Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 22 February 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 22nd February 2024 at 7:30pm
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
we are ready to go.
right.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcomed the planning applications committee 22 of February 2024 my name's Tony Belton, I'm the Chair, the Committee and also a Councillor for Battersea Park Road, which, surprisingly enough, is in Battersea I will ask Members to introduce themselves and officers to introduce themselves as as they wished to speak or as we asked them to speak.
we also have one missing person here, who is he is there online, who is our legal adviser, or you, Mr Moss, can you hear and see Kevin grieving as I can't thank you.
great to hear your dulcet tones, don't sound very Devon, but nonetheless say that's where it is.
now I have a number of people from public gallery and number of councillors who want to do presentations, I wasn't going to change the order because there were so many it seemed to make no difference, but I've changed our minds because every single person in the public gallery is here for one item, so I'm going to take that item first and then go back to the order of the agenda I think unless people have any specific problems.
apologies you have from Councillor Cooper, who is doing.
it is busy at another meeting and hopes to be here about 8 or 8 15, but nonetheless apologies for lateness from Councillor Cooper.
if we rattled through any items on the agenda, it's not because we're not treating them seriously, but it's because members have generally agreed with what the papers say, they have all read them all very thoroughly, I know.
anything else is it OK if I sign the minutes for the last meeting Councillor Fraser seen them yes.
so it's OK, I'll sign them after the meeting, in fact that's OK.
sorry.
not with you, I'm sorry.
do you wish to remind us?
Arnaud no, I what I was going to say, sorry, I beg a different interpretation, but I was going to say is we'll have a break after roughly 90 minutes, so somewhere around 9, depending how the agenda goes precisely if we finish an item at that point then we'll have a break around them.
OK
subject to that, if we can proceed to the item that the members of the public
I have been reminded, are there any declarations of interests from any members and that of course means interests, as in financial interests, we're all interested, I see count accounts.
Councillor Paul
Councillor, Whyte from the Team Beck ward, which?
briefing on your point is actually into ink so yeah, I'm a member of community, renewable energy ones of who do have a business with the council, but I don't receive any financial benefit from being involved.
any other interests. No OK, we'll move then to the item that the members of the public are for here, and that is number 5, the surgery at Claudia Place in Putney, and I think Councillor Grimston wishes to speak about this first Councillor Grimston, thank you, Chair, and apologies to my colleagues for he usurping their or their position on the agenda. I think first I'd like to thank Ms Malawi for the amount of time that she has put into this. I've been on a couple of site visits with her, I know she's had a lot of correspondence with the residents involved
having said that, though, I think what's emerged on this site compared to what was granted permission for in the original 2018 application.
given that I think I can only disagree with the findings of the report and agree with the residents, these changes are not mere minor alterations but in fact represent considerable harm to their privacy and amenity initially the frontage, particularly overlooking h-t Augustus Road, was in effect to be the base of an ape shape so there were two legs of it abutting the property but without windows and then a recessed crossbar.
nearly 3 metres back behind the courtyard, we should have some windows but was obviously some way away from the actual boundary border itself.
what has actually been built ignores the courtyard altogether and brings the whole edifice windows and all right on to the boundary with number 82, so it's not a little way from the boundary it's right on the boundary itself, I think there are two main issues then the first is the principle notably of the filled-in courtyard and which, to my mind, should should clearly be the Committee to reject the application and then some issues to do with the conditions, notably regard to two glazed and obscured windows.
with regard to the former on page 1 and 8 of the report, Members will have seen clearly how the courtyard, on the basis of which permission was granted, has now been filled in at ground floor level at first floor level at second floor level, and its roof balcony level are 0 elevation diagrams on page 111 show the whole of this side of the building now just come right onto the border with number 82 Augustus Road.
whereas in the Inner original permission, the windows and sliding doors would have been well set back nearly 3 metres, set back at the back of this courtyard.
with clearly much less effect on the residents, particularly of 82 Augustus Road and the balcony and roof terrace is accordingly extended in length as well Potro para 2.2 on page 1 1 6, which does know the building is larger and closer could have said right up to the boundary I think it's extremely difficult to argue that the amendments have not resulted in a significant degree of harm to the neighboring property when compared with the approved scheme subject to conditions and that's the power of 7.3 the conclusions and planning balance.
I don't believe that the changes should be considered acceptable in terms of neighborhood amenity and finally, the windows overlooking the garden must be obscure glazed at present they are clear glass sticking some sort of easily removable film on the inside should not be acceptable and should not be permitted additionally, these windows should not be openable at all into the garden and land space of 82 Augustus Road.
condition that they can be opened more than 1.7 metres above floor level should be reconsidered.
one of the installed first floor windows already has an openable window installed and allowing these will inevitably affect the privacy of 82 and 84 Augustus Road.
on balance, however, though I would urge the committee to reject the application altogether, condition 6 of the original permission said no extensions, additions or enlargements shall, at any future time, be erected or constructed to house hereby approved without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority.
this condition has simply been disregarded by the developers, the initial permission, though not popular with residents, did at least ensure a degree of distance between the garden of 82 Augustus Road and any windows or doors over looking at the rather cynical decision, I suspect of the developer simply to ignore this small concession to the amenity of local neighbours on the assumption they would get away with it is galling I do hope that they will not be proved right.
thank you, Councillor Grimston switches off any particular remarks about about the application in general, and perhaps Mr Gimp, the Councillor Grimston observations in particular.
thank you, Councillor, my name is Alan Richards, I'm the team leader for the west team.
I think officers sympathise with residents and also the points made by Councillor Grimston with regard to what was approved and then what was subsequently implemented on site.
clearly it was being built in contravention to what was previously approved, I think, all the diagrams within the report.
show quite clearly where all of those changes have occurred.
the key one, as mentioned by Councillor Grimston, is the infilling of the courtyard area, I'm just for clarification, the courtyard area as approved.
covered an area of about 6 square metres, and so that is then replicated on on each floor above in terms of infill, and it does bring that s or section of the house, as previously approved and as now, built onto the boundary with number 82.
however, as you have pointed out, conditions are new conditions 9 and 10 are proposed as part of this application, to acknowledge the fact that the that part of the building is coming nearer to the rear garden of number 42.
and that does include obscure glazing, and they are enforceable in terms of those conditions, as well as introducing a additional screening.
so overall, whilst we understand that it's it's very frustrating for residents, when permissions are not implemented in accordance with
the law allows for her application is to be submitted retrospectively, which this one is, and also to be considered as a minor material amendment to what was previously approved, so officers have recommended approval for this as built with the additional conditions, thank you.
so it is clear planning committee members across the country, I am sure, are always very annoyed when they get retrospective applications, why didn't the applicants applied and tell us, but nonetheless it's not illegal and there's plenty of accepted precedent, so we can be as annoyed as we like nonetheless that's what what the law says so now I'm going to say about that.
we're talking here just to clarify about overlooking a garden.
that is correct and therefore residents could reasonably be concerned about overlooking peaceful recreational, whatever they're doing in the God right, I think that's fairly clear counselling of India and Councillor Boswell, I think, and certainly Councillor airs.
just that, the key issue here seems to be about this obscure glass.
so it would seem to me my reading in the paper is that the applicant is in breach of the original planning approval and has installed non, obscure glass and therefore technically should trigger enforcement action from this Council, and then there is a condition here that should we approve it, that the condition would be obscure glass be fitted on this and now I think it's a bit more than that sorry to interrupt, but that is more than just the obscurities or otherwise of the glass isn't it they have actually filled in that courtyard?
I know I could get that, but I mean I'm just sticking to the glass but years ago that that the condition, the final condition, says that that that the Eastern
side facing 82 garden should be obscure glazed, so I'm just asking whether the committee ought to do belt and braces on this glass element by, in fact, and also agreeing that the enforcement action be commenced in respect of what is already in place to,
to, in effect, strengthen the condition that is suggested by officers.
note from your observations that the overlooking that there might be would be towards the it would be over the gardens of number 82, which, by and large, are substantial, and we are other areas in the borough where there is more significant overlooking, often on smaller bits of of recreational land,
true lots of us live alongside, but seldom was at that angle, I think, looking straight over whatever one might be doing in the garden and once allowed, the freedom of space, usually Councillor S.
yes, Councillor S, for East Putney, I don't think this is a minor change at all.
I was shocked that you think it is minor because it's not just that you have got a lot close to the neighbours in a quite rude way, the bedroom three at the back had a window onto that courtyard, now it doesn't, because there is no courtyard so bedroom number 3 there has a wretched little door onto a rigid little space and a long narrow window at high level.
this has become a very nasty room that the bedroom number 3, and I think I can't quite understand the moral of it because you end up with an extra bedroom and a few bigger bathrooms.
but that's just I know this isn't a planning issue, but it's greed, and it upsets me that something that has already been quite a nice project. has become compared neighbour and greedy, thank you,
was I wrong, Councillor Bowes Road, did you not have now you didn't write?
Council.
