Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 30 January 2024, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 30th January 2024 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

sorry, I should have put my microphone on.
please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance that once you have done so, please remember to switch it off.
and could I say also at this stage, please don't embarrass yourself at some stage in this meeting by someone calling you on your phone.
so okay, Councillor Belton.
Good evening, chair Tony Belsen, councillor Chairman of the Planning applications Committee, Councillor Cooper.
good evening Chair, Councillor Cooper, and the Deputy Chair of the Planning applications Committee, one member of this committee.
Councillor Owens, good evening, everyone, I'm Councillor Owens Northcote ward, also on the planning applications committee.
are Mark Dodson balanced society?
I don't see.
Roger Armstrong, I do see good evening, everyone, Roger Armstrong from the Clapham Society, happy new year to all Frances Radcliffe, thank you, friends of Battersea Park, thank you, Andrew Cato, to Andrew Catto standing in for Laura Paul Glaze, despite what it says on the agenda, but the admin is aware of that.
for the Whitney Society, thank you.
Chris Rice, I don't see Edward Potter.
Edward Porter, at present.
and write on behalf of the Royal Institute of British, not Libby Lawson, good evening, I hear for a TD history bit.
Pamela, Greenwood, I don't see Peter Farrow even Peter Farrow from the Wandsworth Society and have there been any apologies.
OK.
okay and the following officers also present Lauren Way.
evening, Chela runway principle, conservation and urban design officer.
David Andrews
yes, David Andrews conservation in his own group.
and the Democratic Services Officer.
Ruth Wright.
and we also do we yes, we do have a.
another Councillor,
yeah, yes, I'm observing, I'm Councillor, Rex Osborne and I'm Wandsworth history policy champion.
thank you right.
can I just remind you to ensure that your microphones are now turned off unless you are speaking.
OK.

1 Declarations of Interest

declarations of interest are there any declarations of interest, and if there are please give the paper number and the item in which you have an interest and describe that, and whether or not you will be taking part in the discussion on that item, or there any?
declarations of interest, no okay.

2 Minutes - 28th November 2023

that takes us on to the minutes of the meeting of 28 November.
can I sign them as a correct record?
yes.
please make one point, just as a correction, in a sense.
waterfall House is listed as the proposal was withdrawn but as of yesterday morning, it was still shown as current on the Council's website.
do we know what the correct position is?
as far as I'm aware, it's still a live application, so we will have that changed.
yes, OK, thank you,
matters arising.
Page 1

3 Applications (Paper No. 24-29)

I go through in order.
Page 2, sorry, sorry.
just to report that there appears to be no progress at all whatsoever on Furzedown Lodge, and it nothing seems to be happening at all whatsoever, so it just seems to be getting into worse and worse condition, which is a shame because it is actually a really beautiful building.
I'm sure many of you have seen it on the junction between her first-hand driving first-down road, and I really hope that this
lies and the problems and issues that seemed to have afflicted us being able to move ahead with this is going to come to an end soon before the building falls down, thank you, and is there anything more to report on that on the officers?
nothing to report over and above what was previously reported in November 2 November, committee, I did speak to the property's manager today and he advised that they are trying to pursue the lease as quickly as possible, so there are meetings in place to try to ensure that the leases put in place by the end of this, obviously, by the end of this month, is tomorrow, so they are, as they are expediting it as much as they possibly can, but obviously they are constrained by the BBC and there are some of their legal restrictions.
OK, but we, I think we we do need to keep an eye on this, I mean it's an important building.
OK can I move on to page 2?
Doyle House Waterfall House
page 3
Routh Road.
86 Princes Way.
could I think I'd like to raise the issue here that under?
decisions on or under under item 4, some of you will have noticed that, although the the Committee supported this proposal, which you remember, was for modifications to the House, including
measures to to improve insulation with
or external slopes.
but that but officers.
rejected, refused that that our application.
without I'm sorry to say, making them any reference in their report to the views of this this committee.
however, that did seem to me distinctly odd, and the reasons that were given for for refusal seem to me not to reflect the any of the discussion that took place at that.
at our meeting back in in November and and I just wondered I I think it would be good to know.
the reasons why?
the the officers.
did not take into account the views of this this committee, I think this is a I mean I I'm not, I should emphasise commenting on the on the substance of whether this was a good application or not, but it just didn't seem to me entirely satisfactory.
that the the the officers.
went against the views of of this committee and did not even refer to the views of this committee in their in their report, so I wonder if there is anything that we can hear about that.
well, as far as I'm aware, the officer was himself aware that the case was coming to this committee.
I don't know whether there was a mud, I'd eyed the answers, I don't know why that happened but.
as far as I'm aware that he knew that it was coming to the Committee,
but I'll have to look back at correspondence I had with him, this was one of my cases so yeah, I don't actually know the answer to that apologies that that happened because clearly the
the Committee did have quite strong views in support of the application, which weren't reflected in the ultimate decision that was made, so we'll have to do some digging and make sure that that doesn't that that doesn't happen again.
okay, well, either way, I think it would be useful if.
as soon as you have found out what what happened, a note could be circulated to two members of of the committee, because I think it's I agree with you, it shouldn't have happened, Councillor Cooper.
