Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 19 March 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 19th March 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, the technology has been sorted out and we're ready to go.
my name is Tony Belsen, I am the Chair of the Planning applications Committee and the a councillor for Battersea Park ward, funnily enough in Battersea
members of the committee are going to ask you to introduce yourselves when you have somebody to say and the officers as well, because I don't think it reasonable to expect anyone to remember all the names in one go, but I will introduce the people around me up here.
Mr corridor,
Good evening and Nick Calderon, the Head of Development Management here at once with.
good evening and on cameos on the external legal adviser.
yeah yeah, yeah.
evening Becky Hickey Democratic Services.
she thinks she is unimportant, but she actually takes the notes and therefore decides where everything that we do so or to announce age is now.
I have, I think, there's a full turnout of committee members, so the no apologies by definition,
officers will introduce themselves, as I said before, when we're choking,

1 Minutes - 22nd February 2024

the minutes of the last meeting I've seen them, Councillor Humphreys has seen them, is it agreed that our silence as a correct record?
thank you.

2 Declarations of Interest

does anyone have a declaration of interests by which one means or manage and interests that commit something somewhat doesn't mean all my interests in the agenda, but a technical interests, Councillor Cooper?
thank you very much, Chair, my name's Councillor Leonie Cooper, and the Deputy Chair of the Committee, I represent the first-down ward, which is in Tooting, and, in addition, I am the elected Member for Merton and Wandsworth on the London Assembly, which is part of the Greater London Authority. There are a number of reports where GLA officers have commented on the report, so I'm just mentioning this for transparency purposes. There is no pecuniary interest at all, but just for transparency I just like that recorded. Thank you Chair
thank you, I've decided to take the third item on the agenda.
I think it's the third on the on the applications agenda.

3 Applications (Paper No. 24-105)

first, that the Frances Barber pupil referral unit because there are people here, especially for that item, I recognise that most of the people in the public gallery are interested in the first item, but it's my judgment that the third one will take less time and on Frances Barber pupil referral unit can I ask the ward councillor who wants to make a representation to come up to the table and make his point.
thank you Chair.
so for those of you who don't know me, I am Councillor, Rex Osborne and I'm one of the ward councillors for Tooting Broadway ward, and we are proud to say that in Tooting Broadway ward.
we have that very section of the pupil referral unit, the Frances, Barbara School.
and I want to address the application, you have the planning application you have before you this evening, so first of all thank you everybody for allowing me to come back for a second time actually, because this has already been to the committee.
to support the PLA application for a rebuild of Frances Barr School.
the current planning application has taken into account members' comments from the last time that it was discussed here and are taken into account, a significant engagement with residents.
Oakley
so I am going to repeat what I said last bit, expand upon what I said last time on the points about this.
this application, the application, first of all, I think it's worth noting is not just about the fabric of the school.
the school is a valued, respected, highly regarded borough.
PRU provision,
and it serves some of the most vulnerable pupils we have in the borough, they are pupils' who cannot currently have their needs, met in mainstream schools, and indeed their specialist needs are because of difficult experiences they've had, I have to say in many cases way beyond anything most of us can even begin to imagine as a young people,
and our staff, therefore are at Frances Barber, are dedicated to them, they are passionate about helping them and about getting them actually reintegrated into the mainstream education system and or getting them to a place where they can have true aspirations for their future they achieve that at the moment but they achieve it despite poor facilities Frances, Barbara school,
not because of the poor facilities there, but despite it, what we've got there as a school, which is.
below minimum teaching space for the requirements where there is constant improvised usage, for example, the food technology room doubles as the kitchen and dining area, the admin staff operate out of porta cabins on the site. Any attempt at an efficient energy regime is constantly and in, and I have to say, expensively undermined by the poor facilities at France's Barbara, but the good story, the good news here is. The Department for Education is providing funding which gives us a chance for investment in that facility.
and for those young people, and if we don't get this planning application supported then that investment will be lost.
and therefore I'm arguing very strongly that the planning application should be embraced, for that reason, the application offers a a modern design, it offers the minimum floorspace for the delivery of the correct curricula curriculum, and it offers sustainability for our net 0targets as a as an administration and it has to be faced that what we are operating in is a very tight space.
for that, I in that location in Tooting Broadway with difficult parameters around it, and so most of what we've had to do in order to provide space on that site, is to expand upwards.
but we've tried to take into account concerns in the planning application, so there is an elevation, but the elevation has now been set back from where it previously was to create approximately a gap of about 18 metres between the tip of the elevation and the residents that back onto the site the green space there has been enhanced that we're putting in more breeze and Diff Joseph tree.
and we are delivering obscured glass on the the side that faces towards residents in angled windows, to try and address the visible visibility problems of looking through from the site into the rear of Dupuy Street.
any more delay on this planning application doesn't just undermine plans for Frances Barber, it should be noted, it also undermines plans for the paddock school, because we have a joint plan for relocating to the old Broadway Broadwater school site and there is a knock-on impact across the board for both schools. If, if this planning application doesn't go through and it was only noticed Councillor Osborne but the the Clarks alarm went off, I didn't know she was setting it so yeah.
does that mean? I am supposed to wind up, give as a gift another 32nd of the gardaí or ALGE that OK, thank you. So my final point would be this actually that this application is for the 33 staff and 55 pupils' at Frances Barber and for all those to come in the future. They don't just need this resource because of the problems there and our duties as a borough. They deserve this resource and I am pleading very strongly indeed that you support this planning application, thank you very much.
thank you, Councillor Osborne, can I say to the Members and indeed to Councillor Osborne, you will recall that we had a presentation from another ward councillor at last meeting. Well today I got an e-mail from her successor, which I think it's only fair in the circumstances. I did say I read it out anyway, but I think you'll see it's a shiny new strategy. He apologises for not being here but has family circumstances that some of you will know about and he Councillor Lawless also have the same Ward, says local residents are pleased to see some of the proposed changes, the changes they are not against the P. Are you having a new building but they want it to be of minimal disruption
I met with the planners and Council officers to discuss some of the local concerns a couple of weeks ago on the team behind the application seemed supportive of some of the points I raised, so I hope there can be some compromise.