Councillor White.
thank you, thank you Chair, I think any sense of any environmental improvements here and what they in systems insulation, electric power, and I know it's a and addition, but.
you know, it is the current systems adequate to the new space.
I think I need to just.
bring Members back to the fact that this is a Section 73 application for minor material amendments, and so it's not an opportunity to review the entire scheme on against every policy we have to consider the elements that have changed from the original parent application.
and whilst I appreciate what Councillor Eris has just stated in terms of what is resulting from it, or perhaps being not as a good, a layout or standard in terms of that one bedroom, although there is a window being introduced which provides it with sufficient ventilation and light and also a door onto a small courtyard,
I mean in terms of the rearrangement of the building, but we can only take into account really those changes that are forming part of the section 73 we can't bring in all the other considerations that we would have as part of a or a full planning application.
I just wanted to also pick up on Councillor of India's point about belt and braces and about putting in a condition about taking enforcement action, and so on.
I wouldn't I'd I don't think that would be a reasonable condition, I'm sure our legal adviser would actually say that that's not the type of condition that we would seek on an an application like this, a more appropriate condition wording perhaps if you did want some reassurance was to perhaps suggest a time limit as to when the windows should be obscured, you know that we could say that within x,
a number of months of this permission that those windows should be fully obscured, or so I think in this case, because it's already being built, it's it's practically finished on site, apart from you know, obtaining the that the final permissions really so I think that would be a better wording to the condition if Members felt that was necessary.
can I just ask?
countless stars skill, Mr Gooda here.
it wasn't introduced herself yet Mr. Corridor about.
a minor change. You decide, it's a minor change. A member of the committee thinks it's a major change. Is that a decision just for the officers or could members actually say No, we've actually decided is a major change. We've had this quite often, I've been intrigued and possibly people in the public are intrigued by the answer, OK, so a sector, sorry, Nick Calder, Head of Development Management. As it says, the application as a section 73 often call them a minor material amendment to differentiate from a Section 96 application, which is a non material amendment. So it's both those types of applications that the government brought in a few years ago to sort of simplify the planning process, so essentially a Section 73 application. You get lots of these coming through
through Committee for large and small applications. It's where it's in this application in this instance, is where it's changed materially from the application to the original application, but not so far as to require a whole new application, because essentially it's the same development. They've just added and changed it, whether we if we felt it was a material change that was substantially different than we could refuse it on on those grounds, but we'd have to point essentially in the same reasons as why a standard application would be unacceptable, so you end up in the same position in this case. It's an infill. There's been ongoing enforcement investigations, so it's come forward as part of that, so our enforcement colleagues have got an eye on this. So if this application were to fall, then we would look at taking enforcement action. We wouldn't take it as part of this, it would be a separate discussion and further considerations because, as you know, sometimes things aren't built completely in accordance, and we don't take action because it's not expedient, we obviously take it, probably you have to look at this in more detail, but just to solve, emphasised that they are two separate considerations.
right.
now, what do Members feel about this Council, given their again just just taking on board?
Ms Richard's point about enforcement, perhaps the condition could be that obscure glazed glazing should be in situ before there is an occupation of this property which should be not overlooking happens when you live in it, so we should have that, and that would be probably the kind of change we should have, but I'd like to hear from Mr. Moore as to why that belt and braces approach might not be appropriate in legal terms.
Mr Moores is very I there is. I can't see you on a screen alongside here, I was talking into the vacuum there and Mr. Morsi you're going to have a comment, yes, Chairman, I don't think it would be a necessary condition to to add unnecessary, being necessary as one of the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework for the lawfulness of conditions. The Council has significant enforcement powers, some of which are delegated to officers, some of which follow from the refusal of applications. But I don't think that we need to impose a condition to try and duplicate or, in effect, make a decision on enforcement before it is necessary to do so. If I could also just add chairman
just to what Councillor sorry to Mr Colders, comments regarding Section 73 applications just to set members' minds, hopefully arrest that all intents and purposes, they are planning applications and they go through the same degree of scrutiny, as would a full application, so it's not an easier route as it were to to getting planning permission.
the government has introduced the powers which Mr Cawdor outline to make planning application, planning, permissions more flexible, but they obviously have to go through the due rigorous process and they come before you to be considered chairman.
thank you.
now Councillor Gabby India's suggested a condition and amendment to the condition, in effect, that the windows must be obscured before the property is occupied now, regardless of whether one thinks that a
one might approve the application are not just we can take that for a moment, that condition seems to be very sensible, whether one votes for the application or not, would everyone agree with that, the conditions acceptable, that is that the windows should be obscured before there's any occupation,
agreed, so that's greed.
now the question
well, I think sorry just to clarify the condition or it says prior to occupation, so does its discussing about the fact that it already does.
OK, fine, sorry, we obviously misunderstood that Councillor Humphreys.
I'll stopover this is we.
that one would have thought flashing coloured lights on that one. So let's ignore that one Councillor Gary Humphries helps us to speak. A Councillor first-half feels impotently for introduction. Just one one thing. I think that it would be helpful on this and there's another application in the in the in the agenda tonight as well. If it could be explicit pleas from officers on the report that it is retrospective, I know the key test of what we're deciding, isn't whether it's retrospective or not, it's not an element of penalty, but sometimes it's easier than others to see what's been going on, but it was not so familiar with the history of every particular application and not that it would necessarily colour our decision making at all
but I think, for the example of where we're talking now, with conditions and extra conditions, when there's a history or of of some kind of change, that's not been approved prior by the committee, it would be helpful to make that explicit if we could.
I'm sure a pedant could say you would be taking these decisions regardless of will, if you see what I mean and therefore why why tell us but seems to be fairly harmless if we can make it clear in for Egypt yeah noted him?
members, we've got a recommendation in front of you.
unless anyone moves anything different, I'm going to put the recommendation to you because it's there, it is on the paper, so the recommendation is to approve this application with the conditions as, as we've talked about.
those in favour.
no one's in favour, those in favour.
the
a reluctant 5, I think and those against.
and what to against a couple of abstentions?
thank you now, as I said I, I'm members of the public gallery, you heard that I hope you understood what it meant.
I suspect it's not the news you wanted to hear, but we've decided that the application stands and the building stands, but the windows must be obscure glazed.
okay, moving back to the order of the agenda.
Battersea power station, which is.
a development of large sites between the refuse transfer station and the power station itself, I think there was a presentation from Mr. Hazzard.
there's none of the technology working here.
Good evening, Council principal pattern.
he's gone.
I was told that I didn't didn't apply.
they are working.
dragon Stephen Hussey Principal Planner and the Strategic Development Team.
this application is seeks temporary planning permission for two structures, consisting of a indoor leisure and recreation facility for use as pedalled tennis courts and exhibition hall for use as an immersive cultural and educational.
facility as well, the site itself consists of phase 6.
which, as Councillor Bolton just referred to sits between the power station building itself and the waste transfer station, which is to the east of the Battersea Power Station, must plan site.
currently this this site is vacant, its it previously housed the construction offices for the phase 2, which was a power station building, and since that has been completed, those offices have been removed, and it's just an area of hardstanding so, given the phased nature of this development, which has a total of seven phases and were currently on phase 3 or phase 3 B is just recently completed and is due to occupy, the applicant is seeking a meanwhile use for this vacant part of the site in the interim until basics comes forward, so that's why the permission seeks five-year consent.
it can be split into the the two elements, the pedal tennis court, which sits to the north end of the site adjacent to the river and plot 2, which is 4.
the exhibition hall with the immersive events and exhibitions.
but they're interrelated in terms of accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, they share a a central plaza area and can be accessed from a continuation of the River Walk along the front of the site and the proposal was achieved, a 25% reduction in CO2 in relation to the Plot 2 building I mean that's having considered that and given the temporary nature of these buildings officers are are very supportive of the sustainability credentials of the proposals.
inherent into that is the design and the construction methodology, so these structures can be demanded and re-used anywhere in particularly the pedal tennis courts, the examples they've given to us before are they've been used elsewhere, they get demountable and then erected in another location, so the sustainability is inherent into the design of these temporary structures through the course of pre-application discussions and the application itself we've managed to
Nick it officers have managed to negotiate some community public benefits so we've achieved 6,000 free tickets for Plot 2, so that's consists of 5,000 tickets, free tickets for local schools in once we're from Battersea area, so schoolchildren to go in and see the plot to exhibitions and have that opportunity as well as 1,000 tickets free tickets for the wider community and in relation to the the pedalled tennis courts as well free taster sessions for both schools.
and wider local community groups, and so on the balance officers are recommended approval subject to.