I thank you, Chair and I sit on this Committee previously when it was being chaired by Councillor Richard Field and I was before that, so it's not only all over many years at different points and we've repeatedly had this as an issue where we've had this report and in fact actually at 1.00 point we didn't use to get even a report that used to say what had happened to things that had been considered here and we used to actually just have to verbally ask the officers, so the establishment that the report comes regularly saying we considered it here and then this is what eventually happened to it is obviously much to be welcomed, but you know, I sat through Councillor Field for previous Councillor Field on several occasions saying Well, it doesn't really tell me why the decision was made in the way that it was made and it's fairly pointless. I was having a paragraph that tells us something, but at the same time actually tells us nothing at all, so could we request them and obviously you'll make a special plea that we get the updated information on this specific case as soon as possible, but can we make a plea that, when we get this report that the paragraphs about what was the decision that has been taken does explain in the report why the decision that was taken was taken in the way that it was taken because otherwise you know why, Bob thank you, thank you, Chair.
offer a belt on.
just to say, I absolutely agree with that, as Chair of the main committee, I will be talking to Mr Gooda tomorrow and to see if we can make sure that doesn't happen again.
thank you, Mr Catto, yes, could I just add to that of the four items we discussed last time round to have reached a decision we've just talked about Prince's Way Dial House has was approved on the 19th of January in the rue in the officer's report of that there was no mention of it having come to this committee either, although I'm pleased to say that my letter on behalf of the Putney Society is quoted quite copiously.
OK, so I I think, in a way there are two issues here, aren't there, there's those, firstly, the question of.
officers decisions are made under delegated powers, fine.
we, we understand that not everything.
by any means can go to to to PAC, but I I do think it's important that the discussions in this committee, as recorded in the minutes, should be report, it should be noted properly in the in the officers report on any Disco Alan on any decision, whether that is approval or whether it is refusal.
and I I would expect, in addition to that, that any seeking any major decision.
and
a fair proportion of the decisions are all of the cases that come to this committee are major significant decisions.
should go to PAC rather than being handled by.
delegated authority
does that is that, or is that the view of the Committee?
I
and ward councillor at ward councillors, support that in particular.
Councillor Belton, and then Councillor Cooper.
it sounds it sounds as though one would be supportive, but given the amount of applications the Council has to deal with, usually we're having a quiet period and were usually.
I'm not quite sure that the category for big consideration by this committee is quite the same as.
planning applications and planning decisions. It may be, in their terms, sufficiently insignificant, as in scale as to be something that we'd normally delegate to officers and would do certainly outside the conservation areas or wherever it is, and unless you're saying that everything and I'm sure you're not saying everything from a conservation area yeah quite so I think perhaps we need a quick look into it quickly or say how it happens.
on purpose, it can be dealt with by no a disco or post meeting discussion with with the Chair or the Deputy Chair as to which which applications we would recommend should go to PAC, would that be one way of dealing with it to PSC as opposed to yes, yes, yes, yes, it could be it.
Councillor Cooper were very much along the lines of Councillor Belton I, I don't think you could possibly say that everything that comes in to chat goes to PSC and partly because there is the schedule of delegated authorities, so I think where we have made a decision to unless we're actually conducting a review of delegated authorities which may or may not happen, and I think you have to make those decisions in line with the the existing delegated authorities because there are, because it's a quasi-judicial process, what we don't want to end up with
is laying ourselves open to a planning appearance, because we've treated some things in one way and some things in a different way, or you know the possibility, you know if it's a very large thing that somebody deciding they want to judicially review how the process was undertaken, so I would prefer, obviously, that the decisions are made in line with our procedures, but with the very much the caveat that the the Chair, who obviously is a member of this committee, and obviously the Deputy Cheryl, so currently myself, but the Chair should mainly be leading on making sure we, knowing what's been in these papers, knowing the LA, you know the type of discussion if if Tony's Councillor Belsen has not been at the meeting, I briefed him on what's happened. For example,
so I felt that comfortable about that, I just think the important thing is to make sure that it is enough detail in the paper that comes back here so that we know what has happened, I take Ms Cassell's point about.
the these papers are dated the 22 of January, the decision was taken by PAC on the 18th of January. However, they may have been being prepared by different committee clocks, and that is quite a tight window to get from knowing what happened at a PAC meeting on the evening of the 18th to definitely getting into this. I'm imagining that probably bursts and House will come to the next report to this meeting, but I do if, if there was, if there'd been a longer gap, I would be very firmly with you that we had been overlooked with
it not being in the report just just, I just think we have to be reasonable with the amount of time that it takes the officers to find things out, but also make sure that Councillor Belton
and the officers are working in line with the the procedures, because we don't want to end up with anything untoward, thank you, Chairman, yes, point point, vague and could I just respond on that point in a minute, so do 2 January, but the meetings in November.
so perhaps could we request a minute a little sooner?
crime.
answers have been asking for minutes to be earlier for many decades, in my experience, Roger got one the other day about two days after the Committee, which was pretty good, no doubt that they
c HSC, meeting was in November, the planning decision was taken in January, but somehow our comments had not reached the officer's report.