on the windows, residents want reflection, reflective panels and windows which can reflect the sunlight, not obscured glass as to the greenery on the terrace residents want to know how the greenery will be maintained on the terrace, they don't want it dying off.
and as for the trees, residents would like reassurances that the trees will be mature of decent foliage and height, they are worried there might be a small and require years of growth to resemble the CJI I images and, finally, on the lighting.
we assume there will be lighting on the outside of the building to light up the school grounds, but can be we can we be assured that this will not be left on during the night I showed this very briefly to the officers beforehand, so there may have comments
that is the current situation, can I ask the officer?
to count Mr Granger.
if only he'd got any comments on the adaptations since the last referral and the letter and Councillor Osbourne's comments.
thank you Chair our Nigel Granger, and I'm the East Area Team Manager, I do have just a very few number of slides that I can asked to chew on the committee just to refresh everybody's memory in terms of before and after refer assists, please do I believe a colleague is,
about to assist in that regard and
share the PowerPoint here we go and I'll speak to this, I'll just remind the committee of the three excuse me of the three main reasons for the deferral sorry, Mr grandeur, I'm really sorry to introduce you just as you're starting because of the layout of the room, are you the number of people sitting between me and you, and I wonder if he could speak slightly more into the microphone? Certainly I have slight tinnitus and I'm finding it very hard to hear. Thank you. Is there any better
to better.
excellent.
OK, so to remind the Committee of the three main reasons for the deferral of the application it was the first one was to improve the visual appearance of the wall facing residents and jewellery streets along with the potential for a green wall, the second to reduce the amenity impacts for neighbouring residential occupiers as a result of the proposed developments and the third was to explore an enhanced construction management plan with reporting mechanisms to update residents on the progress of the development.
if we can go to the next slide, please.
when the next slide we are there, I've got horrendous delay, I do apologise, so Members, I'm looking at the homescreen members, will they'll recall this, this was in the original application package, so this was the the front elevation showing the the administration block which is a two storey block adjacent to the teaching primary school next slide.
this is the render of the proposed scheme where there are some subtle detailing of bandings around the windows, in order just to provide a further degree of visual interest and break up some of the facing brickwork next slide, this slide shows where the setback has been incorporated into the elevation facing the rear.
the properties that front Jury Street, you can see that on the right hand slide, there is where the that that slice of floor area has been deleted, it's been made up for in a cantilevered section towards the rear of the building and then annotated there in green next slide.
just to illustrate some of the daylight, or rather the viewing angles.
left is, as proposed writes is as a result of the setback, which has improved the overall degree of the the.
have the obstruction presents to residents of Jury Street next line?
this was as proposed, which I think Members have already seen, and the amended version this is with a setback, so you will see that there are a number of windows that have been introduced with obscure glazing, and are there's a couple of lined windows there, the one on the left is a angled window and the set back first sorry second floor has incorporated some patinated brick detailing reflecting the colours of the organisation with some planting at the front and the next slide.
this is just a general arrangement of the courtyard, but it also illustrates the degree of set back from the site of the second floor with the additional treatments and works to the elevations in order to provide some additional visual amenity and the last side of Blythe, and this is just an overall layout showing the biodiverse and solar roof patterns with the planting with a sixth additional.
trees in front sort down the side elevation, I should say, sorry of the administration block, which are the two storey block on the left and then the change in species to watch it type specimens to the 3 storey block on the right, so that is just a refresher for Members in terms of what what was proposed and what's happened since.
the the main thing in terms of addressing the
visual appearance, as I hope those slides will have shown is, is the additional detailing and the set back and the planting in order to provide some visual interest, along with the increased number of windows and and texture to those elevations, so the mass of facing brickwork has been significantly broken up and we regard that as a
as an improvement to the overall proposal, the
potential for a green wall has been explored but discounted due to the fact that it's presents a a fire risk, while also presenting a risk for climbing, which is something that the PR you is well has to prevent in terms of keeping the pupils' of the school safe the reduced impacts as the amended as the deferral report goes into has a a tangible,
improvement over daylight sunlight impacts, along with outlook and officers are of the view that this has overcome that particular concerned, whilst the in the enhanced construction management plan, which I'm sure we probably go into there are greater levels the RHI, the actual condition has been modified in order to in order to incorporate higher levels of reporting and more opportunity to actually advertise and inform residents of of next phases or any particular milestones in the the proposal.
did you want me to address Councillor Lawless's if you can, I'll do it as quickly as I can?
so the the reflective windows, it is an interesting point, I mean, this is a south or west facing elevation, so it gets a lot of sun post midday, they're not proposed to be reflective, they're proposed to be obscure glazed at first and second in order to prevent overlooking or harmful impacts of overlooking and,
as the design team and in terms of offices and interpretation of that, we think that that's a sufficient design solution, we don't really see as it's unusual, we often get lots of complaints about reflective substances on on windows and they are seen more as a problem but anyway the proposal is for those to be obscured and that's for members' consideration this evening the flat roof area above the second the ground of the first floor in terms of maintenance there is a door
other than the windows. There, there is a door that is there solely for the purpose of act of allowing access to maintain the planters, along with the the trees being mature, the they're not proposed to be mature, it's be quite difficult, especially with the constraints of the overall build and and the the location of the the actual specimens themselves. I mean we can, both in these instances we've got conditions 20 and 21, which can get additional details on all of those, but I don't think we can go as far as to insist on on mature trees in this location and the lighting.
in terms of turning the lights off, this is or has a very high specification in terms of its sustainability credentials and the energy statements in order to achieve the high BREEAM rating and the carbon saving. Certainly there would be timing switches and sensors which wouldn't allow lights to stay on all night in order to achieve that high degree of cotton saving, so that concludes my comments for now. Thank you, Mr graduate, I must say, is one of the Councillors slightly responsible for
deferring at the last meeting, and I am satisfied personally with the amendments made, that they are inadequately or approach to tackling the issue, but it's up to other members, Councillor Cooper, I see and then Councillor, given their Councillor Humphreys.
the thank you Chair, yes, I think that overall I can you introduce the so you have done already actually kept there until Councillor cabinet.
