 18 January 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 18th January 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

it is 7 30 folks and thousands of years it will be irritated if we're late so okay, chaos.
we are all here now, okay,
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning applications can be deal for the 18th of January 2024, first in the new year but, like to say, happy New Year but happy new year to everyone.
first item is the minutes of the last meeting, it was agreed that our son was a correct record, thank you, Councillor Humphreys, and I would sign it if I had a pen immediately available, thank you.
thank you.
I should say that this is obviously a fairly brief meeting, although the papers are fairly extensive, they will have been read and considered by all members and if there was any discussion and usually only on those items, sort of queries, don't think that we haven't read them, but we're ignoring that if we get through them quickly, I ask Members to introduce themselves as they make contributions, but first of all I will introduce or they will introduce themselves on the top table here I'm telling you, Belgium, I'm going to chair the Planning applications Committee and I'm a councillor for Battersea Park Ward Battersea, on my left, Nicole the Head of Development Management at once with a good evening.
Gary Liam, Williams Duncan was an external legal adviser.
good evening column item Democratic Services.
right, anything stopped was going ahead right.
Council of India, of course, always something to say Councillor fleece, but I just wonder whether you had a comment to make about the paucity of business this evening as to reason why we have such little business to transact, while I wouldn't like to blame the government for bringing the economy down in a heap, so I weren't there.
asked Mr Corbyn, if there's any comment, domain issue, I think it was a few of the applications didn't make it because of the proximity of the bank holidays, Christmas and New Year to the closing, which was just a few days later, so it is difficult to get those so soon after the December Committee, but rest assured we will have plenty feel for February Committee
I wouldn't like to make political comments.
I think that's to do with the incident, so the bank holiday is pretty clearly, I'm disappointed, as you are, that there are so few, but I reckon that could work that reason out myself now if we move on to the applications, the first one is sorry Albert any declarations of interest,
no declarations of interest, Councillor Cooper.
thank you Chair, Councillor Leonie Cooper, and I represent the first-down ward in Tooting, but additionally I'm also the London assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth, I don't believe that any of the applications particularly
have a a Transport for London or other aspect to them, but just in case for transparency purposes, only I'd like it to be noted, there would not be a pecuniary element to this declaration, thank you.
noted.
go back to where I was item, Councillor White.
similarly, I am not sure that it affects any of the papers, but I am a member of a community renewable energy Wandsworth, and we do have dealings with ones of council so on on some issues, but I derive no financial benefit from my arrival pretty confident there's nothing like that on the agenda but thank you let's say OK, move on to Item number 1, application to convert public convenience at Clapham Common into into something slightly most.
well, I should not have been getting myself into a tango, Mr Granger, would you care to explain?
absolutely chair on Nigel Granger and I managed East Area Team, so this application is to change the use of a disused old toilet block on the edge of the Common that is in an advanced state if you can be in an advanced state of dilapidation but it's been decommissioned for decades and the PA proposal is to change it to a café, with some outdoor seating to support the cafe, it also has a and accessible w c, separates from the cafe use that will say has been incorporated into the proposal it is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
as a fairly near neighbours about 300 yards from where I live from, I walked past at least twice a week, I think.
I welcome this.
incredible improvement on a pretty.
run-down, semi derelict building
but who am I to speak as Chair any other comments on it, Councillor Baldslow Councillor, suitable as well, teaching backboard, this may sound like a naive question, but reading through this I didn't understand why this has come to Wandsworth when it's in London.
I think I'm capable of answering that, but I'm sure I'm sure Mr Cowell would say it is a technical question but it's in it's in the London Borough of Wandsworth planning authority area it doesn't matter who owns the place, we are the planning authority for this particular area it we are the planning authority for everything within the borders of wants us, regardless of whether it's organised and run by.
Lambert or not.
Councillor Cooper, Councillor Councillor Cooper,
councillor Carl Clay, Councillor Wide Councillor Owens
Councillor Cooper.
when I read this application and I think it's.
really good, finally, to see something that will hopefully bring this currently derelict building.
back into use, it appears to have had a previous.
application for demolition of the existing changing rooms turned down in 2011 and really doesn't seem to have had any applications submitted since then, and so I quite like the
this application, because it talks about the restoration of this long, disused building and bringing it back into to public use, because I think, having a derelict building there is, you know, isn't very nice for the common, normally I would be opposed to this kind of application for having buildings on metropolitan open land.
because I strongly believe in the principle that errors that have been designated as metropolitan open land should be retained.
as open areas that are fully accessible, however,
I think, as this has had a structure on it, for I don't know how long, but obviously some considerable period of time this is actually acceptable and, to my mind, it reminds me of the cafe on Tooting Common where the
the building it was done up fairly recently in living memory anyway.
and then a toilet was that was completely accessible without needing to go into the café, use the cafe or anything was made available at, and so I actually think, providing the issues that have been raised as objections.
in terms of rubbish and mess, which I do think, whoever takes this on needs to be very careful not to ensure that the Metropolitan Open Land and the site for nature conservation is not sort of filled up with rubbish.
I would hope that this application
would improve what's there, and so having read it all in detail, I have decided that I am personally going to be supporting this, although in most circumstances metropolitan open land I would not thank you.
thank you, although I called you last, it is your Ward Councillor and staff, religion or body, first service, no problem at all, and Councillor Owens, Ireland, Councillor for the Northcote ward, I concur with the loss of but Councillor Cooper has said I just I just have a few questions.
a bit like Councillor Belston, I know.
this particular.
part of the common quite well, and obviously I would like to understand a bit more about the changing rooms and on that side of things I mean, obviously this has been this facility, it has not been in use for a very long time but as someone who watches my own children regularly play football on Clapham Common and there are several teams that use it I do still see particularly the adults changing.
around that facility, I also up a few questions about, obviously the proximity to South Circular and the zebra crossing there, et cetera, I mean, if you have a café there, you know small children, we will be in there running it out very close to the main road I just wanted to understand a little bit more about both of those thank you.