I might give them back on it.
it was the planning decision that I was referring to. I do remember, I was discussing it in November. I also remember us, as in the planning applications committee, discussing it as well, and I did think that discussion was in January, and so I was, and I just think, because the the date of the January PSC meeting was the 18th of January, which I remember rather well, because that's when there was also a by-election, but the papers here are dated the 22 of January, which is literally only a few days later, so I think we have to be kind to the officers sometimes yeah, so that is just. I think, the idea that the point is that if we are sitting discussing stuff and it takes two months for the minutes to get to the officer, it's almost certainly going to be too late.
we've we've made the key points that we want to want to make about their son, I I think that.
I look to the to the officers and further discussions with the officers to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
I just say.
surely we only invariably have most four or five items on our agenda, even if there were a few more, it wouldn't be a great deal.
could it not be that the officers that attend this meeting forward, possibly informally or a note to the case officer who is dealing with the planning application or as soon after the meeting as possible, rather than wait on the issue of the minutes in that case,
the confusion that has arisen may not in future.
yeah, we usually do that already, it's obviously for the officers to include that in their report, but we will speak to Nick Coulter and other officers to ensure that they are reflected in those reports.
sorry, sorry, I may be getting a bit confused here, but I didn't assume just because obviously the date of our papers was the 22 of January that the minutes had not been produced started in November meeting even if we haven't seen them I just assume J you know I I assume they had gone to the Planning outpatients' committee or to the officers.
the there was some delay in in the production of of the minutes, but they were ready in December.
I can't remember the precise date, but it was.
it was about three weeks after the meeting, which is a a bit later than than normal.
OK, can we move on?
no, I haven't know.
I'm I'm moving on to page 4.
story page 5 in in the minutes.
items 4 5 and 6 or 6 in particular, we asked for.
an update on
on 4.
yes, issues, I wondered if there is anything to report on them.
one Battersea Park Road.
say 1 Battersea Park Road, there isn't any further update, the application is still alive, given them the opportunity to provide further information in relation to the conversion of the library part of the building into residential, but that hasn't been forthcoming at this stage, so there will come a point where we will seek them to withdraw the application.
I will take a decision on that.
OK, can we then the Glass Mill building?
or the glass mill proposal.
in so far as it is a formal applic for a formal, partial application at the moment with the IOUs scoping document.
yeah, there's escaping opinion out at the moment, all I can say is that officers are engaging with the applicants at pre-application stage, but we can't say any more than that, and obviously there was a public consultation that has recently finished on that which was referred to in the previous committee but were not able to give any further information, unfortunately on that due to its the confidentiality of of pre applications.
okay and then perhaps fix you as those on housing department proposals sort of meld together, sorry, can you bring us up to date on on that on on those another one, which is a bit tricky, so fits you ago? It fits your estate as well or we can say that there has been pre-application engagement with officers on on that site. I understand that there was also a public engagement process through the housing department on that scheme. We can't give any more information on that housing department process. We've got various various sites which were at pre-application stage, which will seek to come forward as application. There's a few that are currently now in application, but we haven't brought them to committee on the basis that there was no
heritage impacts this morning, but any that do come forward for application stage that have heritage impacts we will seek to bring them forward to.
a future committee if the timings are correct, which is probably likely because these ones will probably go through to a planning applications committee, because they are Council owned sites.
so there may be some that come forward for the next committee in March.
can I can I just intervene and the, but I mean there is a sort of generic issue here, isn't the that housing department proposals that have, as with the fits you estate, been the subject of consultation exercises with?
fairly detailed proposals outlined in those CON consultations.
so that they seem to me to to sit in a rather awkward position vis-a-vis this committee, because our in certainly Members of this Committee
or at least some Members will have been involved in those consultation exercises.
but they they don't get the chance to to comment at that stage through this committee we we have to wait until a formal application is is is submitted, so it's
it's slightly awkward, it seems to me.
and I I, I'm not sorry, I've not got any specific suggestion as to how to deal with it, but I think I know for my own society, the Battersea society that has caused problems in the past and I think for Mr Farrow and the Wandsworth Society it has to.
thank you as to with its huge state.
you said that there had been pre-application discussions.
if a private or a commercial application comes in.
I can appreciate that there may be a.
a commercial sensitivity to the advice given, but if the application is one that's coming from the Council, I can't see that that could or should apply, but I understand that the pre-application advice is not yet public, could it be made public?