606, to secure a carbon offset contribution and the conditions set out in the report, thank you.
thank you, Mr Hazard.
members observations comments, Councillor White.
was there any idea of any other alternative use of this space because we all know that Battersea Power Station off.
not very good at bringing forward or affordable homes, for instance I mean, could this, meanwhile, site have been used for temporary accommodation in a prefabricated building.
this was the only proposal that has been put forward by the applicant, so we considered it on its merits them, as set out in the report and the outline consent for Phase 6, does set out a give consent for a permanent building which can accommodate additional new housing and or new office space under the outline consent so there is opportunity once for the permanent development as to how that gets forward how that comes forward, but this was what was put forward by the applicant and is considered on its own merits.
is there a follow-up to that?
thank you.
well, I'm about to follow up, then, perhaps as it should just as to Mr Hunter, if you don't mind.
would the sort of providing affordable residential units cross your mind as for a temporary use, and, if not, should we in future think about it or would?
morgan's head of studio.
we need to consider the applications that the applicants put forward, as Mr Hewitt said, no such application has been made for that kind of accommodation, this was the one that came forward, we've got to consider it against policies and other material considerations but, as Mr hesitate also mentioned phase 7 affordable housing there is a location here should the review mechanisms kick in and additional affordable housing be generated from the viability of the scheme, then this is a location that could be chosen.
but we can't tell to an applicant what application to submit.
we can negotiate affordable housing as a benefit in certain circumstances, company but character if it's inappropriate application, but this one wouldn't be a perfect location to negotiate affordable housing as a benefit, but officers have negotiated significant community benefits from the scheme over and above what needs to be required.
thank you any other Councillor Boswell.
Councillor Sheila Buswell, Tooting backwards on, yes, really flowing on quite nicely from that on page 20 on as chair of the children's committee, I'm very pleased to see that the Battersea communities team
I have been involved in the paddle play the rocket pedal play and that schools, as you said in the presentation, are going to be offered on the, I think 6,000 on places or the community will be.
I just on page 20 and maybe we can't influence this, but it says three free taster sessions for 20 to 30 minutes a week including courthouse coaching, racket sports and everything for local youth organisations, and that just SIF is incredibly short by the time you've got a racquet and ball in the children's and young people's hands it'll be time to come off the court again and Don I just wondered if that as part of what is being offered here,
if that could be extended and also nowhere, and maybe it's not relevant to planning, does it tell us the cost to the public of using this paddle court, I'd be interested to know the answer to that, thank you.
0sorry, that's fine.
taster sessions that are free on the Padel, Tennis originally with the deck, need to provide anything from this development in terms of community benefits. However, I did say I didn't want to stand up in front of Members without any community benefits so they offered an initial 5,000 just for the display and,
again, when we went on the Nine Elms tour as well, some of the members saw this and I had some kind of grumblings that could do better and also some more puddle tennis as well, and.
kind of negotiated, shall I say, with the applicant's, so it went up from 5,000 over the five years to 5,000 for each of the five years for schools, plus an additional thousand for each of the five years I did push on the pedal tennis they were quite reluctant on that but did give more on the interactive and this is the best we could do on the padel tennis,
commercial reasons being that we can't dictate how much they charge to the Times, unfortunately so yeah.
I couldn't tell you that I do, I did have a look how much it costs when they had a exhibition court in front of the power station and I can't afford it, I'll stick to the local park but.
we think it is a good scheme, we really have pushed them on these benefits and I think we've done well on the interactive space on the paddle tennis this was as far as they would go and they don't need to do this, thank you, thank you very much and I know you will have done your absolute best to to push back and knowing the sort of views of the new administration what we would be expecting and asking for, but I understand it's way outside planning.
to ensure the applicants are listening in and will have an ear to comments made, thank you, Councillor Owens.
thank you, Councillor areas Northcote ward, and just following on from last and I'd appreciate it's outside the planning, but I was also on on the tour, and we also I was also with Councillor Boswell when we discussed the Padel Tennis and I do recall the way there was some conversation around every child in the borough having an opportunity which obviously isn't here in in the paperwork but it was it was mentioned alongside the
the exhibition space but obviously potatoes fantastic, I've got a lot of ma, my own constituents were delighted because the car they currently playing Roehampton, and it's great that it's happening but, as you say, very expensive, but I was curious because I did think there would be a bit more for schoolchildren there but thank you,
OK.
councillor floods of people now Councillor Egyptian Councillor Justin Nine Elms.
as the Councillor for this ward, we Max and myself tend to get the complaints that come in, and I've just noticed in the late papers that we've all got here is a letter of support from the Western Riverside Waste Authority, which is very relevant because they're actually saying they welcome the proposals as a screening element between,
the very smelly waste transfer centre and the first of the residential blocks, I just wondered if the officers are able to do any any scientific studies, because I'm looking at the height of the structure and plot 2, I'm wondering if, if it's that kit on purpose to be some kind of windbreak or smell break because these
these complaints are coming in and they're coming in in proportion to the occupation of that, and I can only see them getting worse, so this might be a six year stay of execution on the smell spreading to the residential parts, in which case that's good although of course the Dickensian Weston transfer station debts would still be there in six years' time sadly,
to the building wasn't designed specifically to block smells, and I don't think it will do that anyway
wind is stronger than burning, however the waste transfer station was there well before the power station was redeveloped, and we took full account of that in the environmental statements throughout the applications and it has been considered, and it was one of those things that,
we've been there that people need to be aware of when they're doing their local authority search, much as we'd all wish, though we didn't have to have them, we have to have them, don't we were, we make a lot of mess as human beings so Councillor Humphreys,
thank you Chair, yes, I welcome this application and I think it's really good means that I am use it somewhat, it's going to be a real asset to not only immediate area but a wider community and is referred from Mr his children around the borough are going to get a chance so well done that's great. I noted in the report a slight concern from officers about the the lighting effects and suchlike on the building on Plot 2 and
again, whilst I welcome the innovation and it's great to see some more cutting edge stuff in the borough it is, I understand, new technology and I just want to be reassured, I think perhaps that if the experimentation with that lighting and suchlike may not be to everyone's taste and we say we have enough controls in place to say dim it down or whatever it happens to be some kind of mitigating factor if the experiments don't quite work out as
we hope they will come forward, it will be great and, as I say, welcome the innovation but does want to make sure that it's not going to go so crazy that it's going to be a distraction.
and you can't say yet that's probably a concern that officers raised at the initial outset of the pre-application engagement and early stage of the application, so we pushed the applicant hard in terms of demonstrating what that facade and how the lighting would work to the extent that we requested a on-site mock-up panel.
of that facade and the guides in place, usually, that's the sort of thing that we reserved by condition, but given the innovative nature of this building and the façade treatment, to fully understand how that all came together and looked onsite.
the applicant did undertake that work so officers went to see that onsite, so the lady saw how it programmed and how it all came together, so we are comfortable with that design, there are conditions in there that ensure the the quality of that delivery in terms of the detailed specifications around the façade treatment in terms of materiality how the HGVs fix on to the building as well as fixing arrangements and conditions around the lighting strategy which are set out in the operational management plan submitted with the application in terms of timings brightness,
and the extent of display, in terms of the delighting extent, I think officers felt that the building could have lighting all around it to really showcase it, but the applicant was reluctant to do that because of the potential impact on the existing residents in the power station building.
thank you, Minister, has said no other comments, can I take it that the the recommendation is accepted.
right so those in favour.
and we and those against to against again the application is approved, if we can, thank you, Mr Z, and now if we can move on to the Councillors again, Councillor Frazer, you've come to talk about 45 Tooting Bec Road, which was an application to demolish a property and replace it with two flats.
Mindy, thank you Chair, and thank you all this evening my name Scott Fraser, I am a councillor in South Ballón ward I'm here this evening on behalf of residents living at the neighbouring property which are called the Elms who have approached me and taken me to see the land which this application borders on. It should be noted that residents living at the homes would be happy to enter in discussions with the developer on this site to agree on a proposal which doesn't encroach on their land. However, no such approach has been made to date.
the application before you this evening is a revised application, as the previous one has inconsistent boundaries, encroaching on the land owned by the Elms, and although the plans tonight have been tweaked, sadly there remains encroachment on their land as well, given this, it's my recommendation that this should be looked at again by a discussion with the management of the Elms and the neighbouring property on Tooting Bec Road.
on the site plans, you'll see that there's a black line running at the rear of the site, to Denmark, where the arms gardens begin, and where the the back of this application ends, residents at the Elms have installed a fence in this area which was kind of following encroachment from that from the previous owner of the site this fence currently sits slightly beyond the side return of the neighbouring building at number 49 and runs across and to the side of the of the application that you've got this evening.
the plan being presented this evening goes beyond this line by a few feet encroaching onto the Elms land, no attempt has been made to mutually discuss any issues with residents living at the Elms, nor at 49 Tooting Bec Road, and this application, in my opinion, should not be passed this evening without resolving this matter.
the reason this fence is also of note is that under the current plans, there is noted a fire escape to private gardens, as the application has no private gardens. I am assuming that this means that the fire escape envisaged is to the Elms Gardens, but, given that there is currently a fence in place there, there's no way that a fire escape could take. There's no, there's no way anyone could escape during a fire, because the defence borders the back one and to the side and boxes that that site in. In addition, there's no external exit from the Elms private gardens without using their main entrance or garages which which are locked all the time. So for that reason this, this plan is also incorrect.