I, I think, chair overall I would share that view, I think we did the right thing to ask for this application to be considered in more detail, and I think the value of that is shown very clearly by Mr. Grainger's slides where you can see the previous version and the updated version side by side and the improvements are you know in terms I mean I I think I was also didn't like it because it just looked like a block and so the additional detailing is much nicer.
the fact that it set back. You can read it almost house by house in Jewry Street, where, on page 1 99 of the report it says, therefore, even though the it says the values have improved, the design intervention has resulted in a positive outcome for this room. The daylight distribution test sees an improvement in the values and again and again you can see these individual statements where things have improved and I think you know paragraph 12.2 on page 2 0 5. This design intervention was as a direct result of concerns raised at the planning applications committee. So I think we did absolutely the right thing last time. I think the design is is so much better and I feel able this time to say that I supported. I do have one or two slight reservations about the the wall, but not so much that on balance,
that I would feel unable to to support this, and I have to say I did hear Councillor Osbourne's passionate plea, of course, many of the items that you raised, although obviously very important, are not strictly planning considerations, so I am, whilst I might may or may not be sympathetic to what you just said, I am trying to stick to the the the planning matters before us and I do feel able to support this. Thank you, Chair
Councillor Commander, thank you to Councillor. Given the new Conservative councillor for East Putney ward, just following on from Councillor Cooper, I mean I have to say that our reasons for deferral were very narrow and very specific, and the worthiness of the cause was never in doubt when we last considered the application. So in fact a large part of Councillor Re was once speech tonight was really not necessary because we were at 1.00 with the, because it was just that, how would it impact on the local neighbourhood, which is our concern now, just owning two, that might say that in the presentation we had earlier this week, I did ask a question about the trees between Derry Street and the school and I was told that there would be orchard trees and they will be pleached, and my concern was that the school would be lumbered with a long term maintenance cost of six bleached trees, and then I was told that those trees were necessary in order to provide a screening between the residents and the school and therefore I thought well orchard trees without leaves for six months of the year, hardly provide the kind of screening that most people would want, so I am a bit concerned that what might seem worthy and nice on a landscape architecture, drawing may not be fulfil, fulfil the purpose. So I just ask officers to be mindful that, in approving the landscape details that they deliver this, the the the kind of overlooking reduced overlooking that residents are looking for and not provide something that looks nice on a drawing. My second point, which is really I'm grateful to Councillor areas, for having a
so there are alerted us to what I would call the acid test, when we last talked about the the the the the nunnery on on Roehampton Lane, she said the building doesn't scream out its purpose and it should do, and here we have a similar example, then it doesn't quite scream apart from its title doesn't scream out its purpose and I just wonder whether the architects should have been little more imaginative in trying to do it and again I raised that question and I think I was told
that they didn't want to overshadow the listed building next door. Well, you know that building is full of character. You really would have to drive jolly very hard to overshadow Reid, to put a box next to it of an insipid brick, or a is just not the right thing to do, and so I again urge that in the conditions that we have in the negotiations, can we really look at some more detailing than some recessed for bits of courses that I see in the drawings, maybe a different tone of brick to just kind of break the monotony of a single colour brick. I see I say that from my own experience of looking walking past Florida at school, where there is a bit of reassessing of brick, but it doesn't really make the difference that they should do so. Can I just make those two observations? I don't have a problem with the the rest of the of this scheme and I think deferral has achieved the purpose for which we deferred. Thank you very entertaining, I was the airs test, well done, Councillor S Eve, yeah,
Gus, Humphreys, I, I'd vote for writing that into our next policy document.
I concur completely with what my colleagues have already said, so I want reiterated again, but I do think it has to be stressed that there's there's a really important point here, which is relevant not just to this application but perhaps all the ones we're going to talk about tonight and also in the future. We are undoubtedly with the Council and and and that is, and it's a really serious point that, however, worthy the cause, I have a worthy the reason for the building being in existence. Whatever that purposes, it doesn't in any way excuse poor or mediocre architecture or poor or mediocre ambition for either the borough or for the people that are going to use that buildings throughout its lifetime to come. So I think it's really important. Yes, it was absolutely justified here that we deferred it, and I'm glad to see we have got an improvement, maybe not as much as we would like to have seen, but an improvement on what we've got, but the point is is really
deep felt, I think that we should have not only civic pride but pride in the fact that any building that in the borough that is going to be a symbol of what we can do for our residents and our children and all the rest of it should reflect that with the highest and the highest standards we possibly can of design of architecture and also particularly in the case of this one here tonight respect for its neighbours because that's an important thing, however way that the because they have a great the building is gonna be it has to live in.
parallel with its surrounding community, and it should not, as is it's an insult that community we think you can just plonk anything down regardless of where the impact it might have on those neighbours, I'm pleased to see we've got an improvement here on this one, but it's something we should bear in mind forever. The other application that comes across the committee in a similar vein subject to one or two reservations stated, I get the general feeling that people were happy to, I say, Councillor Coakley's
thank you Chair, Councillor Coakley, for St Mary's ward, I first just wanted to raise a bit of a housekeeping point on the report, those diagrams in and which is shown on the scheme are really helpful in helping to visualise it and I would have liked then to have been included in in the actual report because I tried to find the diagram similar to the blurb the briefing diagrams and I can I can find them even when looking online so that would have been really helpful to help visualise it and also when in the report when we talk about
the daylight access and before and after a BVD, so I think if we had some other way to visualise the the difference and the percentage reduction in daylight because at the moment we have a little paragraph, each individual property and it's quite hard to get your head around all these point 6 8 9 reductions in daylight and if there was like a tabula over a graph way to visualise that then,
that'd be appreciated and I think I'd make it easier to read on the actual application itself, I was supportive of it the last time and I feel.
like the application has now improved even more so I am happy to support it again.
the setback seems to have helped improve the light and no matter how much small for all of the residents concerned, and it's also got the nice side effect of better urban green and in the area too, so.
I think that it's good that we deferred it and we got a better outcome for the residents, and I'd be happy to support it.
Mr Granger will are, I can never get my head round, this particular word, will our our borough carriage or list is that right?