I think that's something that needs to be discussed with more senior officers to agree whether that is something that may public think most pre applications are for all authorities are are confidential, some authorities then publish that pre application advice when an application comes in Sharon but obviously not full for Wandsworth.
so it's not something that we, as officers could necessarily answer, we'd have to discuss that further up with other more senior officers.
thank you.
sorry.
I think that means we're moving on to applications.
and the first is to 0 to 2023 0 4 5 8 9 in manual school.
who is going to lead on this?
that's me.
okay, overdue.
OK, so you'll be familiar with this building, it's a locally listed rather than statutory listed school on Wandsworth Common part of the Wandsworth Common conservation area.
and
the the way the site works has changed in recent years because of this bridge, which is the new access point for students to the school.
previously, it was the schools accessed, via the whether largest to the north of the site.
but this is now the principal access route to the school.
and the proposal here is too, you can see where the application site is there ringed in red Canadian red.
which is the site of some existing buildings, which are, I think, 19 60s 1 and 2 storey buildings, there's a technology lab, some offices and some various other ancillary buildings, now the problem that the they're having won one of the problems they're having at the at the school is,
the kitchens that they have at the moment are quite small and an undersized for the amount of people they have to feed in any given day and they also are in desperate need of science classrooms, teaching space, so the proposal here is to and I'll riff I'll return to that tree in a second so remind me if I don't because that's just reminded me those bones you're looking at other ones proposed to be demolished.
and in its play in their place, is proposed to put a four storey building with the fourth storey, expressed as a roof storey.
to provide a new refectory and kitchens and.
teaching space on the upper three floors.
now this sits just to the just immediately to the north of the locally listed building.
in the middle of those, two of the two buildings are proposed and the existing is an existing multi-use games area which will remain and that provides is intended to provide a bit of a buffer between the existing locally, they're still locally, listed later late, Victorian building and the proposed new building.
now this site is one that it's been in.
school use for many, many years it was originally built as an orphanage for boys left orphans as a result of the Crimean war, and it's been an educational use since the late Victorian period, so it's been a on a constantly evolving site since then in educational use and to the point now where it seats a campus of buildings which are of different ages and they've evolved over time.
so we are now being offered this.
proposed building, which sits in the in the site's along the avenue of trees, which was the the the Avenue, which you would follow from the The Lodge building the former entrance to the school site, but the the evolution of the site has now changed, so really the the view you're gonna get of this building, the principal view is, you're gonna get the the view of it over the bridge, so to the left of the locally listed building
that will be your principal view, not from the not from the north, travelling south towards the school.
so bear that in mind that there you know there have been alterations as to the way this site works and how people travel through the site.
in terms of the building itself, where obviously it's, it's no getting away from it, it's a sizeable, sizeable thing.
but it does meet the needs of the school going forward
there are two entrances, one to the east and one to the west, which are dominant expressed so that there's no no confusion about where you go into this building, and the ground floor is given over to the refectory, which will have an open aspect onto the the existing games area and looking towards the the locally listed building so it's it's been.
considerately, I think, worked out and it has to how it sits in in its context and how that context has changed, there's been a lot of work done by the the architects and the school to work out exactly how it all all fits together in the in the context of the campus.
and this is what this is, what's being proposed, it's brick and terracotta with a metal roof structure.
there will be an atrium in the centre of the building to let light in
and then we have these large windows on the on the upper floor,
we are being told that the service a lot the services are will actually be invisible, they'll be dropped into spaces which are being cut into the roof, so you know the the lift, there won't be a lift overrun, visible, there won't be all the services visible apart from what you see there in terms of the the vents and then the flues which are in the middle of the building and obviously that's in.
in an elevation form, so they won't be as visible as they as they are portrayed there.
so going through this is what we've got originally, or what we've got existing, I should point out that anybody who knows the site and the swimming pool which is a little bit further to the north, isn't affected by these proposals, they're retaining that sorry it is only affecting these.
officers and technology workshops.
if we go on to the
yes.
the obviously the principal elevation is the one that faces the locally listed building and the way that the internal organisation of the of the classrooms work.
it's resulted in the
western elevation being a being plainer than the the southern elevation.
they've done some work on enlivening that you do have the the entrance.
to the the first floor on that elevation, it is a plain or elevation, but that was thought that it's not the principal elevation and you will experience it.
not as in not as great detail as as the is a southern elevation from the the games pitch and from the the main part of the school site, the rear elevation, although the northern elevation, which is the rear elevation, is again more functional and the eastern elevation is border it borders the railway so that that system are very functional elevation and there are screened by trees anyway from the railway.
the tree that you saw in that previous photograph, which is a lime tree.
that is being proposed to be removed, but there will be other planting which will come forward, there has been an attempt to recreate the Avenue which exists on the other side of that pathway, the roadway, so there is enhanced planting which is proposed, but there is no way of getting a right that there's no getting around that that lime tree that has to come out because,
you just physically can't get the building that they want in there without without removing it.