in addition, this revised application here reduces the outdoor space, particularly to the ground-floor basement units, this building is now shown right up to the disputed boundary and over the 1.7 metre fence that is owned and currently in place by the Elms, which will render the rear of the property into darkness both on the basement level and first floor levels and just finally there are also windows on both sides of the Elms property and the Tooting Bec 47 to 49 Tooting Bec Road, who will have their current light and views obstructed by this application, and I would be grateful if you could take these matters into consideration, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Fraser, just to clarify my understanding that I could put in a planning application, given that I had given due notice to put a block of flats on Buckingham Palace, I don't have to own it.
you don't think that's the correct and that the ownership issue is not a matter for this Authority but for the courts, but perhaps Mr Granger can experiment to expand on that, tell us about this application.
certainly chair, while the application is relatively self-explanatory, in terms of its the demolition of a relatively were quite a very small large industrial building that was formerly used as a joinery and its replacement with a basement ground first, and an attic level property to accommodate two self-contained flats,
the design is.
the design has been intentionally developed to repeat the very rhythmic form of the adjacent purpose-built maisonettes along teasing Beck Road.
we, as officers, are of the view that the success of that is has has achieved a high degree of of symmetry with those properties and the accommodation within is acceptable, while the amenity impacts are also considered acceptable but absolutely agree with each area in terms of the the dispute that potentially would would continue with the ALMOs and the applicants it lies completely outside of the control of the
of the planning authority or the Council, and is a matter that would have to be pursued between the two parties.
comments from members Councillor Coakley,
thank you Chair Councillor Coakley, St Mary's ward, so I just wanted to follow up on that question, so if we were to give permission for this that they still wouldn't be able to develop on this boundary wall between the arms garden because they haven't reserved the dispute so it would be given permission essentially for something that at the moment can't be built.
it happens, it is not uncommon if there is a situation where people following strips of land that exist with GBs ownership all over the place it's a matter for lawyers to.
do their due diligence before they really submit an application, but some people do it in a in a different way and they apply for permissions and then sort out these matters post application stage it, it would be for them to to sort out so.
that so they wouldn't be able to just now, they have a permission, they wouldn't be able to just start developing and affecting this boundary line because they haven't got a legal agreement yet.
is that correct, so even though we get the permission, they won't be able to just press the help of a development when they don't yet have an agreement, it would be at their own risk what they do, what action they take is totally at their own risk because they obviously are in a position where the Elms could then instigate legal action as to what they think in terms of lies within their their title their land register so it's a risk but it's a risk that simply lies outside of the remit of the planning system.
I just ask Mr Colders something yeah.
or some planning applications are applied for gained actually not to do anything, particularly at that time, but to establish a site value, and then when the site value is established, then the people whose name 0, who will then is worth making it offer, I'm not saying this what's going to happen now, but the permission and the application doesn't necessarily relate to any buildings.
Mr Golden, thank you.
thank you Chair.
that may be the case that people get planning permission to.
examine what the the that what the worth of a development might be, but we consider that application on its merits, and that's not something we would take into account, not material.
at any hour, Councillor Boswell.
Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Bec ward.
yes, thank you very much, Councillor Frazer, for your presentation and very interesting points on this, obviously on my ward borders on to south Balham, where it is just literally the other side of the road and I use the Sainsbury's next door a lot, so when I was there yesterday I just popped along to have a look at this and a look at the site.
on, and it just looks very tumbled down, and it looks like a scrap metal yard without secure fences anywhere, but what struck me was it looked like somebody was living in their arm at the back?
and I know that doesn't come under planning.
but I was just concerned, really I mean it might be just somebody who's homeless and is using it, but it concerned me when I saw that and then more to do with planning.
the, I think it's just one metre wide on the distance between the wall of the Elms and the beginning of this site, it's extremely narrow with a wooden fence that at the moment, so.
on the whole, I think I'm probably gonna vote for this because it does provide.
accommodation and homes which we desperately need, and it's already very short on space there.
thank you any other comments, Councillor Cook, all dream, Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair.
OK I hadn't noticed but yes indeed gone picture.
I noticed when looking at the at the plans for the site that they have an artificial green wall as one section of their wall, and I just don't really see why, and why can't we just have a regular Greenwood there, it would help to improve the biodiversity value of the site,
I don't think necessarily a living green wall lightwell, subterranean lightwell could, with a walk-on glass section over it with a grill, would improve the biodiversity of the of the borough or location, it's there for aesthetics, only the above-ground landscaping works in the front courtyard are better suited or are increasing biodiversity.
if I can just add to that, as well as almost impossible now with, through building regulations and fire separation to to get green walls on residential buildings, the ones you might find now on non-residential but to get them on new residential is really really difficult.
it's interesting.
obviously Councillor Humphreys is gonna give way to Councillor Gibb, India, so Councillor Govindia.
thank you Chair, I mean I think this is a question of fact looking at the objections, the second objection says, no attempt has been made by the applicant to discuss the issues with neighbours, what's our expectation about applicants doing this level of a degree of engagement and did we have a kind of aide memoir to applicants saying this is what you should do and then what judgments do we make when they don't do what we expect them to do?
I'm sure you know that the the rules, the encouragement and advice on large application is being amended right now, but on the smaller ones, Mr Golden, on smaller schemes like that, though there isn't a scheme of community involvement as set out in our existing document, which is just what the Council will do in terms of consulting our neighbours.
just wanted to come back to Councillor Cookie's earlier point that the burying of this application of grant, and it wouldn't impact on the boundary dispute, that would be an ongoing issue, so I just wanted to clarify that and clarify that for you,
OK, Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair. I was a little askance on a glance list at the first time round because it is a tiny side, but I think it's true that sometimes the smaller and more difficult the site, the harder, hopefully the applicants will work, and I think the scheme is actually a very successful use of that thing. But however, it is dependent as it refers to in the report on the detail, and only we understand a condition about details of materials and stuff and things like that, but just want to make sure that on this one I think it is the deal-breaker as it were, that not only the physical treatment of the building at the front, particularly where it blends in with the existing terrorism suchlike but also the landscaping because we've got the bin store and the bike store and stuff in the front garden. I think the landscaping is a key part of why this works, and so I just wanted to make sure
get some reassurance, perhaps some officers, that will pay extra attention to that, because I think it's something that could make all the difference, whether it's gonna be really successful or not.
they say it's a fair point, but it's not a listed building, so we can't start asking for one to five drawings of sills and the stuff like that, but we've got a good set of working drawings with the application submission, but there's which obviously we've secured to be in accordance with, and we have the opportunity to examine the detail, the materials and the condition 3 and the landscaping condition for the boundary treatments. What they're going to do with new treatment, I mean, they could put it adjacent to a disputed existing treatment, but that certainly you know it's happened before, but that's covered by condition 5 say
the the physical construction elements, so we do have a good opportunity to review all about okay, recommendations on the paper is it agreed.
agreed thank you agreed move on from there to 20 Edna Street again application.
retrospective in many ways any comments on this application.
Councillor Coakley, sorry, I should have said it's retrospective, but there's some complaints that are it's not built in accordance with the plan, Councillor Golton.
yeah, I just wanted to similarly earlier to Councillor Grimston, this is an application that's within my ward and it's also again another retrospective application in which they've.
in which they've done a violation of the original plan, done this really large window that looks out and P put on pupils' poverty, especially I've looked at the campaign at 27 Edinburgh Road and now they're coming in and now especially now they've built the window now we're trying to get obscure glazing on and again it doesn't seem fair and if there are originally engagement officers there's no guarantee that they would have.
except that the window being the size and it just seems again a sneaky way of guessing a sneaky way of guessing what they wanted and then retrospectively asking for it.
Mr Grange, any comments.
yes, certainly Joe the the window, so all of this the built envelope, but everything about this has been or has been approved as considered at the Committee previously and approved there are what's listed on page 83 in terms of the the actual elements that are relatively minor but this isn't a Section 73 or minor material amendment this is just a straight down the line replicate reapplication under a household application, so the whole thing,
has to be considered again, but there are small things that the pitched roof on the side extension.
the first floor to timber sash windows, removal of one rooflight, and then these slightly larger rooflights on the either pictures on the north and south sides of the pitched roof with regard to that particular window.
it's it's physically there, but in this instance we have rigour, we have required this to be fitted with obscure glazing, translucent glazing, so we're not expecting a film or a window, the glazing has to be fostered translucent that that is going to be part of the fabric and completely fixed shut so not even openable above 1.1 metres so it's literally only purposes to allow diffused daylight into that room they've got an alternative means of ventilation on the side.
on the rear facing window, but it's it cannot if it fitted with the required translucent glass, it simply will not allow clear views over to adjacent occupiers, and it's a common solution with obscure glazing to to alleviate overlooking in hundreds of thousands of applications that we look at each year,
so this is light source essentially.