Will he or she, but at that matter, be assisting in terms of the trees and the most suitable for barrier?
yeah yesterday, I mean the the condition we consult colleagues in that regard so that they would have some some inputs and if there are specimens that require.
a lot of maintenance, I believe they have a service level agreement with with a lot of schools in order to look after arboricultural matters within their grounds, say were yes, they they would have an input and definitely advise on appropriate species native, of course,
okay now, and I think other comments were, were simply comments and and.
Councillor White.
hi, sorry, unemployment and earlier on, but yeah, Councillor White to bed, was.
it's just a couple of comments, really the first one is the energy.
the energy reduction, which is really really quite impressive for this building, so should be congratulated on that, but also the listed building, sorry, the listed wall being demolished, seems a bit drastic for vehicular access is that the only way we use helicopter instead?
it's not all of the wall, it is a section of the wall to create a new access, so it's not all of the wall and it's shifted along and the the identical in character pillars, with with your name, with copings and stuff and things like that that is all being replicated in the same architectural language so they'll be faithful replicas there's just a a new section that's being.
basically deleted made good, but it's not all of it, it's essential for for fire access and and other vehicles.
I haven't actually measured it, but I mean from my memory of it, it's 40 50 yards wall and there's a break in it for access, I don't think it destroys the wall.
set out in.
yeah no, but now so, given that conversation, is the application now approved, right, thank you very much that the application was approved and also by the were awarded, they called the historic buildings application, the as well agreed, thank you, Councillor Osborne,
now moving on to S.
item number 1, the Springfield application.
we again have a council, are, there is Councillor Graham, you're here to speak on behalf of your constituents about this application.
Start Councillor Belsham, sorry, we need to start. Yes, I do yeah, I've marvellous, thank you, and I want to start by thanking the residents in the Gallery tonight, many from Springfield itself who were here to oppose the scheme. They've representative of the strength of local feeling on the Council's website. There are nine genuine residents who have made supportive comments about this application. There are now 529 objections. That's a ratio of nearly 60 to 1 against, and it's easy to explain because this Council refused to allow Springfield to be overdeveloped. Following appeal outline permission was granted on the condition that the whole scheme was reduced to 839 units. That level has already been reached and now Barrett wants more units than the Planning Inspectorate rejected. This application is five times larger than the outline permission for these plots, and it's two storeys higher than the neighbouring buildings is develop, agreed with an NHS sticker slapped on top
beyond hundreds of residents, the organisations objecting include the Wandsworth Society who accused the trust sleight of hand, the friends of second Stretton cemetery, numerous environmental groups and the council's own conservation advisory committee who condemned the impact on the nearby park you can add the GLA to that list at stage 1 they said the application doesn't comply with the London Plan would result in harm and that there must be a reduction in height and mass, the fact is that NHS capital funding is no excuse for overdevelopment, the trust was already getting more out of Springfield than it could reasonably expect tonight's recommendation, therefore, to approve points instead the affordable housing,
now the shared ownership units are unaffordable to the people. This administration claims to support, which leaves just 95 social rented units 21% of the total, which are offset by the loss of 37 units of staff accommodation. Apparently, that loss doesn't count in planning terms because it was conceded in 2012. Well in that case, bringing back the 2012 plants much as I understand this administration's desire for social rent and more social rent, this application isn't a good deal and a bogus concession on the school site doesn't make it any better. That land won't be lost and you can get the same outcome there independently. Tonight's application must be judged on its own merits and it boils down to this. 95 units are not enough to justify a 5 storey wall of housing that destroys what was agreed or permanently disfiguring the surroundings. It breaks the London Plan, it breaks our local plan, it builds on a municipal open land which requires some fairly adventurous arguments about curtilage, to be legal at all.
it's completely inappropriate and I didn't even have time to talk about the access and transport issues associated when my residents in John Hunter Way bought they were told their properties were back onto some normal houses, and it's not just my residents, your residents, Councillor White on Hepburn and lingual are equally appalled at what will loom over them.
and then there's the harm to the listed hospital buildings, a unique part of our boroughs heritage, the developers own expert said the plans along these lines would, and I quote, result in insurmountable harm to the landscape and the site's heritage assets.
there's a reason this application has taken 15 months to get to this committee.
you now have a choice, you can uphold past decisions and maintain the integrity of our planning system, or you can let developers get away with cynically pushing schemes to the limit and then coming back for more.
this is half the size again of the existing development in a fraction of the space our residents deserve better listed buildings deserve better.
parks and open spaces deserve better,
greed with an NHS sticker is still greed, please reject the scheme until bad to do better, thank you.
thank you, Councillor Gruen.
Ms Kelly, are you speaking on I've got an officer's comment?
sorry is a presentation, I do beg your pardon, I'm being reminded there's a presentation, I do apologise.
so let's have a look at the presentation, sorry, we're just trying to get the presentation to come on the squash.
going on it's showing on my screen, but it's not coming up on the big screen.
sorry, what's the problem?
asylum, but it looks a bit small, doesn't do apologise for the technical glitches, are we OK now right, we're there, sorry about that good evening, my name is Julia Kelly, and I'm the Development Management Case Officer for the West team. I'm gonna give you just a short background and a a lot of you do not actually know the site, but just to give you a quick update. The application site forms part of the wider Springfield hospital site, which itself is just over 33 hectares in area.
the Springfield Site is bounded by Barnwood, Lane to the north-west College Gardens, Chancery, Mews and Ernest Bevin, School to the north-east, Glen Benny, Road lingual Road and Hepburn Road lie to the south-east stratum cemetery, lies to the south and St George's Grove to the south-west.
the Springfield site has a variety of heritage assets on it, including the Grade II listed main building and the Grade II listed Elizabeth Newton wing, as well as numerous other listed and curtilage listed buildings, the site also contains designated and protected landscape features.
with part of the site falling within designated metropolitan open land.
and also the gardens of the Springfield hospital being Grade II registered Park and Gardens.
the Springfield hospital site has a long history of providing mental health facilities and is currently the main campus site for mental health services in south-west London, along with Tylwyth hospital which falls within the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames.
the application before Members tonight relates to an approximately 3.4 6 hectare area.
excuse me, located at the southern end of the Springfield site.
it's currently occupied by the two storey buildings of the Diamond Estate, the Morrison Building and the Shaftesbury building.