I think that's probably where I'll leave it, I'm happy to are obviously happy to answer questions.
obviously, in terms of materials we are in, this is what we're being offered, it's brick and terracotta with with a metal roof story, you've got these.
begets on the over the windows on the southern elevation to provide some internal shading, it is anticipated that this will this will be a building where the windows won't open, it will all be internally climate controlled.
in order to keep the that they get the BREEAM
rating as high as possible.
but yeah, I'll leave it there and if you've got any questions, then please don't ask.
any questions of fact to start with.
any any factual uncertainties.
no.
through the Chair.
could we see the site flounder or relating the new building to the old?
C S it's outlined in coloured in red, sorry, sorry, a slightly.
despite this better brawn rather than the photograph.
per year, though, again that's that's the one yeah, so I built the building labelled number 1 is the locally listed building and the the area in red is the proposed site.
and then just south of the the area in red is the games pitch.
so you can see the extent of the games pitch, there's quite a buffer between the two buildings.
OK, comments.
Councillor Cooper.
thank you, Chair, I, I've actually had the benefit of visiting the site because they contacted me.
and offered me the opportunity for a visit because of my day job, I think, rather than because I'm the deputy chair of the actually, I don't even think I was the deputy chair of the planning applications committee or sitting on this committee, and I have to say before I went, I'm was wondering how their proposals, which did sound quite large, would fit into the overall site and I think we all know the buildings and they are very worthy of being locally listed. They have made some other previous adjustments to the buildings, which have been very sympathetically done, which members of this committee may have seen at that time. I was actually quite a and I have to say, the facilities. First of all, the facilities they want to replace
I visited the kitchen, it is completely not suitable for its, it's absolutely not fit for purpose, I also visited the science block and I don't know when the science block was created, but it it, it's also really very dated, and the facilities really do need to be upgraded, I was very impressed with the way that they had.
and actually, I think the buildings they want to replace to me actually do not speak to the listed building at all the locally listed building.
and I came away feeling that the buildings that they want to get rid of are worthy of removal and that their proposal for something new to go in there, it is much more worthy of being built and installed and actually that it speaks to the other buildings it will surround, doesn't dominate them and will also provide them with what they need in terms of what they need. So I would personally feel very happy to support this proposal but that I have visited the site a full. I know everyone else on the committee as as well and also has had the the same opportunity, but it really was worth visiting because it is a very tight site with the railway lines and roads and everything thank you Chair
other comments or or to Councillor Owens and then.
PE Mr Farrow.
yes, thank you Chair, I haven't visited the site recently, but I do know the site as a parent I'm not apparent at school but.
for many years I sat around that Paulette manual and I also know the sports bit, this is between the the old building and the new proposed building which, as I understand it's actually got a small.
all weather pitch that was actually only put in in recent years, it's not a huge, particularly the large site, between the two buildings also, if you're in in the bullpen on in my ward and Northcote ward, when you look over the railway line you can see the the the the glass building that they put in which I'm assuming is close to the original building but obviously for faces the railway line because it's obviously not part of the new bit to the to the side of the the sports.
granted, I mean, I can see, I mean, obviously, looking at those buildings when you look at those sort of buildings and as Councillor Cooper said, that would put up.
a few decades ago, you know, obviously they are not suitable buildings, I suppose only because I know it from the from over the years, it does strike me that the height does seem quite I don't know, I mean I would have to look at it more, I have looked at it but you know it does seem quite a large building in comparison to perhaps other buildings, perhaps we've looked at 4.00 schools in the borough but
but it does, it does look better than previous proposals, thank you.
if I can just comment on on the issue of height, I mean I'm I'm sure those of you who looked at the planning application board will have noted that there are some objections from people on the other side of the railway line to the height of the building loss of
of sunlight and and and so on, I'm not commenting on that, I'm just observing that the number of j of of objections have been made on that front, it's the Farrow.
sorry, yes, thank you, I was distracted, then there appear to be seven objections, and 137 support comments, no doubt they valued former pupil's.
that said.
I endorse the comments Councillor Cooper made, I think the existing buildings have very different, the ones that are being replaced, have very little merit, and the proposed building has a great deal of merit, I think it will be an asset to the site.
and I'd be more than happy to support it on behalf of the society.
thank you any other.
comments observations.
in which case do I take it that we support this application for what I I must agree, and I know the site very well by myself and have been there recently, although not on an official visit, yes, 12% quiet.
I think Eddie it does look to be a rather distinguished building to replace really 19 60s grot.
yes.
is that I mean I think we, we support, don't we?