I think it is with the intention I don't know it may have started life out has been unclear glazed, but certainly it's a bad idea, but anyway, all along it needs to not impinge on the adjacent occupiers, privacy.
any other command.
is the application Surrey Council gave India secretary to two comments, one is an observation, I guess I think that's your society's comments here, we've gotten a bit difficult to understand, what was it, that the bats' society particularly wanted us to consider, it doesn't give us?
the usual society's robust view about, yes or no, so I just wonder whether officers are in a position to interpret that for us, the second was that one of the residents has been in touch about the property, will how quite a large amount of external lighting several downlighters in the front elevation and possibly all triggered by movement and so on and the point being made is that this is,
albeit large cottages, but they are small houses in a very nice conservation area where amount of lighting is largely ambient rather than very much in your face, and this is the fear that this enormous amount of lighting and light pollution is something that locals didn't like and they will have to put up with it and what I am told is the Department's view was that lighting was not something that we could consider as a planning matter again.
some comment on that please,
comment on that.
well, on the first point, on the Battersea Society
the error they they were asking photographs with the Heritage Statement I mean.
yeah, well we're walk-on when we're concerned about we know where it is, we can visit the side, we don't necessarily need photographs, so there Heritage Statement is there about assessing the planning balance in terms of whether the character and appearance of the conservation area remains preserved or enhanced, which is the legal test so other than that I do not want to further.
be
making well giving my own interpretations of what the esteemed Battersea society and thinks about the proposal.
the matter of the external lighting, the fitting of lighting, largely as de minimus domestic purposes for domestic purposes, it's the minimus that means that the planning system does not consider that there might be the insignificant nature of the development warrants an application in order to assess such,
de minimus minimal things.
noise, light pollution, if there is, if any occupier, who thinks they're affected by light pollution by these fitted lights, then they can approach the Council's Environmental Services and seek an investigation and any redress in through that that avenue.
very, very subjective matters I mean I can just out on the back of my house, people who live in particular neighbours, I must go and talk to him sometime or other, always leaving the lights on and keeping me away and goodness knows what.
what do we do about it, a good question?
suddenly it any other comments, Councillor Humphreys, sorry, Chair just just equivalent again, is it really minor matter, but these things can sometimes escalate another one of the things that the the neighbours have complained about and there has been some communication about this is there's a suspicion that the downpipes at the front of property again to exit onto the street now?
I know it sounds really silly, but Councillor Gruen and myself got some some casework at the moment that in retrospect, when it is an issue and it's all over the streets and it freezes in the wind, so it can be a significant issue for people on the pavement and things like that and after the fact it's very hard, as proven in practice to get the have a when officers baby to get anything done about that to get it changed, and I just want to make sure this is there anything at this stage we can do through either Building control or any other means to make sure that doesn't pattern before it's finished and signed off as it were.
certainly, I know that our planning.
our planning enforcement colleagues are looking into this, the pipes themselves are not development and rainwater goods, etc can be fitted, and it is not regarded as as as development that's certainly requires an application, but I see the potential hazard later on is, I think it's our street enforcement team that's most or most.
inappropriate and and you've got the wherewithal to make those investigations if if a rainwater pipes discharging straight onto a pavement, so I am in contact with Mr Raybould on this address, along with the the enforcement officer, so will,
look into that further, but also I know that that information has been communicated to the per the home market, the occupier who has raised that as an issue.
I can't swim in, I'm suddenly surprised a bit, but Mr. Grainger's comment about discharge of rainwater because any development needs to attenuate the kind of amount of water it uses and the amount of water.
sense.
stops from being soaked into the ground, and if you were to have a huts or hardstanding installed, then you are required to ensure that your you'll get your front garden, can drain into the normal system rather than flood out their streets, so I am surprised that we have interventions in that way but not in the straightforward roof discharging straight onto the street, I just find it very odd.
I must say that seems a very reasonable comment to me, but that's it.
I mean it.
if so, if I redirected my existing downpipe from my front roof pitch to discharge onto my my neighbour's garden or the the footway, I would obviously be an idiot, but if there was a body that would want to tell me not to do that, then that's what you know it's a kind of reactive thing,
other than being just a bad neighbour, or somebody that doesn't have any consideration for others, then it would have to ultimately be a matter for investigation. We know about it, we have got the ability to investigate it and and advise on it and see what what we can do about that, but the extensions to the rear would have to have their own arrangements to, as you say, to drain because the develop defendant. There is no development at the front that is of significant nature that changes the rainwater goods arrangement, although the development at the rear is new and that would have to obviously be dealt with either through soakaways or discharging into an existing combined sewer system.
Councillor Humphreys.
I do not want to throw all does damage the greatest planning purpose to help, as it is not his problem necessarily, but the issue is that if this does happen and as I said through experience we've been in this situation you hit a brick wall as it were at the end of the day what is the redress if somebody is so stupid as to do something like that and it is happening it is causing an issue whereas the redress in the system to make sure that can be stopped.
I would have suggested at the time of development and this comes back to Ms Granger said, most of the developments at the rear of the property would have been covered by Building control and they would have organised that everything soaked away properly, bearing in mind it seems to be at the front it's usually de minimis, I was just going to suggest that maybe we put an informative on the consent to remind them to look at this aspect as as the development proceeds because I don't think we've got any real.
teeth that we can we can use, thank you, that would be helpful, so your suggestion, we do put that informative OK, Councillor Justin.
isn't it the case that the UK is one of the very few countries that has an obsession with redirecting roof? Water proved that if you travel around Europe, you could be said that it's a hotter country, they do have as much rain as we do in the UK, but we in the UK have an absolute obsession with the HRA redirecting roof water when it could just run onto the pavement from all directions and not be any problem, but where you're talking about running it off and running it down apart, yes, it does cause the problem, then don't have any guttering and just let it run off the roof.
these are, it is a UK phenomenon all right, thank you for that observation.
is the application approved?
yes, it's agreed right now.
those in favour.
with additional, yes, we wanted to do four five six, those against.
3, so I'm not sure about councillors, did you?
why abstain 2?
OK, move on to the exciting flowers to I don't think I mentioned has been withdrawn, so we move on from that sorry for not mentioning it earlier to.
application number 6, which is for a building of a residential block of six flats, I think in in.
in Roehampton Lane sorry, it's just finding it.
any comments Councillor Coakley, I think Councillor is yep.
thank you.
yeah, I wanted to to pass about why there are four parking spaces for this and because, since it's a assisted living, then isn't it unlikely that the residents had been eating cars towards the are these four parking spaces for the staff, or I just want to see the rationale behind it because TFA recommended that Rooney's two parking spaces for it so,
yeah, I wanted to know the rationale behind before and while we saw why the officers from of that as well.
resurgence.
sorry, can I come back to you on that point in terms of because I just wanted to protect what the existing situation is on the site because I believe there's already existing parking on the site and I just want to make sure I'm answering he correctly, but I I would imagine that might be the justification, but I can I come back to Councillor Murray, what do you mean by come back, you mean tomorrow or not. Indemnity
are you going to look at that fine well in that case, if you're looking something up?
OK,
Councillor S also had a question or comment, I think the answer is yes, thank you, it's a comment I will be voting for this because I approve and share the purposes of looking after spiritual old ladies.
and the housing seems to be good, I think the building itself is polite, it's smart is the right scale, but it says nothing about the purpose of this building, and I think that's an opportunity missed our buildings all look the same, that this building could be a warehouse, it could be offices, it does not look like.
sheltered accommodation.
with a strong religious bent where people need silent separation and very specific needs and the building could be, it could tell you what it was, and I think it's a sadly missed opportunity, and I wish that the there was some mechanism where the officers could at an early stage ask the designers to raise their game.
it must be possible to say.
this building is neat it ticks all the boxes, but it is not a specific enough expression of the youth.
would you would you say that was an aesthetic comment?
I that's a trick question, isn't it?
I would say it was more spiritual actually.
I wonder whether he gets paid the brass, doesn't he, so I think perhaps we ought to ask Mr corridor was to handle this one.
certainly the government have taught in the last mtpa building beautiful, but they haven't actually defined or beautiful is, but just going back to your point.
we have a pre application process and they'll will come in, it's not often, we'll say, raise your game because that's taken for granted we will push them to to get the best possible development that we we can on a site.
to say that it should be spiritual is probably pushing it a little bit further than we could, but I sort of see your point that this building could be a little bit of everything, but we are looking at this as a see to use. We don't take into account that whether it's going to be for the nuns or for a different use of the the proposal is in planning terms for a C to use, and that's what we have to assess. Can I be a bit more suspect in a sense weren't wasn't the industry that is industry of being professional planners
in local authorities, constrained somewhat by government legislation, about the aesthetics of buildings. Yes, I was just trying to pick up my outright egg. Traditionally, we've been told that design is subjective and we shouldn't get too involved. If an architect tells us it's brilliant, it should be brilliant. What are we would say, we have officers in house, we've got an open designs and conservation designers and
our plan is a qualified and gone through the process, so we do make an assessment on the appearance, but not the extent of said have been directing it, so it should be a spiritual as it as an example in this case, it's more than it should be appropriate for the site and and its general use but not so much as particular use.
can I come back on that that means that most of our buildings are going to end up looking the same as they do.
now I think I think I use the wrong phrase, I think I said when I said Rosie raised at a game, I'm going to introduce another element into the boxes that are ticked, well, OK, maybe they can't be boxes that can be ticked but it must be surely part of the discussion.
the differentiation between types of buildings.
there was a time you could drive around and.
the school buildings of the 19 whatevers you knew it was the school, wherever you went in the country you knew, that's what a school looked like and the church, you knew what a church looked like and then convert to.
this is halfway to a convent, not just to see too interesting, as there is a school that we all know about, I guess on on Garrett Lane, which you need to know, it's a school to know it's the school, don't you I mean it's just there's just a building, I get anywhere else Councillor, given that you've got to comment on this well, yes, I've just just I think
Councillor Harris raises an interesting point when I read through some of the correspondence is really very little correspondence on this, but one of the neighbours actually comments that the existing building is a building of some note in his view that it could have been better almost it could have been expanded to facilitate the the number of rooms the government needed.