the diamond estate last provided nursing and other staffing accommodation, but is currently vacant with the last tenants leaving in September 2023.
the shaft rebuilding, which was used as a secure mental health facility, is also vacant with facilities in the new hospital buildings, the Morrison building does remaining use and currently delivers mental health hospital services. The remainder of the current application site comprises hardstanding, providing car parking, soft landscaping with existing mature tree belts along both the southern boundary of the site and the western part of the site. The southern part of the application site falls within the Metropolitan land and the boundary of this is shown on page 63 of the committee report.
as part of an estate modernisation programme, the south-west London and St George's mental health NHS, trust referred to, as the Trust has sought to secure the comprehensive redevelopment and part refurbishment of the Springfield site in order to secure funding for new modern mental health hospital facilities.
provided through the revenue per hour from this development.
as part of this modernisation programme outline planning, permission and listed building consent were granted on appeal in 2012 for the redevelopment of the Springfield site to provide modern mental health hospital facilities 839 residential units of which 577 were to be new-build dwellings and 262 were to be provided within the converted retained listed hospital buildings.
and that permission also provided for a new care home, the site for a new school retail floorspace and a publicly accessible park to date, various phases of reserved matters have been brought forward following this outline consent which have resulted in the delivery of the new hospital buildings which are now open and occupied on the site, the new care home part of the new park which is open for public use and consent for the building out of all of the 839 residential units approved under the outline consent.
to date, the consents for the approved number of residential units under the outline and brought forward by reserved matters have covered only part of the Springfield site. This has been as a result of intensification of development on some plots of the site under the reserved matters. As a result, plots X Y Z and VB shown in the outline consent and which formed the current application site outlined in red on this slide, cannot be developed for further residential units under the outline but require the submission of the full standalone planning application. And this is the application before Members tonight. The development of these plots will not only provide additional homes, but will also help contribute towards the CA trusts, continue in estate management and modernisation programme and specifically the redevelopment of the Toll House Tolworth hospital
as the current application site falls out of the BHA boundary of the outline consent, because it is a full planning application, it presents an opportunity to revisit the approved master plan, which is now nearly 14 years old, submitted back in 2012 to 2010 to the Council, in particular, the application has looked at ways of increasing the level of housing delivery on the site whilst taking account of its sensitive site parameters.
as a result of this exercise, the applicants propose to move the built form, which was to a virgin originally have been provided within Plot X further to the south, which is where the block A is now proposed.
this enables a more usable area of the site to be retained as unbuilt open parkland and also enables the retention of the mature belt of trees along the western side of the site.
you can see in this slide the difference between the consented outline layout and the proposed layout, this reorientation of the plots helps reduce the visual impact of the layout on the setting of the listed buildings by allowing greater visibility of the heritage assets from parts of the park, it also brings the built form away from the boundary of the registered park and garden whilst also creating, as I said, the more usable,
area of Park at this part of the Springfield site, it does, however, mean that blockade of the development is now moved within the boundary of the Metropolitan on a open land, unlike the previous Plot X which fell outside it.
as originally proposed under the outline consent plots X Y Z and VB were indicated to be delivering approximately 89 houses.
along with 117 car parking spaces to support these, these dwellings were indicated under the approved parameter plans to be delivered in buildings up to three storeys high with a height of 11.5 metres above ground level 8.7 metres high on plot, VB
in terms of the layout, as now proposed under the current application for flatted blocks are proposed, indicated as blocks A B C and D on this ground floor plan, which will provide 440 flats, together with a terrace of 9 houses, shown in block E adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the site.
the flatted blocks would be brought forward in a range of subplots, all arranged around an internal courtyard amenity area.
the flat buildings would arrange from elements of three storeys high within block A up to five storeys high for blocks C and D.
a central pedestrian cycle promenade would run through the centre of the site leading from the end of towards Stretton cemetery, up to the rear of the John Hunter Avenue properties as part of the application proposal, it is also intended that a pedestrian cycle link be made through to Stretton cemetery which would involve removing a section of existing boundary wall and replacing this with an arched gate gated entrance between the two neighboring sites.
the flat buildings would be predominantly four storeys at the southern end of the site, where blocks A and B are and 5 storeys at the northern end of the site, where blocks C and D are an important factor to note is the site topography which is demonstrated in this slide.
the site slopes quite considerably down towards the south-west and the cemetery from the north-eastern end of the site, running from approximately 24 metres, A D down to 16 metres, a ODI along this line.
as a result, the different sub blocks, with each flatted building although of the same storey height within the block, would present a varied roof line as they take account of the site topography.
this is an important difference between the current application and the outlines.
scheme, which proposed a levelling of areas of land to create different level platforms, whereas the current proposal seeks to work closer with the existing site topography.
this is again demonstrated in these long section elevations, which just shows from one end of the site through to the other.
in terms of height, as I said, the flatted buildings at the northern end of the site blocks C and D this slide is showing block C would be the tallest and these are the ones that lie beyond the end of the rear of the John Hunter Avenue properties both blocks C and D would be five storeys tall and each would be approximately 60 metres high above adjacent ground level that's a high, excluding any building plant on the rooftop just to point out that 16 metres is 4.5 metres higher than the 11.5 metre high parameter plan are indicated in the outline consent for this part of the site blocks, A and B would both be predominantly four storeys tall and each would have a general height.
of 13 metres, which is 1.5 metres higher than the indicated heights, in the previously approved parameter plans and the outline scheme.
in terms of materiality, the buildings would utilise two different brick types, a textured red brick as the dominant material and a lighter buff brick as an accident, brick.
all of the flats would have individual balconies or patios, as well as access to central courtyard, amenity spaces.
in terms of design, the buildings would pick up and reinterpret some small details from the nearby listed buildings, including the use of brick coins, on the corners and detailing around windows.
with regards to the tenure of the 440 flats proposed, 220 of these ii, 50%, would be affordable units, these would be delivered as 95 social rent units and 125 intermediate units.
the buildings would all be provided, tenure blind and all have the same standard of amenity and detail.
with regards to the townhouses, a total of nine 3 bedroom 6 person houses would be provided, these would each be three storeys high and again would work with the topography of the site with a height of 9.6 metres above adjacent ground level page 95 95 of the report shows the difference in ground level between the proposed terrace of houses and the existing facing terrace in John Hunter Avenue.