OK, let us then move on to.
what I think might be slightly more contentious, perhaps.
to 2023 4 1 0 3 1 79 Battersea Park Road, on the corner of Queenstown Road.
is this Ms Way?
thank you Chair, so quite a permanent site, this one came in just before we had to send out the agenda, so we are able to add the same.
so this is Victorian set of buildings, obviously not the building towards the south that you see in this image, which is in a recent tradition, a pair of buildings from the 18 60s, which sit at the junction with Battersea Park Road and Park Town Road, so these two buildings form the entrance to Park Town Road conservation area which lies to their
and say yes, put apologies, so it's it sits at the entrance points and it's a really important and prominent location at that junction point between two quite considerable roads, so you have a pair of 4 storey buildings that you see at this location and then as part of 179 Battersea Park Road which is part of the application site is or is a smaller setback three storey wing towards the rear which you see here which then is abutting a modern development.
just various views of the of the building, because that is what's important about this building as its location, is it so prominent at this particular corner point, which means that it's visible at various points across various parts at the junction, so you see here this is one just looking towards from the other side of the junction and up close quite quite a lot of features that have survived on the building and you've got a very prominent.
parapet line to the building which is particularly important, further emerges there, some of them are a little bit fuzzy apologies for that now, so you got them the the taller development towards the rear in some of these views but really important view looking down southwards at the building and that's where you can see there that prominent part lie parapet line and you have a hip roof sitting behind it before.
before the development was constructed, and actually, if you go through Street View, you can actually see it kind of before and after the benefits of Street View in this, this sort of environment is there wasn't any development in the location of that modern development just to the south of the site. It's a new development that's been added in it wasn't a replacement, it was just a builders yard previous to that that you can see in this, so these are two images which were in the design and access statement, but you can also see that street view level from various points is the rear elevations of the building. It's quite an interesting building, so the exception is 177
Astley Park Road, which you see here, which is, it's quite a simple elevation, this one's got quite interesting elevation where you've got kind of and outbuildings are kind of at Chateau at first floor level that comes out and then at second floor level you have it, it's at the same line as 177 here and then at the top floor, then tapers in slightly so it moves it changes direction, so you don't have a full sheer story, it's set in, but not air in a mansard form as you find for the other building at 1.00 7 7, so there is there is a few extensions at the back and then it turns to the through the three storey element with basement to the south.
so, just by way of context, he got the Battersea Park conservation area to the north.
Queenstown Road conservation area to the south.
it's locally listed this, the to the two buildings are locally listed.
as well as the railway viaduct to the south and you've got an open space towards the west south-west as well.
so the proposals for this building are quite extensive, so I've changed the presentation around a little bit, just to make it a bit easier from what was was sent out.
the practice before so, just looking at elevation as rather than the floor plans first as to give a bit of context, so you see here this is the elevations from the front and towards the rear, and what they're seeking to propose is effectively a mansard extension roof level.
but in addition to that effectively, the rear elevation of the building is to be removed and they are extending at all floors, including that roof extension to effectively go southwards to cover the space that is currently occupied by this 3 storey plus basement side wing,
so effectively the footprint of the building almost doubles in size, and addition, when you're looking at the side elevation for Queenstown Road yeah, they are adding another's full sheer story to this elevation here, plus the mansard on the top.
there is cycle parking proposed at this point, so there is some really early railings, a situation at this point this this area here, for those probably all of us know the site, it's in a really rundown, fairly run-down condition, and this particular area of the site is particularly rundown and kind of used as a little bit of a dumping ground for rubbish.
so this is just to show the comparison of the floor plans just to give you an understanding of what the differences with the floorplates now, with what's proposed, so this is just looking at ground-floor, so they're keeping the commercial unit was his front and then that entrance towards the side that will serve the residential units at the back is a kind of a kind of communal space here which is not quite clear what it was and then you've got go back, you've got this is whether you got the cycle parking here at that point.
that isn't to serve the residents, because there are separate cycle parking at basement level that's, I think, like a one hour cycle parking.
just for going all the way to the top roof plan so that you can see their floorplates so that you see here there's the kind of original roof from the hip roof, that's whether the rear elevation so it sits and then it it tapers in quite considerably at the final floor and then you have the wing at the back and effectively what they're doing is bringing the bore the bringing the building southwards all the way back almost to the to the red line of the site so you'll lose that appreciation of this this wing towards the rear,
this is showing you some of the existing floor plans to just to illustrate how the buildings are strictly laid out, so you see here this is where you can see the sort of changing points of the rear elevations at various floor levels and then it tapers in quite considerably at third floor level and then this is the Chair. This is proposed, so you've got the lower ground floor. That's gonna cover the full floor for the red line, with with cycle parking proposed that that will serve the residential units and then previously ground floor and then at first for second floor and third floor and fourth floor level you see here they are covering the whole of the red line
with just a really small sliver, just at the back, so that building line is gonna bring people all the way to the back, so the definition of that wing from the rear will be completely lost, so quite a considerable extension to us back.
as well as the roof extension as well, which is not going to be stepped down any way towards the wing, it's gonna cover the full extent of the plot.
and this is quite a good illustration of just how much that will be posed to change in terms of the whole total floorspace building effectively.
the building, it's not clear, they don't have demolition plans included in, but we would assume that quite significant amount of the building will need to be demolished bar the facades to allow for this extension towards the rear.