I shall come to questions after other people have made their comments, Councillor Coakley.
thank you Chair, Councillor Coakley, for St Mary's ward, I just had a couple of quick-fire, I had a couple of questions so I didn't know if maybe other people wanted to make comments first before I asked my question so I'm not far away with your questions, I'm sure a couple of
couple of first one, which the rapper stated that the common toilets are a safety risk to the general public, and I understand the bed dilapidated, but I wanted to know exactly what that dilapidation at what was exactly of it is currently a safety, Mr public.
and also, secondly, I couldn't see anywhere in the paper about how many how many public use toilets are in the existing building and how many are being provided in the new in the new plans make ballast and solar just wanted to know what the net loss of toilets are because I imagine it would be a net loss birds want to know about how much and Councillor White,
Councillor, Whyte from murder to Beck Ward?
I say I think, notwithstanding the question that Councillor Coakley's just ask where we have no toilets at the moment, we will have toilets now with the hours that are open, so I think it's positive it sounds a really nice addition to the to the comments so I'm really are already filled, I must support this, but there is one thing with the metal railings I wonder if we can impose a
something that they would use reclaimed metal rather than.
purchasing new ones, so we fit in with our ways to try and reuse as much as possible, OK just add for people who don't know the area as well as cancer as and are wrong as much larger.
café and facilities in the middle of the park, which must be 400 yards away, I suppose, concerns, so there are the facilities that Mr Granger safety and the proximity of the South Circular Road can certain.
you had the other questions or any comments OK, I'll start with Councillor Owen's first, in terms of the changing rooms I am relatively practised and understand what's proposed as regards this particular red line proposal. The changing rooms are outside of this scheme and I I unfortunately have no information because it doesn't have anything to do with this application, so I can't speak with any authority on the on the state of the changing rooms. I'm afraid, in terms of road safety,
this has been looked into by our transport colleagues, and I'm not sure at this stage if, if we could come back to that after I have asked the rest of the questions, because Mr Titley would be able to advise on that matter, being a highway specialist,
to needs a cancer called KID.
the safety risk, I think that was the in terms of safety, the report itself has talked about the dilapidated state of the actual fabric of the building and its, it's largely been shored up, and it's been secured.
in order to try and deter anti-social behavior, so that's the main thing I think there's nothing impending there's no risk in terms of immediate collapse if that's what you really alluding to in terms of how many toilets are within the dilapidated building I've seen it and it's completely gutted it was vandalised for four years and I have no idea how many
WC facilities were in there, but I can tell you how many are proposed, so there's one that would be attached that can be accessed directly from the cafe itself and there is one that can be accessed totally independently through its own dedicated door from the common so there are two.
and Councillor White.
anti-social behaviour, I believe, and those those issues and rating Surrey ratings, we don't have a policy, I'm afraid that we can pin to to require that they should use recycled metal or iron, but there is no harm in a sentence worth of an informative to make best endeavours to use recycled material. I'm sure we can do that and on safety, Mr Ted Lee.
thank you Chair my name's David tiddly on the head of transport strategy.
I think because, as Members know, thousands of people, including many children, will cross the boat to go to the common every day, and so we haven't identified any specific problem or concern regarding this proposal.
the existing crossing appears to have reasonably good visibility from from all directions.
the only other thing I would probably say is that we would clearly support Transport for London introducing.
safety and speed restrictions on on on the Redwick network in Bala North more generally, thank you.
OK, they've had our Councillor, given the
question 4
disabled persons toilet facilities, I'm just wondering whether the facility is being proposed or once thought are up to the latest standard in terms of being able to take somebody in
assist them with their needs, which requires much larger space and almost changing facilities, this type of thing, and the second point is that because those toilet facilities are independently accessible, whether they are going to be operated with a radar key which is which allows disabled people to be able to access without the host building being open.
in terms of the specification for the toilet, obviously this change of use would be subject to two Building Regulations controlling mean it is, I've looked at it in plan and hope there are indicate this is much larger than the actual facility for the cafe itself, so I can only only assume that it obviously would meet those standards but that would obviously have to go through a different regulatory process in order to achieve that standard.
go on, maybe maybe we could put that as a kind of an informative which might.
get the applicants to think sensibly about it and the point about the radar key.
there is no mention of a radar key. The the facility has been conditioned to be able to operate to to certain opening hours within condition 4, and it is expected that the the facility will the disabled toilet will well, the public accessible toilet will be will be open during the hours at the the café operates. It's not anticipated that kitchen, it's, it should be a facility that's used, or you know in the middle of the night or anything like that, as as other public w season, they're communal, aren't available, so there is there isn't at the moment a clear strategy for radar keys, but it would be open. It's it's in terms of how it's it's managed and the equitable use of the toilet from able body to disabled. It's just going to be open across at the same time across the week, but in order to flesh out
how the
the that WC is going to be used, we are conditioning in 13 are an operational management plan in order to get further information and we can perhaps get more detail on that specific issue 3 13
certainly today.
I thought we'd gonna agree this straight away, but an interesting discussion on.
sorry, Councillor Justin as well.