the facade of the rear façade of the proposed houses would be set approximately 23 metres away from the rear facade of the existing facing terrace in John Hunter Avenue.
a total of 48 car parking spaces would be provided on the site compared to the 117 spaces proposed under the outline consent, and access route would run through the top half of the site and between the blocks it would not extend down further into the MOU, all keeping albeit vehicular activity at the northern half of the site.
the access roads can be seen in the light purple in this slide and the proposed parking spaces are shown in the darker purple.
in terms of cycle parking, a total of 817 long stay and 32 short-stay PA cycle parking spaces are proposed within the new buildings.
these would be provided within dedicated cycle stores within the flat box and with individual creche provision for the townhouses.
in order to facilitate the layout of the development, a total of 50 existing trees would need to be felled, including 11 covered by tree preservation orders, a total of 50 replacement trees are proposed to be planted on the site which, together with the retained trees, would see 70 C. 77 trees in total on the site.
the tree planting proposed would be part of a comprehensive landscape scheme for the site, which would also include the provision of the remaining 2.4 acres of the Springfield Park, together with a further 0.3 acres of open space gained as a result of the relocation of Plot X a variety of hard and soft landscape amenity areas including play facilities would be provided to compliment the setting of the development.
the development would have a 66% reduction in carbon emissions with the remaining offset payment secured by a Section 106 agreement. A number of late representations have been received, as detailed in the late papers for members, and the CIL figures are also proper, provided within the late papers. Having assessed all of the material planning considerations, officers have concluded on balance that the development is acceptable and accordingly, on page 1 3 8 of the application paper have recommended approval, subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement. Members are reminded that due to the scale of this scheme, it is referral to the Mayor of London for consideration at stage 2 and whether to call it in or not. Thank you, or thank him slowly very comprehensive
and complex application.
I, I realised that other people might have different views, I'm certainly open to suggestions, but I was intending to try and bracket collect comments together in the following sequence, comments about building on metropolitan open land as a number 1 to design and ecological aspects of the application then massing scale.
issues of that kind, followed by transport and traffic implications, and finally, the issue of affordable housing trying to do in that way, I realise Members will find it difficult and tend to jump from one way to the one issue to the other, but if we can try and keep to that,
it would be really helpful for me, and perhaps everyone else on the first issue I mentioned I mean, does anyone think those should be added Councillor, given that you are happy to go with that yeah framework, but I I just hope that you would allow some,
the early questions of Ms Kelly and officers before we go into the five areas.
sir, suddenly had the specific questions, they have got wonky just just to of Miskelly you mentioned access to the cemetery.
has that been agreed by the people who run the symmetry? Are you Lamberth, and the people who loved the symmetry ii, the friends of the 70, because I get the feeling that that may not be the case. That's one point. The second point is about the houses. On a John Hunter Close, then the nine houses is there an explanation as to why they are flat roof, as opposed to all the others, existing ones that have been built, which are pitched roof I mean, is there any reason why they couldn't be the same in terms of pitch, and my third point is about the TPO trees
and we've been really useful to have had a list of the TPOs and species, and whether what is being lost is being replaced in species terms, bar from your knowledge, can you give us a kind of a rough estimation, whether that's kind of what's being lost is, by and large, in species terms, being recovered through re the new planting? I think that's a slight cheat Councillor, gonna do any very slight because I think the the TPOs on the flat roof can come under the heading of lightbulbs, but as design and so on. The first one, there was a genuine question about the cemetery and whether there's a Benny, any agreed access or not, I have no idea of the scale. Can you
yes, the the symmetry is run by the London Borough of Lamberth, and I understand that the applicants have been in discussions with the relevant officers from Lamberth, I'm not sure to what stage the actual agreement with securing that link is, but I understand that discussions have been positive to date.
positive to date, I mean, certainly from as a relative outsider living all the way over in Battersea, I would have thought a pedestrian and cycling access through the the park, as is growing and through to Tooting, linking up with Wandsworth Common was highly desirable, so I would,
are likely to be an access and
I accept that, but the reality often is that access through large cemetery areas carries its own risks, and it's just that.
having been aware of some of the earlier discussions on this site, there was at 1.00 time fairly vociferous opposition to access into the park because of exactly those issues and issue to be resolved, OK, fine, it is done on the access if, if it were to go ahead it would be in line with the cemetery open-access opening hours it wouldn't be 24 7 access so it sort of hours of darkness it wouldn't be open, it would just be during daylight hours.
councillors is you're still a question of the sky, and I'll be allowed to ask a for Councillor Gruen to clarify some of his comments now, OK, the simple answer to that, okay now if we can Councillor Brown.
remove himself from the building, I wasn't going to be so officious, but I'm sure that would be a potential tactic, but I'm sure Councillor Gruen is gonna behave himself perfectly well.
properly
so so
now, can we just can we get on with anyone got views, I'm sure they have about the metropolitan open land they want to express here now, and let's discuss that issue and to see what we make of it members.
the Council of India. I did earlier raised a question with Mr Calder about Morrison and Shaftesbury in my, it's my Fort, and I names to call to reply to me, but I couldn't make a decent tale of your reply, Mr. Corker. My question was whether these two buildings had been built with the benefit of crown immunity, and I thought that perhaps the earlier one would have been and that it would have encroached on metropolitan, open land without the benefit of a local decision, and therefore we are now being told it's been built on anyway already and say in this sense there has been a loss, is a loss that we could not have stopped because of Crown immunity and for Navas to say Hey, each happen, so we have to live with. It is slightly not putting the the facts fully. I mean I accept it's happened, but it would be nicer to know exactly whether it originally was, it was encroached. Encroachment ism I regularised and all of that, but it just doesn't come through in the paper
if, if perhaps I can response, my point was that there have been a number of applications over the year under what was originally a section or a circular 80 application, and then a circular 18 84 which had Crown immunity. There was some applications which were objected to the ones I could find, whereas actually development towards Birdwood Lane. I couldn't find or an objection to this because I, even though we weren't determined authority, we would be consulted as the adjoining authorities, so to speak, so I can definitively say we had objected back in the back in it's probably the early 70 s for these, but my main point, however, was as part of this application process, we took legal opinion to look at the permit previously development land developed land, which was set out in the report, and we have to establish that as the base principle for this application, so which, which is where I said to you that it's not relevant what happens in the s 1970, so hopefully that explains my point
there was a living wage for them.
some of us had the benefit, as we all know, of visiting the site, some detail very recently, from my perspective, I mean, the argument is about developing on metropolitan, open land, and the counter argument for people who are not into the terminology, perhaps is that this is previously permitted.
pre previously developed land was certainly the quarter we're talking about which I visited with colleagues here.
is?
doesn't look and feel like Metropolitan Open space, it's.
there's some very difficult areas and there's a lot of building on it, and I think.