I think he was making a point, a bit like Councillor as that here was something which was attractive and it should not be dispatched and in fact be amended so that it used could continue, albeit expanded, use, and I think that's a kind of way of saying building should scream out their purpose where possible.
but suddenly so many trans in public life or the opposite way.
in fact, lots of people will claim wouldn't be concerned about children and safeguarding for a school not to look like a school was a good thing.
also difficult nowadays count where this is getting very interesting conversation, but what is it going to do, quite what Councillor Justin Councillor White Councillor Humphrey I think gone?
I just wondered if the answer to Councillor Cockroft question was with the car parking spaces, having looked at a fair few assisted, a contradiction is recently not for myself. I hope to sometimes I've noticed that there to encourage the people who occupied them to give up their vehicle and they have a pool electric car and the idea is you cannot come here with your own car, that you only do 500 miles a year in and as as as you know, in order to help you get rid of it will have they have a pool electric car for the people to use. I just threw that in before we speculate too much on that and have you got an answer on my question?
surgeons forgive me, it was just I wanted to check the plans of the existing layout to make sure where the parking was as existing. I think there is some, I think, they just park around the site. At the moment, there's no designated parking, but the scheme has been revised considerably. I should s say that the scheme had originally come in wanting about 9 or eight or nine parking spaces, so this has been negotiated down in order to secure a blue badge parking and also there are guest rooms associated with the layout of the provision of the the the the the units. If you like,
to enable visitors and so on to visit sisters or the occupants. I should say while they are living there, so there is a point to it. We realised that TfN would want 0 parking, but I am going to actually allow Mr Ted Lee to also assist with this just to clarify more specifically, thank you, OK, so. Blue badge parking and visitor parking. Mr Dudley yeah, hello, hello, hello, hello, everybody, David, to be the head of transport strategy, as I think it's been responded to quite well. Most of those properties along Roehampton Lane actually have quite significant accesses and you can probably get quite a lot of parking in front of most of those buildings. I think they have a point I would just add on. This is, of course of these Roehampton Lane, so there's basically no surfacing or loading or parking that you'd want to see on the main road itself, because of the red lines and the bus stop arrangements there, so everything related to this site does have to be provided off the street and that can fill assisted living, that can mean some quite some quite specialist vehicles that you might occasionally need as well.
and it is probably one of the most difficult places in public transport terms in the borough, isn't it, so there are reasons, I think.
this is a very nice conversation we're having, I'm not quite sure whether there's more not more appropriate in neighboring establishments, but anyone really keen on getting do you want to come back Councillor item.
just just to say that it is regrettable that the building is being demolished, but the social gain that we're getting out of it and steam the improvement, this is gonna be a very healthy building when it goes up and the sustainability all element is really really good.
so yeah is regrettable, but you know we do, and I take all the aesthetic points, but we are getting building, that is at least at least the sisters will know the
they're not contributing to climate change when there are on that note, and we can't take it on.
the Committee is accepting the recommendation, right good, thank you.
R is it's 5 2 okay?
Surrey Council were going to have a suggested five minutes, can we try and make it 3 minute break, but anyway a five minute break, let's try and make it three minutes.
so Jan for three minutes.
OK, let's resume and good evening, Councillor Cooper, your other meeting went OK, we've probably you've probably been told her on Item 7.
and on Item 7.
Councillor Jeffreys has come along to addresses.
this application, by the way here 14 Deodoro Road and is an application so-called minor changes Councillor Jeffreys, thank you Councillor Bolton and good evening everyone, I'm speaking tonight to reflect the concerns of a significant number of Deirdre, Florian and Merivale Road residents not so much in relation to the specific changes sought in this application which, as Councillor Bolton notes are effectively minor alterations.
but rather around the process that has been followed and some of the implications that this may have for residents down the line, to summarise, there have been a number of applications for this property in the past, the most recent previous application submitted by different applicants around the time of the May 2022 local elections made a number of significant changes which would have been opposed by residents at the time if they had known it had been submitted in the event residents did not know and it was approved under the Department's delegated authority.
now there has been considerable engagement between residents and the Department as to whether it had been properly consulted on, and the council is clear in the papers that having investigated the matter or the matter is closed.
as a result, residents have understandably used the consultation on this application to comment on these earlier substantial changes, the headline concerns they had related to the scale of the development, taking it over 50% of the site, as well as the development being constructed forward of the building line now while they are not the subject of this application, the points raised by residents are person and the Department's responses have raised some further concerns.
the paper says of the building line point that there is no law against developing forward of building line and that this is a general policy aspiration. Residents have expressed real surprise on this point, having understood that the building line policy was there for the protection of residents and the streetscape, this is not an intangible concept but perhaps one of the clearest physical aspects of the built environment, a number of residents in the area, have had their own planning applications, rejected or been told in pre-planning talks, because the building line and ridge heights, for example, were non negotiable.
there is no confusion and indeed some consternation, due to the issues around the previous consultation around the planning controls on these issues. Residents do not know whether they are rules or general aspirations. One resident highlighted that an application was previously rejected due to a roof ridge line being 20 centimetres over the permitted level. As a result of these applications, which have seen much greater variances cut, that 20 centimeters difference now be approved. Consistency is clearly critical in planning and where that isn't possible, clear guidance on where it does and doesn't apply is key. I know residents would be grateful if the point around the Department's approach to rules and policy aspirations could be clarified. They would also be grateful if the Council could notify and consult the Deirdre Florida and and Merivale Residents' Association, specifically when applications arise in the area in future.
so that they can ensure residents' views are taken into account. Thank you.
thank you, thank you guidance, that's the difference that poses, and I've got to be frank here, that poses a Rooney with a slight problem.
the principles of the application that you're protesting about, or that the residents are producing about have been resolved, and if there is any dispute about them, it's not something that we are in a position to make an assessment on the fundamental main obligation has happened.
in terms of building lines or whatever the the objections are, it happened in the past, we are here just to discuss the amendments, so whilst your comments are interesting.
I think you admit that you know that the the Council have put forward the object, the counter to countervailing arguments, if you like, what we're here to do is to consider these amendments, so this particular application, so can I ask Members if they've got any queries about this particular amendment or indeed if Ms Richards has got anything to say about about the application?
thank you, Chairman.
and thank you, Councillor Jeffreys.
I am fully aware of the concerns raised by residents having been addressed, I've been addressing the issues that they raised since I think it was the summer of last year.
when a number of applications have been submitted for the site either to the main house or to the garage accommodation on the site as well, and as a consequence of all the are the concerns that residents raised, I personally have investigated the consultation that took place we we contacted the
the the the the people who undertake the consultation we've received full investigation from them that confirmed that letters were sent out to the addresses that again I'm I'm raising an e-mail in front of me that I've already sent to Ward Councillors in the past, the most recent actually in December just gone so the issues raised this evening have all been fully addressed.
by officers to residents and ward councillors previously in terms of the consultation undertaken on the original application.
the fact that I think in terms of front on and front building lines, and so on generally, the rule does apply in terms. So if you know, if you look at a building that sits in a street and a terrorist, and so on, you know you are you, the rule of thumb is that you don't allow it to come before that. In this case, we're looking at a site that had a gap, if you like, between it and the street in back in actually 1987, we'd refused. The council refused an application which the Inspector then approved, approving the exact side extension that that was subsequently approved again. If you like, in 2022
with the new design detail on it, so there's a lot of history to that side elevation, having been approved as being extended to the side and out towards the street.
so, as far as the local authorities concerned, there is absolutely no basis upon which we could consider the previous 2022 permission to be illegal, as is being suggested, or in any way, something that we would consider
you know trying to attract at this stage so long story short.
in front of the Members this evening are the minor material amendments that have been outlined in the report in illustrations, and that is what you have to consider, just as a matter of interest, surely corner sites quite frequently because of the nature of the corner one way or the other goes in front of the building line of one of the one of the planes I can think of several one I know of.
so it must happen quite often, and I think this is where the point is being made, that you have to assess each one on its own merit in the context of the site on some sites, the side two storey side extension might fit perfectly well because that's the the the character and nature of how the street sits in others. You wouldn't want that imposition because it it, it would imbalance, if you like, the other corner of a street where where they have a similar, you know with some deaths and so on, so it's all on its own merits each time OK. So the this application as it stands only commencement the obligation as it stands
non 2 0 sorry, Councillor Brenda.
no one likes between you and I just wanted to pick up one of the points Councillor Jeffers made, which was about consultation with the local residents association in case of future planning applications in the area that association represents. Would that not be possible? It is absolutely possible, and you just need to go on our website and sign up any individual or group can sign up to receive applications by e-mail to avoid issues of the Post Office which might have been the issue here too, to receive notifications of applications. So yes, as there any problems, they can contact me on oil, put them in the right direction. I thought they already were, to be honest,
can I just add to this as well that because we're so aware of the residents and the location of this particular site, it's not in a conservation area, it is on the border of it.
and so, in actual statutory terms, there was no requirement for us to put a precise notice on previous applications, but because there's been so much concern, understandably from residents and the residents association, we are definitely going to be putting site notices up in future and we did for this application as well.