Councillor Justin Knight Nine Elms.
it is it can I just confirm that it's a condition of the user that the there will be a free access public toilet and not that you have to go in and buy a coffee to use the toilet like a McDonald's yeah yeah, and secondly in the in the event of,
the toilet, not just vandalism just through normal, wear and tear that the I can see a situation where the public toilet might become out of service and then the tenant thinking. Well, that's not my responsibility so repair I mean, if you put as a lifelong publican if you put two publicans in a room, they don't talk about the quality of the beer, they talk about, how often they have to unblock the toilets so
as someone who spent half his life in the behind the bar and half his life unblocking toilets, it's very close to my heart, so thank you for this really interesting story,
Mr gratitude, we know everything about the repair side of this, certainly nothing you mean it's a matter for Lamberth and this will be let on licence to the operator, so it's anticipated that there will be an arrangement that Lamberth is responsible for in order for its future management, but that again will be fleshed out in a condition 13, and I don't think you have to buy a coffee to use a publicly accessible toilet
does this mean to say, by the way, if ever caught short on Wandsworth Common, you can visit a certain restaurant, rather anytime yeah, OK, fine, thank you.
if there are any blockages that need to be dealt with.
yes, indeed.
number of councillors, and not once with Councillor Elias Andrew, I think I think we can reassure Councillor Justin on that point. Can we get given these comments is it agreed the application agreed agreed? Thank you now I deliberately went straight in to give Councillor Hedges, who turned up to talk on Alderbrook Road of feeling for the Committee. You are quite happy quite happy to take you in the order, but were also to say, Alderbrook Road. First, if you want to get that away and go home
in that case, we can say Alderbrook Road first, and to start us, Mr Granger, if he's got any introduction to it at all.
Page 61
this is the demolition of the existing two storey property and the erection of a replacement building of three storeys with an attic level to provide five new flats it's recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
now, as is obvious, Councillor heritages wants to speak to the committee about an application or ward, so I invite her to have got five minutes.
thank you Chair, by the way, sorry.
I don't know whether this when people have stood up before because they haven't fixed the cameras.
is arts being fixed as it OK, fine, you'll carry on?
thank you Chair for giving me time to represent residents of fairly Court who are against the planning application relating to 10 Oldbrook Road, I represent these residents in my capacity as sitting Councillor of Balham ward.
there are a number of points I'd like to highlight on behalf of residents are fairly Court, which is situated immediately adjacent to 10 Alderbrook Road, there are also a number of inaccuracies in the report which I ask planning officers to please explain the position here this evening.
chair and members of the Planning Committee, I refer to the officer's report at 1.00 point to the report, describes the properties in the immediate area, there is no reference to the properties in the immediate adjacency in fairly court or reference the types of property 1.7 policy LP 7 C states that proposals involving the redevelopment of existing residential properties will be supported when the original dwelling has 4th floor split or place space.
of more than 130 square metres as originally constructed, the existing dwelling house is 135 square metres, but the original dwelling house was less than 100 square metres extended by extension, so on that basis policy LP 7 see Kanye cannot be relied upon in this instance.
3.2 5 states the windows facing the application site are not located within 90 degrees.
of due south and therefore do not require a PS H or a PS H sorry or PS W H assessment residents dispute this as it appears, the windows are indeed within 90 degrees of due south.
3.3 5 the existing building has in total four windows to the rear, the proposed development looks to install for four floors of large windows, including floor to ceiling windows, doors, looking directly into the kitchens, sitting rooms and bedrooms are fairly caught.
no screening is proposed just because these windows were installed at number 8 Border Brook does not make for good planning decision should be re-evaluate at 8.00.2 states the site is situated near the rear of 30 Road, this is not true.
residents of thoroughly caught believe the impact of the proposed development on 30 Court has not been properly or thoroughly assessed.
provisions to evaluate impact on other adjacent says are included in the report, but less regard is given to the 10 homes in thoroughly court impacted the impact of daylight and sun on their homes have not been assessed.
the proposal includes floor to ceiling windows, barely die or belly directly into 30 Court, bearing directly sorry bearing directly into fairly Court, with no recommendation for obscured or opaque glass, does the planning committee to suppl support the property, sorry, does the planning committee
I support the position of treating the circa 150 residents of Farleigh Court differently to residents of the property next door and across the road this doesn't seem right or fair, it appears the permission granted on number 8, Alderbrook is used as a basis of exemplar planning, this is not the case but the opinion of the Planning Officer at the time.
residents have expressed the impact of this development on thoroughly Court has been reviewed in a similar manner to other properties in the area.
has not been reviewed rather in a similar manner to other properties in the area if consent is to become CA error if consent is to be granted.
residents wish to secure some mitigation through screening through obscure, opaque glass, to rear windows as well as side using screening vegetation, which should also help acoustic screening there is also concern that number 8, Alderbrook is used as the comparable for development, which is slightly farcical.
as the consent was granted at this by the same planning office, and this application was not advised to a number of residents in the area, including owners of property at Farleigh Court, which is immediately adjacent.
other points to note are the lack of amenity space, the classless closeness of the property to thoroughly court overlooking of neighbours, and concerns about working practices of builders, which can be viewed more in details in the objections and and we have assessed councillors in Balsam have had lots of complaints about the building work was going on. On this basis, I would ask that the committee take into account all the concerns that have raised, consider the 39 objections received and reject this application. Please, thank you
thank you and are just as a matter of technical accuracy, your 10 second short, I wouldn't have stopped you dead on with five minutes anyway, but you're a 10 second shot so well done.
Ms, Mr Granger, do you want any comments straight away, or should I just open it up straight to members members of the committee, or there'll be any comments on this one way or another?
Councillor gave India accounts, the Humphreys, I think Councillor White.
so.
Councillor Linsey mentioned amenity, space and lack of amenity space and of course there is only one flat.
that is being provided with amenity space and all the others are not, we have had the discussion in this committee about lack of amenity space as being valid reason for a for refusing application, we did that last time or to Atlantic House in case of the property on a punishment road, so I think there is a parallel on our view about amenity space. The second point was about the space standards overall and and Iceland
I suspect that this is just within the space standards, but in the past we have had a table showing the required space standards and what is prepared so that we can very clearly see what is proposed against what should be proposed as it were, and that's not lacking so I just want an assurance that the space standards are complied with, including the space standards which require for storage space to be provided as well as living space and my other point is about the report is silent about embedded carbon.
and I don't know where we are in terms of embedded carbon when it comes to complete destruction of an existing building which is perfectly habitable and adaptable, and whether that's something that either we are evolving or in this case is being ignored.