without having demolition plans, it is not quite clear extent of demolition, but it's just assumed in terms of just how much extensions proposed towards the rear and that changes the changes internally in terms of with the staircases, nothing will go and they are floor to ceiling heights will be reduced, certain points and that's and that's the last slide so I'll bring back.
up to the
elevational drawings because I think they are the most pertinent wants to look at, and so it's for the committee to consider whether these are appropriate in terms of alterations to the locally listed building.
okay, thank thank you very much for for that, this is a complicated proposal if anyone hadn't realised it before I think you you do now.
again, any any questions of of fact that people are not clear about at this stage, that Ms Way could answer.
sorry, just one question you mentioned to Design and access Statement.
when I looked at the application before the meeting, like I couldn't see, one on the website was there one?
yet still live application.
Mr. Armstrong, yeah, it doesn't look as if there is any external amenity space.
and that sort of calls into question how the
refuse arrangements are meant to operate and as well as there is the issue of whether it's allowable for.
the Bill, the whole site area, to be covered by building with no external space at all, because we you know elsewhere, we prefer to see at least 50% of the amenity space retained for a recreational use or otherwise by residents, and it seems to be quite intensively developed proposal with no external amenity space that's just yeah.
I need any advice on that.
yes of tonight, can I ask Ms Way for sorry?
no, you're right, there is very little external amenity space from what I can see from the plans, this rear space here internally and if I take you to the lower ground floor proposed, this space here is marked out. It's like amenity space so that is accessible to all the residents of those flats, so it's not quite clear exactly what the spaces are useful, they're not is not flat, but there seemed at that sort of internal amenity space from what I can gather from the plans, but obviously not external amenity spaces, and there's no balconies or terraces buffo proposed as part of the scheme
Mr Potter.
one possibility is that each raft has a balcony there's my answer, Mr. Armstrong, road question.
balcony of a certain size, of course, to comply with the London standards.
comment comments from.
Mr. Armstrong.
well, the history of this, this building it was built in.
at 18 64.
and and designed by the architect.
James knows Jr and it was.
whole estate development, which was interrupted by the construction of the railways, but it was originally, I mean, this, is the northern end pavilion of the estate.
and the
estate and the terraces worked originally went over to a design by Knowles having an end pavilion, which you see on Battersea Park Road frontage and then lower terraces in between with these.
rather shallow, rather nice.
roofs with an oversailing eaves.
and it was sort of intended originally to be a sort of extension of Belgravia, it's sort of quite a smart estate and then the railway companies and rather destroyed things, but nevertheless it's important to the conservation area.
that you know this end central pair of buildings at the northern end of the estate.
are retained in their original architectural form rather than being.
mutilated in the way is proposed on the in this planning application.
we're also the the extension of the brickwork on the Queenstown Road frontage.
as proposed seems very crude.
it's not a very, it's not it highly detailed application, as one would want to see in a conservation area.
the brick works poorly handled, the roof is rather sketchy, and it's not really of a quality that one would like to see.
assault.
done with this important building in a conservation area.
can I make make a comment as a representative of Battersea society, in whose patch this this clearly is when, as.
as has already been said, this is in effect one of the one of the most important buildings on the on the Park Down estate.
from from the north, it marks the entrance indeed to to the estate in in its prominent position on.
on that on the corner of Battersea Park, Road and and Queenstown Down Road, it is a great pity in one sense that when the Battersea Exchange development was done some some years ago, the developers managed to get their hands on the next door neighbour.
of 1 1 7 8
but Battersea Park Road and they have restored it, renovated it in a quite sensitive way, not altering it is basic structure.
what is now proposed?
really goes goes against what the developers of Battersea Exchange have done in that realm, renovation of the the neighbouring building.
putting I mean, I'm I'm not against Band mansard roof extensions as a matter of principle, but in in this case it does destroy.
the the symmetry.
between the two buildings, the one that's already been renovated and and and this one.
it's it's not next door neighbour
and I think the the handling of the
going round the corner into Queenstown Road, the handling of the the existing rather interesting set back.
building.
I have only three stories, is is very unfortunate, I mean it it, it retains most of it original features, including the the railings on on on the street.
and what is now proposed, as is vividly shown in the the final, drawing that on on the slide deck, the the sections.
really.
turns turns this building into something.
the building as a whole into something.
more than more than well at least twice and the.
the floor area off of the current building, that is not in itself a knock-down argument or against a building, but in this context I think it does destroy something of.
I say one of the most important buildings on on the whole of the park town estate.
that's that's me not, as Chair me, speaking as the local civic society representative.
are there any other comments anyone wants to make?