Councillor Humphreys, if somebody reminds me.
if it is just a quick point on the very good advice from from Mr Golden about the fact anybody can sign up for that kind of thing, just so you don't get completely inundated with how many applications we have received or just clarify that you can specify the circumference of the area that you actually get you can choose how why do you want that to spread, so for the residents group there they could specify their patch, so you're not going to get otherwise I have nothing else to do but look at applications all day long, isn't it okay,
Councillor White.
we are disappointed that we allowed the campsite windows rather than the the composite windows, rather than the original timber.
which you know if it's from a sustainable source would be a lot better in the circumstances, and I know it's not in a conservation area, but it is really really close, so could we re-look at that, and at that end is a condition.
I have to be honest, this was one of my main concerns really with what they were proposing it. As far as I'm concerned, on the side at the minute the side elevation onto the street have, I don't think they have timber windows. In any event, I think they're a little mismatch of things, so we didn't find that to be too. Concerning on that elevation, necessarily subject to the reveals being deep enough, because I think a lot of with modern windows and openings, or if you're putting in modern windows it's often the fact that they sort of sit very flush maybe, and you don't get the depth of the the original brickwork and so on on the front as well. I felt that on the front television they should be timber on the basis that the existing ones are timber. On that elevation,
we can review the condition to that effect, but on the side elevation we didn't think what we did do, however, was ask for we've added in an additional condition for details of the windows.
with a lot more detail, if you like them just the elevational drawings now, because we want to understand how that looks.
in relation to the finished sort, adapts and so on, so I hope that gives you some reassurance that we'd be looking carefully at those.
Surrey, so could we add a condition to?
to to ask that they be the original timber, not accomplice, site.
if Members felt that that's what would make this acceptable, I mean we have questioned the the the applicant on this and asked for timber initially so.
that Members, if they felt that a condition for the additional condition for to the permission, in any event, but
hesitate a little bit here, it is very clear where you stand on that kind of issue, Councillor White, if I may say so, I happen to agree with you, but we are not sure we can unless there was a specific policy on non goods, I'm not sure that we can insist that individuals put in one kind of window as opposed to another.
sorry.
yeah, we just don't have the planning powers to do that, I don't think, and some might argue something that should be left to freedom of jurors anyway and shouldn't be controlled, so I think there's a slight difficulty that Councillor Coakley could we at least put in a condition to discuss further and so it's not firmly committed to a composite window as the application and that has to be the potential for saying that the condition has already recommended does that if you like because they have to submit details to us of the window so,
we, we will have some control over the finished article if you like.
OK, Councillor Coober, thank you, and this is my first time speaking Councillor Cooper representing first downward.
had lots of sympathy with this, it would be great to be able to specify timber rather than composite, but I think, as it's not in a conservation area, I don't see how we can, so I would suggest that we leave it to the officers to
fix it with the applicant in the detailing yeah, thank you, I must say that it's my view to subject to that, is this application agreed, or agreed, agreed greed, OK, thank you, and we now move on to
just just to be nice, we go on to Councillor Jeffrey's, second one, which is gosh I've lost it myself now, is Item 9, yes, Item 9 golf Carson thought but roof terrace, thank thank you, Councillor Bolton, that is,
very kind of.
I say it's nice to be back talking about cousin Court, but I'm not sure that that would be true,
I will keep my remarks on this briefer than the than the first, and I'd like to start by noting local residents concerns with the development.
the whole development from the start and the considerable impact it has had on them, most recently with vans and lorries, using the parking bays well after at the granted suspension period and, as for this application.
I have to also put on record residents further concerns about the potential noise impact and loss of privacy that they have seen a really really large development takes shape on their doorstep.
and are and others, understandably concerned about this yeah further application, I note that the paper is quite clear in its assessment of these and other issues and which I accept from a planning perspective, we will likely have to agree, but I would be grateful if the planning team could for the public record note the various conditions proposed to minimise the impact of the roof terrace. I'd also be grateful for confirmation that these conditions will be strictly
enforced on final point, there is a cousin court application fatigue already amongst residents and, dare I say it, Councillors to, and I think we have all had enough, so I would be grateful for confirmation as to whether we can expect any further applications in respect of this development which hasn't yet fully opened, thank you.
I think a politician asking an officer whether we can promise never to have another obligation is a bit strong, I was sorry, all the or indeed residents, but the suggests would you care to have a go?
I can't see into the future and I don't know what they might be planning, but as far as we are concerned, I think we've officers are also.
wanna move on to another site so yeah.
I can only say that I think they've got the bulk of what what was originally approved in any event, and I think it's almost completed now and in any event.
and I would think the the officer team as a whole would be very keen to.
enforce the conditions as as a
has agreed would would we not? We would indeed any comments from any members Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair. Yes, I think we all share the sense of fatigue, perhaps with this one just a couple of details. Really, there was quite a lot in the report about what the applicants done to attenuate noise from the terrace, but I did have a question about the lighting and obviously it's going to be lit and they're going to be a virtual 10 o'clock at night with the outlets, so it was only impact with overspill, obliging and suchlike on the report identity details that is absolutely detailed to be assessed because obviously it's something that could have an impact on the neighbours as light pollution
thank you, Councillor and condition 6 does require details of any external lighting to be submitted to us in advance, in particular as well, because you are close to the park, so clearly there's issues there about the ecology, so that's gonna have to be approved separately.
just to add, I think one in 5.4 are the they're required because of the ecology and landscaping there are aspects to it, and I don't think there's any lighting proposed is just in the future if they do come up with something we just want to say. Thank you. I don't just be helpful or up for that one. We were talking about earlier, which you look at Blackpool. Illuminations would be quite helpful that we know we're not going to get there, and one other thing I just wanted to clarify as well is that the hours of the operation, the opening hours, because there was some ambiguity in what the applicant had ask when the first of which was Mondays to Fridays, and then I can't remember Fraser used now, but although exceptional occasions which gave me a little bit of footwear concern, but it can only be reassured, it is strictly Monday to Friday, 8 until 2,300 hours, so that the condition says and if, if they go beyond that, then they are in breach, and if it's witnessed, and maybe by colleagues or who might be out
then, then, that is something that we, we would be able to enforce against, so I just just jump in again, Mr Raybould isn't going to spend all his hours stamina, it's it relies on local residents to to make complaints and then build up a diary that they're doing it on a number of occasions I will also do it by our volunteer Councillor Jeffers to do that job.
it's his job to standing apparently high street and wait for a breach.
OK, OK, get it right, UBS obviously concerns and certainly boredom with the big of their problems, but with Carlson Court we've had enough.
is that agreed, though, agreed thank you get rich and thank you, Councillor Jeffries returning to item 7.
sorry, item 8, it's the 7 number 7, Lower Richmond Road.
which is about installation of a kitchen and flue in the basement.
Councillor Burke, surely we need Councillor Brooks to talk about the flue being installed, so it should see you going to comment or do we pass straight to Mr Streatley sitting behind you, who's from the Environmental Health Officer, but but
now maybe it should, I don't have any further, you don't have anything to say, then what the report already says, but even before answering questions thanks okay, any questions from people, Council of India.
the paper refers to an application at Putney, High Street number 2 Putney High Street, and saying that what is proposed here is very similar to what has approved that integrating a factual factual question, how has the flu at number 2 settled in how there had been any issues about noise complaints or otherwise that we might take into consideration in relation to this application?
I think this is a perfect opportunity to inviting Mr Streetly from our environmental services.
this is really.
good evening Rob Streatley Environmental Health Officer.
I did look at number 2 for you and there haven't been any complaints concerning noise from number 2.
okay, simple enough, any other comments, OK application, agreed Councillor Humphreys.
just one quick detail point. there was a concern from residents about painting the flue that the main might result in maintenance issues I was going to suggest that if we have that conversation with the applicant, we could suggest powder coating which is more durable and there's paint to make sure it lasts for longer.
who is unjust?
sorry.
who was that addressed to Councillor Andrews and beg your pardon?
to Setwell to mismatches, to pass on to the applicant, that that would be something that I was sorry, you took you, you took OK, fair enough.
is it agreed that the application agreed right, thank you moving on to the last application, which is number 10, which is about building Council properties with garages skinny ill.
any comments from anyone.