Councillor M Rees.
thanks Chair Councillor Guy Humphreys, Councillor for Southfields in Putney ward, I think I've said anything yet tonight for the only one hasn't.
George take all the questions first Chair and then we're going to get answers all through.
I was thinking we might as well.
rather than just a question on Mr Grange answer backwards and forwards, I'd thought it does take a few and then give them, Mr grandeur, a chance to answer some of them fine, so in addition to what Councillor Gruen has already said, I I had a query about the timing of this application and the forthcoming application for the TPO in the in, or
garden behind, so I just said to me that is quite key to this, so if we could get some understanding of why that TPO application hasn't come to us before this application because it has a bearing on the matter in hand and I also wanted to ask about the landscaping details at the rear because Councillor Hedges was talking about the overlooking, which is something that was of major concern to the residents and in the lack of any proposed obscured glazing to those back windows, I'm wondering we've got any details of the landscaping that might help to counteract that a little bit too specific things, but I've got some of the things later on.
well, I've got five questions now, at least, so perhaps we embedded Mr Grange, I've got the amenity space.
space standards, embedded carbon, timing of tree preservation order and overlooking issues at least.
thank you Chair, this is exactly what I have the amenity space.
discussion has been balanced within the Committee paper and officers have been.
explicit in the fact that the proposed, essentially it's a block of flats within the built envelope, looking like a large dwelling house.
in the context of the the ground floor having the requisite amounts of amenity space, but the remaining four units not meeting the locally adopted standard for 15 for 3 bed units and 10 4 for two or less units, we've discussed this within the paper, is we're in a situation where what essentially is an envelope that that looks like a domestic property potentially in single ownership but it is being an actual block of flats and fulfilling those standards?
there is a balance to be struck in terms of how you provide those amenity spaces within the rear elevations and what they do, how they look, how close would they be to each other? How close would they be to existing occupiers and how much you want to activate a rear elevation and we've arrived at the view that it is a policy failure we we are. We accept that, but in the planning balance because of the potential ha harmful aspects that peppering amenity spaces across the rear elevation in in in elevated positions and some very close to existing gardens, that that is something that we, we don't think is a put a or are a good idea in terms of continued amenity and design impacts, along with the fact that we think that the
the degree of carbon saved within this projects at 40 some 41% is is is a good degree of carbon in order to overcome that policy, failing whether the Committee agrees with that, it's entirely that justification, that's a matter for debate, but
too quickly
come off the back back of that, Councillor.
give India talks about the.
the report being silent on embedded carbon, I wouldn't say the report is silence because it's.
been talked about and addressed in Policy 9.7 sorry in paragraph 9.7, where LP 10.8, point 5 does talk about reusing and retaining buildings and they're embodied carbon.
but there is also a balance to be struck when we have a range of other policies in terms of housing targets and small sites targets and bringing new units forward how we apply that degree of embedded carbon and whether the built envelope is sufficient enough to warrant retention when we could actually provide five new units so that matter has been considered and,
you right, Councillor, given the we do often puts space standards in tables, but I've been through that table and it does actually give an accurate picture of what the space standards are and those space standards have been tested for the individual rooms and storage as well. Moving on to Councillor Humphreys the timing of the TPO that is an ongoing matter but the arboricultural advice specifically on this point is that this proposal can go ahead without causing any.
immediate harm to the continued health of of that specimen, so it's not sort of you know, it's not premature to consider this because the TPO will come forward, so trial pits are being dug, the the the routes whether routes exist within the application site and the existing area. It's arboriculturally acceptable, and the landscaping details being exactly where that tree is. There's quite high boundary treatment over 2 metres, so you wouldn't really see any landscaping here if you're looking from fairly cool, but this is at the very. This is at the longer separation distance. If you look at your Ordnance. Survey extract
on page 62, the development sites to the north at 8 Ollerbrook Road, was actually closer to one of the arms of the cruciform shape, and this is further to the south, where the distances improved, so that's why there is no need.
who are considered to be no need to obscure glaze any of these windows within the rear elevation, especially given that there was an existing overlooking situation in the first place. Councillor White, wasn't it so apologies, if I could just interject just on the TPO issue, CPO actually was signed off by Mrs. Jackson before she left, so that's actually been issued. What happens is that they've got to be confirmed within six months, and that's often what you see at Committees when they come back for confirmation. So for all intents and purposes, there is a TPO now on that property. Although the trend to decode
thank you.
it was in its delays.
it has there is a TPO on the nursery as such reply to.
the Chair, yes.
yeah, I just wanted to spend a little bit on Councillor Calvino's point if you consider the whole life carbon off with demolition, then the 40 p 1% reduction would probably not be met at all, in fact it would probably go into reverse a little bit because demolition
and the release of carbon through demolition is very seldom recovered through the lifetime of a new building so.
and also it does mention here about peeves, but nothing about the heating system, so had they missed a trick there, but I'm not putting in a sustainable heating system and I do notice as well that we mentioned that the on 2.3 that the building is generally well maintained.
so surely a HRA renovation and retrofit would be more in keeping with ascribing to our wealth commitment, and also I noticed that the again there were no affordable homes, I know it's less than one in 10 homes we're talking about here, but we have so many applications going through with absolutely no affordable homes and that's not gonna be our great need in the borough for affordable homes, nonetheless, there's an increase in housing house units,
isn't that?
so if I may, I take your point, but there is an increase in house units, was Councillor Kelty coming in now, add a couple of questions for Councillor White, ask why a few, then so maybe capability, of subversion can I ask another question which I wasn't quite clear about given the development next door which this is very, very similar to,
that provides all sorts of questions about precedent and what would happen on on public inquiry would it not about the fact that there is an application next door?
very, very, very similar and actually, as you pointed out, very marginally closer to elements of early court than the current application.