I think the figures in the paper to show that actually there will be more genuinely open land accessible to human beings and not birds or something after a development like this that there is now, just if I may appoint any other comments on development on Metropolitan Councillor Coakley,
I just wanted to raise because on page 48 from consultation with the GLA says it doesn't currently comply with the London Plan, but it can with amendments it didn't mention in the report what these suggested amendments are so as one of and if it could be possible to mention them and ask why they were why the amendments were enacted in this application that we're considering now.
Ms Kelly, then, essentially it's the the remainder of the comments by the GLA on.
they were in each section, they've said, whether or not it it does comply or does not, and there are some slight areas where they consider that further amendments or conditions or confirmation of of aspects would make it accord with the the London Plan, but it essentially it's it's within the whole of that.
section on the jealous response.
as no one.
sorry that I'd just attributed I I thought Councillor Carter's question was with what those words and does it comply now, whether the amendments have been made to make it comply now?
Ms Kelly or as.
I think the implication of the recommendation is yes, but I mean that.
can I can I just say that the comments where Councillors picked this up in is in the initial comments made by the GLA officers in respect of the application, there wasn't a great deal of amendments made to the scheme per se, but I think it was more about that's their initial stage 1 commentary generally and overall they didn't think it was compliant, I think they'd been able to demonstrate through submission of greater information about trees,
sunlight daylight, and so on that the scheme is compliant, I don't know if they will be calling in.
stage 2 depending on this evening
I've actually got, I've got some more information in Mr Calder.
I've I've actually got the stage the full letter here and in terms of transport they weren't required further information on healthy streets, car and cycle parking to ensure that it would comply with their standards in terms of sustainable development they required further information on the circular economy, the whole life carbon and the green infrastructure and air quality to ensure it would comply with their standards in terms of land use principles the they were asking for further justification in terms of very special circumstances in terms of harm to the metropolitan open land at that stage,
the GLA were and the applicants were looking at a very special circumstance case needing to be made, but subsequently, having taken the legal advice, we now in a position where we're accepting that it's previously developed land and in terms of housing they were looking at that time the affordable housing provision was 60% 40% and wasn't in compliance with the local plan so they were asking for further details on that.
and just some general points about some of the elevational treatments, but the report states that, with additional information and possible, further slight amendments, that they felt that these concerns could be overcome.
sorry, OK, sorry, although the point at the point I was going to make, which is truly shown by what Ms Kelly said, is that we we are or I can't imagine the last tie, OK, I can't recall the last time we've had a major application that has been referred to the GLA at stage 1 where it comes back, and it says it's completely incomplete on board. They always have this and seek more information, and the the the major change re. The the two major changes happen on this application is the amendments. The affordable housing which makes a policy compliant, brings up to the 50% on
on this site and and and the mix and the difference where previously we we and the GLA would go for the approach that this is metropolitan, open land and they have to justify very special circumstances after we've we went through the process.
then took a legal opinion that it was agreed that it was previously development to develop land, they don't need to go through that test, and that was the point I was trying to make previously about it being set out in the report so we can show a clear difference between the submission what the GLA saw, the additional information and the amendments and what they'll have at this stage to, but you know they are a different
the deciding body, so it'll be to the colleagues and the journey for for that.
Councillor Cooper, I hope this is on the Metropolitan Open Land question, it is what it's actually on the issue of the GLA OK, I've just sent to Councillor Keighley, because he is obviously interested a copy of the stage 1 report and it also come to the covering letter addressed to Julia Kelly and it says in the covering,
well, the covering letter is the point that I want to raise, I'm not going to go into, yes, it's a pay, it's paragraph 1 2 2 1 page.
several hundred later. Yes, that's the where. It talks about the reasons set out in paragraph 1 2 2, which are the remedies for where it doesn't comply with the London Plan, and the letter is now saying that the Deputy Mayor considers that the application complies with the London Plan and for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 2 2 and does not need to be consulted again. So your Council may therefore proceed to determine the application without further referral to the Mayor, so so are we actually making the decision tonight without it? Having to go back to the GLA is the point that I'm making, because that's my reading of this letter, in which case I think it's our view
about the metropolitan open land and whether or not the
things that are going to replace it and the 50 trees that are chopped down, that are gonna be replaced with the new trees and whether or not we find that to be satisfactory, at which I, personally, I do have some issues with this in its current form, thank you.
forget your current problems, which I understand nonetheless.
at this stage, the issue about the legal advice and other things of cleared and clarified the matter as far as the GLA is concerned, as it does actually say in the report and but secondly, the GLA can still call it in as it happens in an event because of the scale of it so it's still possible either way.
that doesn't ring a bell to me, I'm not sure of Ms Kelly saying that when is that letter dated?
I am merely a copied in on because I'm the London Assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth, and this is actually quite recent and was sent out on the 10th of March so should have come out to you both in hard copy and it's come from planning support at London dot gov dot uk and if I open it up I can see that it says that it's gone to Julia Kelly as the person receiving it, but copied. In are me, the Chair of the London Assembly planning committee, the National Planning, casework Unit at D-lock and Nadine James agent Montague Evans, the people copied in, so that seems a little strange if you've not all not seen it
this report was circulated after that letter was correct, yes.
sorry, Mr Cardigan, your solicitors.
yes.
yeah
sir, so that letters stated in 2023 so as a year ago, so that that's that's the basis of our are at this stage, one where where we we, we will still refer it back to stay at the garden bar.
year we will still be referring it back, in spite in spite of her, so it's still the case that the the legal opinion that we sought justifies.
sorry, can I if, if everyone keeps go out for a moment, just the legal opinion still justifies our view that permitted development previous development overrides in this particular circumstance, the metropolitan open land argument, yes, so so essentially we agreed that was previously developed land so they didn't need to go through the very special circumstances case with Mr Moss can add bones to that bit of muscle cartilage.
now that's all.
obviously a bit confusing, but I hope we've sorted it out, OK now, can I move on to the next area that I was talking about, which is just.
are you still talking about Metropolitan, Open Land, fine?
in my view.