Council give India.
possibly Councillor Humphreys just have a brief comment, number I looked at the plans and I see there are five parking spaces, 3 of which are got permeable surface and two of them don't I'm just wondering, why is it that all five of the parking spaces are not permeable? Grass Crete, kind of material good question I'd like to know the answer to that too, but Councillor Humphreys
another question yeah, actually on the same topic, actually because I know that some of the bays are electrically provision for electric charging, I just wanted to who had access to those as a specific question, I've got a comment later.
questions of this kind of detail.
any more Councillor Coakley, Councillor White or
I join a panel on the questions to ask for them, as I was just wondering, because the application has said that it's technically slightly less open land, but it's more open land, that's accessible to the public, and so I was one fifth officers could go into a bit more details of why the previous application wasn't accessible to the public and why does this application make it accessible?
right, I'm not sure knowing the nature of this, I'm not sure I understand that both councils say what Mr Richard Smith simple answers to the question about the permeability I have to be honest, I had not picked up on that and I don't have any or an explanation for it we seek permeable.
materials wherever possible for sides, of course
and to improve on that, there is no reason why they can't all be permeable.
I just haven't picked it up, I'm afraid.
while it is our yes indeed, I think we certainly should make them Birmingham or all car parking space where possible, and Councillor Humphrey's question about the about EV.
EV charging.
I'll try, but I'll try that one Councillor.
the proposal is that the
the parking bays which are provided would be charged clearly at the decision, as I assume on who has access to that would be within the context of the housing department have been working quite closely with them to ensure that the estates and housing land are suitably suitably powered and my view would be that we would try and ensure that all local residents would have access to that that space but I'd need to take that up with the move my colleagues in the housing thank you very well depending which governments and which political party doesn't really matter where within five years or 10 years whatever it is of having only because they have all parking spaces George B'Ordinary,
especially on our own developments, I mean as extraordinary, if not so, Councillor White.
just scraped to be considering a small site that is 100% social rent and affordable so, and the level sustainably reached in the houses is really excellent, but just the the one point really enable make a point here about.
improving the green areas around that is there any sense of how that will that be enforced, or will that something that just gets fed back to the thousand say or the regeneration zone
sorry.
none of what essays instantly reliable.
no, it's it's around the enable making the comment that.
if we could a ground level, you know improve the the Green.
as part of this development.
because we're replacing a lot of the the missed green on the roof, so they suggested that they, maybe some hedging, can be put around.
the area.
sorry, are you referring to comments on 1 9 2 under the actual consultation, internal consultation response is that way, you're getting the comment?
enabled trees yeah, so these were the comments that we received at an initial, so we often set out what the different internal consultees views are initially.
and as part of this we've actually secured because of their comments as part of the landscaping they've actually introduced more hedging.
because this increases the this was done in in discussion with our ecology officer, so they specifically wanted a natural hedge in this location, even though, as I understand it, some of the local residents specifically were saying we just want decorative hedging like box hedging because I think they find that to be neater and easier to to to to deal with so our ecology officers and enable did insist on an additional hedging so that has been secured already as part of the landscaping which itself is then going to be is conditioned.
to be secured, coming back to your point, however.
so, forgive me again, I was trying to look for an existing plan of the site, in essence, at the moment there is some green on the site, but it is largely just used for parking and occupied by garage, accommodation and tarmac.
yeah, and so this now is going to be properly landscaped, if you like, and it brings that area into greater use, which is also to be used for other residents, existing residents, on the estate. More crucially, I don't think this area unless you come down here to park you know to use the lock-up, you wouldn't necessarily pop down here certainly not to sit in the sand, I don't think
but yet it is hoped that this will now introduce more usable green space. Also that I, I understand I think there's green elements introduced and more replanting as well to make up for a couple of the trees that have to be removed
judging by I have been there and I remember rightly all his life, but judging by our average garage spaces and parking spaces, nice new housing would be a vast improvement on what for now, I do kind of know, the site but subject to
ensuring that we have permeability in the car parking and strongly advise the Housing Department that there's going to be 100% jolly eBay charging in all applications in future where borrowings have been subject to that, as everyone agreed Councillor Humphreys, not just yet, I'm afraid Councillor Belsen, sorry,
it is a general point. Is you actually made the point yourself a moment ago, which is that if it's the council's own application, particularly in this kind of context, that it should be an exemplar and it should be leading by the best example, and I have to say in this I know it's a tricky side, but in this actual application I think it's very disappointing that we've got so many things that are below standard, so the balconies are below standard size, the amenity spaces is smaller than there should be and light levels. There are only 60% of the rooms meet BA guidelines
which is not exactly an exemplar of anything is it you know, we were trying to encourage developments to to do the best they possibly can, I just think it's disappointing that our council's own application has got such shortcomings in what we're providing here when we're supposed to be.
fighting a flag for the best we possibly can do, and it's disappointing that we haven't done better on that, make it the best quality accommodation we can. We're all aware of the fact that we need more accommodation for everybody in the borough, but what we should be building is something that is something that's got a bit more aspiration and a bit more ambition. I think you can guarantee that message will get to where it ought to get to
OK, can I just reassure you on this one, actually, this was something that I looked at specifically with the officer about internal, because often we focus a lot about impact of light on neighbours without really looking at what the layouts and and how this accommodation might be for future occupants, and this was something that myself and officers did look at carefully in terms of the layouts because we felt the same we were thinking this is a bit on the loan.
however, when you look at the layouts, where the windows are, what that space, where the light diminishes slightly is used for, so they are often the kitchenette area that is linked to an open-plan living room, but that little area is a little bit darker but it still has access to light, others are bedrooms, so again we're not so concerned about the bedroom areas being meeting all of that lacks kind of levels as we would for the main living area also looking at it in the round because of the context to open up big windows to certain elevations would result in overlooking and other problems for the neighbouring residents.
so it's a balance of trying to get as best as you can, taking into account all things, the the the the the terrorists. Again, I know you're very keen on new builds absolutely nailing the balcony sizes in this case. Again, there is a large communal space that will be introduced and they do ha. I think it's only 2 of 3 with balconies that that are falling a little bit short so again on in the round. I think we have to look at it as being the best that we could achieve here without greater impacts, then resulting elsewhere, or I appreciate researchers will always try your best and everybody for their best to get the best outcome of the candidates or what it is all with a balancing act. But it is a fact that this committee before allows refused applications that not necessarily the Council's own, because of such things as lack of light and suchlike. There was one on
often forgotten the road somewhere in Putney, Feltham Road was really well recently that was refused by this committee because there was considered to be a significant impact on Upper Richmond Road, yet with one and I I just think where we possibly can it wasn't a message, particularly for you but perhaps more to the the Cabinet Member that we can make sure that we get these kind of things as best we can within the context of being an exemplar and I think we should be trying to provide stuff as of as best and we possibly care.
sorry, sorry, if I could just lead the apportionment road one, they were a substandard on their outs or outdoor amenity space because they didn't have a communal area as well, so it was the combination they only had those terraces and they were under if they'd had another communal area. I don't think we would have had a defendable case and I was actually what I was thinking about was the was below the bike shop in in Lacy Road. I think it was
I think the Chair of the Housing Committee might have a view about it, Councillor White.
I think we've been a little bit pernickety about this. I mean the improvements, the improvements, the improvements as far as the sustainability of this building of really exemplar and the fact and the fact and the fact that there is 100% council rent homes, whereas previously possibly across the borough we wouldn't have seen that so yeah, I mean this is this is you know, we were getting really good plaudits for for what we're doing here, so I think you know the that those comments, I think I'm really helpful, I just think there's no excuse for not doing the best we possibly can in everyday contexts, but it was a Councillor application or anybody else is agreed, so we all agree on that. Everyone agree with it.
Mr just have you got anything important to add go on? Thank you, it was again back to the permeability point, I've gone through all the conditions and there is actually no SUDS condition on here, so I'm just wondering whether or not we could've rather than trying to sneak not sneak in try and pop some details in somewhere we actually have the condition, so you're recommending an amendment to your own paper saying there should be permeability in the and I'm sure everyone's going to agree with that straight away agreed
package, we have achieved radical changes right that's the applications concluded decisions paper noted.
and closure investigation paper noted.
and thank you and goodnight.
- 23-4015 Strats, opens in new tab
- 23-2832 East, opens in new tab
- 23-3246 East, opens in new tab
- 23-3883 East, opens in new tab
- 23-1275 West, opens in new tab
- 23-3403 West, opens in new tab
- 23-3633 West, opens in new tab
- 23-3688 West, opens in new tab
- 23-4289 West, opens in new tab
- 23-4401 West, opens in new tab
- Background paper - Dec 2023, opens in new tab
- 24-83 Front sheet FEB 2024, opens in new tab
- LatesFeb24, opens in new tab
- 24-84 Decisions - Report Feb 2024, opens in new tab
- 24-85 -Closure of investigation files -Feb 2024, opens in new tab