I am iv the it's clear that the amenity impacts would be would be less than the approval to the north, the built envelope I mean that it's it's formulae akin so far as at the same architectural language has been used for this proposal as the as the development approved to the north we were trying to steer clear a little bit from the word precedent, but we
it's very clear to somebody if, if a particular approach has been put to the Council and has been assessed against policy objectives and it succeeded, then it is that indicates that following that particular route could also result in success,
and given that then it would be difficult to resist a lot of these elements based on on that pattern.
there was reference to the heating system, but did you get any comment on that?
these use the
air source heat pumps that were proposed to be sited on the rear elevations could have ended up in the number of them could have ended up in causing amenity issues, so the switching to ultra low NOx, combi boilers is considered to be an acceptable solution.
okay, well, OK, Councillor cosy.
Councillor Harrand,
thank you Chair.
sorry Johnny.
you didn't mention about the whole life carbon as well, and if we include demolition we we can't require it, I can't.
confirm or dispute what your your assumption is on on, whether this would result in in more embedded carbon being produced by the overall process of redeveloping, because we cannot require a whole life carbon cycle assessment for escape a scheme of this nature. It is it's not in the in the policy for us to obtain that information, and I can't speak on in any authority on that. I'm afraid
Councillor Coakley and then Councillor Owen.
I noted in the paper that there were six shepherd style, so that's a sort of outdoor bike rack in the front garden and then also say cycle, store in the back for the ground, floor flats, and whereas the those sort of bike facts are good for visitors as someone who has had a bike stolen in,
Wandsworth, I wouldn't doubt of having I went out of being a resident, half of my bike attached to that and just leave it out there in the middle of the night, wouldn't it make more sense in that area instead to work with the council and get a bike hangar there instead, so then the benefits to residents and and it's it's actually safe and then there would then perhaps require less effort with the extra cycle store in the backs they could all be stored in the bank arena.
that would be a matter for that's more of a strategic.
highways matter to to provide a a bike hangar, each application has to be self sufficient in terms of dealing with its own standards for, or maximum parking standards for vehicles, of which we know that this is not going to.
well, you would be able to obtain cps ed permits for this particular area, but the each application has to has to deal with it Standards III for waste for.
cycle storage and typically accessible, so located within the front yard area, but I've seen the details of these these particular cycle lockers, and there are some secure and some open, but I take your point that Sheffield cycle stands are a little bit exposed but
in terms of what they're required to do this, this meets the objectives that it comes down from the London Plan.
Mr. Grainger's quite inexperienced cyclists himself, but I don't know him person suddenly lost several bicycles in my time as a cyclist was very annoying, but unfortunately this is not our personal preferences about what the cycle or exercise where they're acceptable in planning terms I guess.
Councillor Gruen, thank you, I just wanted to go back to a bit about what Councillor Hedges was saying, which pointed out that the day licence and NICE assessments have not been carried out for 30 Court and given the close proximity, I just wondered why the daylight and sunlight impact was ignored, thank you.
Mr Granger.
the daylight sunlight study was submitted in support of the application and they have calculated me this is all reported.
Page 73 after the policy explanation begins to set out what the vertical sky components and the losses are and the upper average problem with Sonia Sunlight, House and the average probable sunlight winter hours and it goes through all of the affected potentially affected neighbouring occupiers finding that they that the impacts would lie within acceptable, acceptable tolerances in terms of lying due north me I don't really understand from where we are and perspective and experience in assessing these these.
these documents, I don't disagree with the orientation of being 90 degrees due south whatever, but I don't know where that's come from, but this has been done to the BA specification and I haven't found any flaws within its methodology.
the site is to.
daylight and sunlight is obviously very important to people and the living conditions it is to the east, which is not.
I know I know it's nice waking up in the sun in the morning, but it is nowhere near as important as the south and west, I think.
any other comments.
right and if Councillor G of India
thank you, Chair, I mean I, I recognise what was said about the previous.
you mentioned about number 8, Alderbrook Road, which looks remarkably similar. If you take every casual look at what was there, but the same. By the same token, in fact, this building is remarkably similar to two other buildings, but I can imagine in due course might have the same treatment, and this is suboptimal in terms of amenity value spaces. It is suboptimal, actually also on the floor to ceilings, because our paper mentions that it's one of 79% of the units are one, but it's artful, fully compliant he that's maybe tolerable. This is just about acceptable, but I do think the amenity shortfall is a critical factor.
we shouldn't inflict on the local area more units with without that amenity space and the risk that these are then in a not very nice places in the future, and for that reason I I would suggest that the lack of a monetary value and I understand Grainger's judgment but he recognises that it's a judgment on my views of it I would make a contrary judgment and therefore move that must be refused for.
shortfall of amenity for majority of the flats being proposed in this application.
well.
well, can I ask Mr grandeur rather than put it in words, in my mouth words into your mouth, not very nice, these big new flats gain of some units in a pretty pleasant part of the borough, what would you reckon on the remark that not very what was the phrase Councillor they're not very nice?
without amenity, space space.
some have amenity space and the common is not that far away, Mr graduate will come in.
well, all I would say from a from.