Mr Cato, thank you Chair, I am going to comment perhaps more from my daytime role as an architect practising in, as far as I know my with my Putney Society hat on, but it is not unusual where you've got existing Victorian buildings for flats to be allowed as long as the floor areas are OK for flats to be allowed without amenity space there's plenty of examples all up and down our high streets in fact without them happening the upper parts would simply remain empty because in many cases
outside space is nigh on impossible to provide within the building form, so I'm at the back of this building was never intended to be seen anyway, so frankly I'm not worried about the back and I think that the the poor little middle block,
has deserved an extra storey ever since somebody in this Council allowed the thing on the right.
but I don't want the roofs too much.
the roof is one storey too much, quite literally.
any other thoughts comments.
I I, I would agree with the negative comments that have been made about the building, I I think it is to their credit that the mansard roof is immense and roof.
but I think that's the only point in its favour, I think it is one story too many and I don't think it.
does what a development within a conservation area is supposed to do, which is to enhance the area, I think it detracts from it and I think I'd.
I would not support the application.
as a member of the Committee.
Mr. Armstrong, you I was going to just point out that when losing a chimney stack as well on the Queenstown Road frontage, which again adds to interest in the
the building, by the way, I forgot to mention these buildings once belonged to the poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson.
he didn't live there, they belong to him.
Councillor Belton,
she added, I don't comment on these applications so as not a direct comment on the application I wait until it gets it back, I am interested, though, in a slightly different issue, and that is when the comments are as complex as as this.
what is the procedure hardship motion that was the procedure, do the officers just write up the comments from check?
as you've recorded them, or they Claire cleared with the Chair of this Committee if, as actually agreed by him or her before they go to the PAC meeting.
I can that may intervene immediately, the the minutes of these meetings are, as approved by me as Chair the minutes are, but the actual comment that gets put into the report to PAC you, don't see that you know, I I, I see bodies drafted on each application as well as any other business of the committee before the minutes are finalised.
sorry, I'm still not.
I'm not talking about the minute that I have to ask officers.
thank you.
we have an answer.
sorry that my point was.
you have a very detailed and relatively complex series of comments, the whatever gets reported to the Planning applications Committee.
obviously, as comes from what the officers have written, but do they clear that with you, before it goes to the planning applications committee is, I would be interested to know that.
just to add to that, though, we do seek to try to reflect in those minutes some of the complexities as best as we can.
I guess I'm just emphasising.
OK, what I'm hearing is that while we are
not making any adverse comments about what happens at the rear of the of the building, we do have reservations about the HMA, the mansard roof.
that, from my perspective, the the lack of
of symmetry with an number 1 7 8 is isn't only of a really important issue.
like others, I'm I'm not enamoured of what has been built immediately behind the building on on Queenstown Town Road.
and I'm I'm willing to concede the the point of an additional storey on the
the the original set back, built building.
but.
I think the main objection we have is to the additional storey, as represented by the mansard roof, is that.
is that the burden of what of our
collective discussion.
is that or have you got that right?
OK, no more.
no more applications are to consider on for f for us today, I think we.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 24-30)

we note now the the decisions as far as recorded in paper.
24 30 are there any?
comments, people want to make other than.
or in addition to the general comments that I think Councillor Cooper made and which I think we support, as as a committee, are there any comments on the the individual applications and the determination other than what we've already discussed?
no.
he.
in that case, all that we have to do is to.

5 Future Meeting Dates

I note the future dates going into 2025.
I know that they're the first things that I have put in my diary so far for 2025, I suspect that may be the case for most of us.
Ms Ratcliffe.
sorry, just just for can concluding, can I just note that there's a planning application in for the poetry, café in Battersea Park.
the idea is to put a whole lot of extra laboratories and a barbecue hatch, and what it involves essentially is, if you think of the poetry as a series of rings, it involves extending the outer ring from the back forward round the north side of the of the café.
but it is worth looking at, because it's an important building, I'm not clear how it will fit into the timetable for this committee, and I Re, because I'm not clear when they're trying to do the work, but if, if we could just have a quick word on that that would be helpful.
while officers are discussing what I want her answer to, that might be, can I can I just remind the Committee that?
we've discussed earlier proposals of an extension to the pear tree Café, I think in two years ago some something like that.
is there an I mean, I think the key point is is whether this wow, whether that application has a chance of coming to this committee before it goes anywhere else.
I can certainly make sure we can try and get that in for the next Committee on the 27th of March. What we had was when we, because we have to we have to do the agenda quite a bit in advance and have everything signed off, so we even have to get things signed off quite even further advance on what when you see it, so this wasn't brought to our attention to take it to this Committee quick enough, but there's quite a few applications that have come in very recently because we've seen an increase in the last few days. That would have easily been good candidates to come to this, to come to committee, so I'll see if we can try and get it to that March Committee. I think it's gonna be quite a busy committee for March because it was when we had to agree the agenda for this Committee. It was around the time when it we were quite quiet, which was just out of Christmas
and it didn't come to our attention that one be included in, I think, if we hadn't received the consultation when we had to agree the agenda at the time, so I will try and make sure, so I'll make a note to try to include that into that committee if if we are able to,
thank you, is there any other other business?
no, in which case I declare the meeting closed, thank you for your.