I'm not going to say too much over what I've given in advice and what's in the paper, but I think what I would make one point, as it was made very eloquently many years ago. I mean certainly the way that we describe larger units as family size. It's accepted, I mean, that's what they've been given, that's the name that we think they are given and having dedicated amenity space to a family size. If a family was going to go into a family sized unit, he would expect some amenity space. However, we also have to accept that that family sized units are occupied by groups of people who share these units, so amenity space sometimes isn't as important. I think I, I understand Members point points on on the why this one and not previous approvals, when when the Committee has found that that has not has been a tipping point in order to justify a refusal
but the circumstances they are so similar to the the adjacent property, and I just feel that there are opportunities for those additional units to be sustained and I think they will, then they lie within acceptable parameters, while unless end some Councillor Humphries thanks to follow on. In the same vein, I think that there are distinct differences and Mr Graham is right. It might be occupied by shares or something rather than a family unit that large unit, but I think if that were the case, I think, particularly in the post COVID world, where people are working from home much more than the value of amenity space is much more appreciated by everybody now than it was a couple of years ago, and it equally when the previous application next door that we're saying is very, very similar. We were living in a different world, the world moves on and no policy hasn't changed, but the world has moved on. We haven't quite caught up yet and I think there's even more of a reason why we should be insisting on buildings having decent amenity space for the world that we're living in now, because, to be honest, it's not going to change that way again, nothing there's more of a need now than there was perhaps where next door was approved without that amenity space and actually there's another point as well, and it's just occurred to me. Councillor Hedges was discussing about the residents concerned about lack of any obscure glazing or whatever if, if the had been amenity space provided in the form of balconies, those balconies presumably would have been done with a standard, obscured glazed screen between them and the neighbours, which is almost universal in the way we have that, especially in such close proximity. So that was actually the where amenity space. Well, then you might get the noise, it would solve the problem with the overlooking as well, wouldn't it? There was a barrier there, but I think the serious point is the fact that, yeah, the world has changed. I think the value of amenity space, if we are prepared to accept some of this just about acceptable
it is just about on the space standards OK, it's almost there on the heights, it lacks long-term amenity space and I don't think we should be generally approving the world hasn't like this that sorry the world has changed.
the world has changed indeed, and one of the reasons it's ways it's changed is a greater recognition of the shortage of housing, accommodation in London and the requirement to have more, and this is a gain of a few units which are very small development in any event.
it's a fairly large increase in percentage terms, I think that has to be taken into account as well, I think it's just changed in the one dimension that's changed in several dimensions.
well, we've had a reasonable discussion, does anyone else anything to add from the officers recommendation is here, can I ask for those who approve the officers' recommendation?
yeah, I did you actually proposed that I didn't fair enough, I didn't actually reckon in any way it's just a straight vote either way in any case.
just just to confirm that you, your recommendation of refusal would be very similar to the Atlantic coast at the last committee overdevelopment.
lack of amenity space for flats, those that's just to clarify that that's what you'll be voting on.
now I was going to ask, so what are the grounds, yes indeed?
so those in favour of Councillor Cavendish's amendment effectively to the officers' recommendation, those in favour of his amendment.
3 equal 5.
8
really I didn't.
was Atta, sorry okay.
and those against
to write the officer's recommendation is refused, and thank you, Councillor Hedges.
move back to.
I would just make a point about the space standards table. I know I don't think so, I've moved on moved back to make the point I think, of of of of, whatever the phrases can. I move back to the Battersea Park, you might be upset with the outcome, I mean, I'm simply are making it useful for this committee, you keep said information about space standards in a tablet form. Each time there is a similar application it just saves, it saves us time to look it up and then compare, and so on, it can't be an awful thing to ask, is it
it's also the sort of thing you could ask of Lyon actually as well, but if.
you've made your you've made your request, can we go back to the Battersea Park, the second application.
Mr grain journey words of introduction.
not the applications as it stands.
I don't think there's any.
and, in particular, objections, Council.
Justin
read through this, the word temporary is used 30 times and I don't know what dictionary you're using, but how about semi permanent?
because you know it's not temporary, it's there for four years, it is only used infrequently, 62 hires might equate to around 120 days use, why do we have to have it there permanently for four years?
at the the whole document, here has an underlying implication that this is a major cash cow to the borough, and we should all vote for it because it brings in revenue.
and I know that viability isn't an issue that we need to discuss here on planning, but in this particular case it's so important for us to understand
if what is the revenue generated from this, because, if leaving it as just implied that it's a cash cow, it doesn't actually say that a structure that's standing for another four years, on top of the four years that it's been there on metropolitan open land which as I say I liked the word semi permanent better than per temporary,
is is good value for money for for the residents who may wish and say, like the friends of Battersea, do wish it to be returned to grassland, but they actually have to have a proviso themselves that they say we understand the financial implications, well, what are the financial implications can can we on 55 page 55 we've got
that the site attracts 130,000 visitors, that isn't very much, I don't see why that that's actually one of the few figures we are given the on page 56.
the revenue generated from the building is used to fund the services that enable to provide, but what is the revenue on page 57?
as part of enables not for profit module, any surplus funds generated through the use of are reinvested in the community historically, what have the surpluses be?
I mean it's and another environmentally unsound building that attracts vehicular access, because it's so far from any other way and it almost encourages people to come by car, by the way that the car parks for large uses are set aside for people visiting there and we shouldn't be encouraging something that isn't attended mostly by people who drive there so can just because I know there's a lot there, can I start with what is the revenue generated and what are the surpluses now I'm going to add that it is really difficult, I think,
that is true about all sorts of applications and the applications for advertisements on publicly owned space and were not meant to be taking into account the income we get, and indeed you won't see the income mentioned in these documents in that sense we're meant to be decided on planning basis but I get tangled up in this as well, I'm just wondering if Mr Cawdor can help us out on this or indeed Mr Moss.
I asked Mr Moss.
I was hoping that Mr Cotto will go first of all to that, I don't think the income to the Council to any third party.
affects the application in terms of the land use. Is what we're considering, and I guy can't recall, and I'll be corrected, if I'm wrong with this, that it forms part of the case for very special circumstances, which is the test for when you're looking at the appropriateness or otherwise of development in metropolitan open land. So whilst I understand that there is, there would be an interest in that one
the the income that will be derived from the the continued use of it. I don't think it affects members' consideration of the application, which is based on land use issues
okay, then on my next, my next point will be done. Why does it if it's so infrequently used, and it's so large? In fact, the biggest problem with this is, it is, is its size. If it was smaller, you really wouldn't see it in its present location, but the height makes it visible as you get nearer and also its vast size makes it unsuitable for many local community uses, so could could we not grant the permission to this structure to be yet again in its semi permanent situation, but that smaller, but that's not the application. We've gotten was one Councillor sorry lad, that we can always I would prefer if this House looked like this, that's not the application we've got, can I do it because I happen to know Water Councillor Ayres was going to ask, and the the the two contributions are interestingly mutual, if you like, Councillor S
thank you, Chair from the air.
I noticed that the planning history of this is 25 years old, each time asking for a temporary permission.
I think this is a very strange thing if it still needed four years four years, four years after.
does somebody you think that it ought to be permanent, or do they actually lose confidence and know that it shouldn't really be there they just or carry on for a bit longer, if they can, until we all wake up to the fact that it's a rather bad idea, it is possible to design if it were a permanent building, one could design it with some kind of
more joy in being a park sited building like it could be a wonderful Glasshouse or something if we're keeping on saying that it's going to be temporary.
it's going to have a certain sort of nastiness about it.
that isn't a strange, I mean, I know Battersea Park pretty well, it's in the middle of my ward.
I think it's rather discreetly hidden away in its size, in fact, and I wouldn't agree with these comments at all, also, the objections are less and less, which could just be that local residents are tired of it, but just want to throw in one other thing here.
the joke it is, of course a metropolitan land and it's a metropolitan facility, which is why it was run by the GSC before it was handed once others as a convenience as other places and to other areas it is a for a London use and not just a local use, so it's a very wide spread of interests concerned. Mr Granger, do you want to comment on these comments possibly not which is fair enough?
I would only suggest that the just to give there are people on this committee that know the the planning history.
in to a de, quite a degree of death, but just just to give you a little bit of of a picture, the reason why is that actually it's against government guidance to keep on approving temporary permissions? That is not something that we should be doing. It can be regarded as ultra vires, but what used to happen was that a slightly smaller venue was given a temporary permission for say, two years. The whole thing was deconstruct the permit. The life of the permission would end requiring that structure to be removed from the site. The whole thing was removed from the site taken to a place in Kettering
for the area so that permission the life of it ceased. It was over, they applied for another temporary permission and then it began again, so that's how, in in, in legal terms, the each of these permissions have had a life, you know cradle to grave, so to speak. This is the first time that the an application has come forward to not remove the building and let it roll over from the temporary period, and we seriously don't really want to be looking at this again in four years in a similar vein and discussions are already in place in that regard. So that's where I'd leave it
I can come back on that, so if, if this were to be granted permission, could it be stated somewhere that this was the last time?
no, not not in terms of the conditions, but
the the it's from the minutes of the discussion, it will be very clear that there is a message from the committee that that the temporary nature of this temporary nature of this has to be looked at.
does that make sense, I mean clearly in the British constitutional system, no organisation likes to commit forever in the future, so that's why, but nonetheless there's a strong hint here to the applicant saying.
we want, if we're going to go ahead with this, then we want to be a good permanent building because, as you've into that, not so quite explicitly every time this is taken down and brought back, there's more and more.
use of heavy vehicles trundling in and out of Battersea Park, replacing it each time, and we'd much rather have it permanent than that.
so Councillor White,
yeah and I'd completely agree, in fact, a paper makes a really good case for permanence.
what?
as previously restated as well. The materials being used for that have built for this. You know it isn't great, so getting rid of that and getting a sustainable building in would be would be much better, but also like to say that the the sustainability part of this paper is really very excellent, the one just single out, one thing. The food waste is now segregated from other streams and measured per event through the process of anaerobic digestion, and this is converted into green energy. So you know the there are some excellent sites that this is just
you know, Les List, let's just make it permanent if it's so desperately needed, while we can't just do that just like that, because that's not what we've got in front of us, but we could be putting Big Ed's Councillor, given the just a matter of information really.
have the
the structure constructed under the last approval being brought down because it was only saved, and here page 31, that a period of four years ending on the 1st of October 2023 so as that stuff come down is just an empty site, or is there a case for enforcement?
I think you know that it hasn't come down Councillor.
obviously, separate orders that have been in there quite recently.
well, enforcement is discretionary and this application actually this application was submitted before the expiry of the or it was with us, so we've we've been aware of this and we've had to ask for additional information on them on flood risk and also ecology matters which have prolonged the assessment so it's it's in hand.
Chapman, I Geoff, I don't just necessarily about this, but I think and I accept what Mr. Grainger's said, but it is a bit unfair of Council's own application not observing very firm dates over there, they could simply have made the application earlier, it's about responsibility as an authority to act responsibly when we expect somebody else to do so.
the relationship between when departments brought applications in not doesn't satisfy me, there have been several instances recently and no doubt for many years, but I think we, Mr coder, and I have discussed how we can try and get other departments of the council, this isn't another department of the Council but you know what.
to get their applications in on time, absolutely right, I agree now, apart from that general view, that we're putting down a fairly clear marker and Councillor Justin's reservations, nonetheless, is the application agreed agreed.
given happy to go along with that Councillor Justin O'Neill.
9 1, so everyone else happy with that 9 1 agreed thank you move on to the next item, which is outstanding planning applications, committee resolutions, with very pompous title on page 87, do you want to say anything about this, Mr Gove?
it's really just a belt and braces exercise because after I prep this report we are actually got delegates authority anyway, but this is just so when we're in the past, when an application has been granted subject to, for instance, the section 106 agreement, it is down to the Assistant Director to grant permission, it's just handing that to myself home, Mr Hunter, if it's a strategic development application so it's just for information really noted Councillor Humphreys noted, but
I just or a more generic query about it, says in into, obviously it is a sort of a system in place temporarily, but is it's all a bit vague, have we got any idea on any kind of timeline at all as to when it might be resolved more permanently?
in general, the new Director of places in post, Paul Moore, might be listening tonight, so I better be careful as part of him coming into the Authority. One of his roles is to review the whole structure of the new place directorate and see how it works and see what needs to be in that department. As you know or may know, planning have gone into the new place directorate, together with property services and the economic development office team, so it's where we're now working more closely together under the same directorate. I think he sees it as part of his role is to assess what other areas need to come, come into that or whether that's too much or urgent just to assess that, but though of course this is across the CSA, so it's ones with an Richmond
used to look at the structure at, so I think there's a sort of six month interim period and then we'll be reviewing thanks, that's helpfully, as I, I understand that there's a process to be gone through, I just wanted to know that it wasn't going to be never ending.
okay, so that items are noted, move on to Item 5 local enforcement plan.
which provides us with a glossy.
not hit not that I've got here the glossy version, but a glossy version public version to tell the public at large what enforcement amounts to here. I'm pretty keen on this being reasonably well publicised because, as I'm sure we all know, the word on the street is often that you can get away with anything and enforcement doesn't happen, which of course is not true. We want to make sure it's not true. Ms Berry
but thank you Chairman, Australia, planning enforcement just on that point, actually we're one of the most active enforcement authorities in the country, statistically speaking, in terms of the numbers of enforcement actions be taken, the number of formal actions we take, so maybe 1 4 from permitting there
what we have few this evening, similar but different.
an update to our local enforcement plan and which explains how we carry out our enforcement functions and the level of service our residents can expect if they report a breach to us. We do have an existing plan dating from 2015, which is a bit tired and out of date now, as we've updated the plan with a view to making it as concise as possible. So it's easy for residents to read, and it's accessible easy for them to understand things, put in layman's terms and also to include answers to a lot of the common questions that we get from residents as officers and I'm sure you get from residences as members and ward councillors
I can talk you through it if you like, if a couple of cents on each paragraph or if Members have read it already and have any questions well in case it encourages other comments I commented last week when I saw it and I think you may have had found other words.
that the phrase remind me of the phrase expediency or expediency expediency sound sounds what is a very clever word, which could mean all sorts of things as far as the public is concerned, and I thought it was useful to add in perhaps an example or two of where it would be expedient not to go to court and court.
it was a great deal of expenditure on the part of all sorts of people over an itch or a centimetre incurring something like a possibly more realistic examples than those, but those are the kinds of things I wanted to make slightly more clear as for Joe public yeah,
we can put something in abstract terms, I think I'd be a little bit nervous to set out specific heights or instances where we wouldn't take enforcement action just so not to invite breaches, but I can think of some wording to kind of help illustrate that if you'd like which I await with interest but that's the kind of comment you might want to make, I think Councillor of India,
just just one question, whether whether the document had been subject of any engagement with amenity societies and other groups before coming to this stage, or is this going to follow on it has been on grass, Mr. Coulter Feckenham,
came off the so miserable came to the Planning Forum of 18, which covers a lot of humanity, society Battersea Putney that they all came through, they had a presentation on it, so that's that's how we presented it, there is no formal requirement to have consultation on this document is just a statement of how you enforce.
to end relies on people being the council's eyes and ears. Yes, that's why I think it's important that there is a wider, an understanding of what we can do and what they can do to help us. I'm sure you, I'm not teaching any grandmothers grandfathers to suck eggs, but you and I both know that the public somehow or other seemed to expect Council the council to know about every little diversion, wherever it is in the borough. In fact, we are very dependent on the Republic, as you quite rightly say, to be the eyes and ears of the Council. Thank you for that comment. Apart from any other comment on this, OK, is it
sorry count San Francisco putting a hand up very fast through discreet and released.
just what it was really welcoming great, I think it's really really good time you think to do and, as you say, there's lots of misunderstanding about how it all works, it's great I just wanted to ask a bit more about where people will obviously be on the website stuff but how accessible and where will it be and how can people get hold of a copy and how can we help to spread it around and all that kind of stuff I think they're more widely spread, we can make the better it's going to work for both sides,
it will be uploaded to our website in the planning enforcement section, it'll be the kind of one of the first things you see, they'll be a link there for residents to report breaches to us, and that will be via the new citizens portal that we're putting forward on our website.
I think sorry to add into that I think we were talking also about providing a copy to all members so that they have a copy of it and a paper a hard copy, and then they can use that to advise and push through to other people that's a really good idea because I'm thinking like we all do with lots of light residents' associations and stuff like that and they'll have to have a look at it and then they do like a hard copy of that kind of stuff.
OK, Councillor is I'd like to raise a cheer for page 98.
not only is the car keywords sold, but it makes it so easy to understand the process.
I'm glad I didn't quite understand that in 10 I mean I have a complete colour version of this, but this is in black and white and until the last page to a couple of pages I couldn't understand why it wasn't all the pages that's that's all but it is all the pages and the real thing.
yeah
OK.
that agreed then move on to Item 6, the decisions paper paper 24 17 noted and then the closure of
investigation files 1 0 1 page 1 0 1 noted and closes appeals noted, thank you, thank you.
meeting is concluded.