I'll get a bit confused, I can and but by the way, Councillor Graham, I am aware I am Councillor for Hebden Road and please don't follow Councillor.
please don't get into another world and some white please refrain from addressing members, not committed, you know, yeah I'll get off.
I understand that, obviously it's pre previously developed land will have some of it was, but is it still metropolitan, open land or not?
yes.
but it has had previous developed, it is previously developed land as well, where it can be both at the same time.
OK, can we now move on?
Councillor, Cuba is sorry for creating confusion, just on the point about the quality of Metropolitan, Open Land and the quality of green belt, which we hear much about where people say or this part of the green belt, that's got a garage on it and metropolitan open land that's been built on before and it's not of the highest quality.
actually, sometimes just because it's been left, even if it's apparently not of the highest quality, it can be particularly valuable because it's been untouched and is in a corner and has had nothing done to it in terms of the the the use by nature of that particular area which was the point that Councillor Govinda was alluding to in terms of biodiversity so I mean that I do have some issues with the idea of building on any metropolitan, open land or indeed felling 50 trees, even if the application is, I'm talking about restoring them, you can't, because what we just discussed, the you know the idea in the Frances Barber pupil referral unit, the idea that you could plant fully grown trees you just can't you, you know, they're really difficult to actually move around because they have massive root systems, the same as sizes, the branches that you can't move around fully grown trees that's completely just not possible, so I do have some issues about the fact that the
at the revision to the application does then require the building on the metropolitan open land, notwithstanding that we're now saying that we don't have to go through the the VSC, the very special circumstances argument, because it has been previously developed land, it is still open land at this moment in time.
well, that's a point of view, I don't happen to share if you take the totality with.
with the new park, the actual amount of open land is this, and it is more usable and more accessible.
I understand the argument, of course, that you have wasteland which is inhabited by all kinds of wildlife, but I think the end result would be more useable and accessible, as is shown by the part that's been developed in the park. Anyway, those kind of two separate views about metropolitan open land. I don't think we can do anything about putting those together, but Councillor Humphries, thank you, sir. I'll think I forgot to introduce myself earlier than Councillor Gary Humphries. Conservative councillor for South builds importantly a bit late but better late than ever. I think it's quite useful if I don't know if it was going on and it's harder to see in the paper copies, but if you look online on page 8 of the report, there's quite a good couple of aerial photographs of the existing site and the proposed site, and it's it's it's it's a bit freaky because the the ha ha, the upper of the two pictures is, is a close-up if you like, of the actual site, we're talking about silhouettes, and the other one is that whole generic plot with the with the this plot in the bottom corner, but just
yeah, we're bandying around these terms when it's properly developed or northwards Metropolitan, Open Land or not, but just as to the layman.
if you look at that top picture and I know we've had Nido council's arguments about this little restaurant, but quite a lot of the existing land, although it may technically count as built upon, is gardens and landscaping around, if you look at the between the Morrison Building and the Shaftsbury building there is a big chunk of lawn and gardens and trees and pots and stuff and things around there and it also equally between damaged state and the shops for building, so let's be clear about what we're talking about when we talk about the changes it's not all buildings and concrete.
such like, at the moment, there is quite a lot of open land, which is green, open spaces, as Councillor Cooper quite rightly says that in itself has some merit.
as open land and Cheney for different new open land, I, I hear the argument that the applicant is making it, we're going to gain other land instead, but that's not, strictly speaking true to say that it's all built land now, so we're going to put the density that we're proposing to put on that the applicant proposes to put on that tonight is significantly more than what there is.
in those two images there you can see it quite clearly
that's another, and that's a restatement in some ways I mean, I accept that I accept the point.
can we move on from Metropolitan Open Land? I'm sure we all have our views because we have to take a balanced view, taking everything into account the people who think that the metropolitan open land is the most important issue might be persuaded that other things are more important or less important, so we have to take a balanced view across the whole, so in terms of design,
ecological aspects of the design, and he comments about that at all Councillor S.
I'm Fine is from East Putney.
the year says I've got another instance coming.
I am not quite sure whether I'm going to vote for these or against it, I'm very mixed about the Metropolitan Open Lane, but I think overall the design is not bad. I think it's quite good has a lot of good aspects to it. I welcome the extra housing I welcome the additional bit of accessible park and I like the access from Newton House, but I have some general points
it really is more for the officers than anybody else, it's about general housing plans,
but we thought about healthy streets just now, healthy streets have people on them and eyes from inside on them now, when you have no front doors of any of the streets, all the people from the streets are sucked into one entrance for each block, maybe two engines for each block.
what a waste of space on every ground floor to have those great long corridors and what a waste of the opportunity for.
animation may believe is opportunities for interaction throughout the site and security.
so front doors is there a rule against Frutos, I haven't seen a single housing thing.
while we've been here, there's got front doors to enter into a common hall, it really is perverse.
I wonder whether the Councillors could please ask for some front doors, also, I would like to can we have some allotments for the users, as well as general, open space and play spaces, I have some specific.
design, very detailed design thinks there are some two bedroom flats where both bedrooms open of the living room.
when I wrote for the Housing Corporation we weren't even allowed one bedroom opening of living, so I don't understand what's changed about fire escape rules there also there are too many single aspect flats, for my point of view, single aspect is not just a nice sort of frilly interior design notice they are, it makes them more accessible for blind people and for deaf people both of whom need additional light from more than one direction, deaf people need it for lip reading, blind teeth.
can we try and avoid distracting people in the middle of August, saying gone, Councillors, you tell us on purpose, are you well OK, building through the new Eyre's rural front doors, but he then I will forgive you for interrupting me now then yes now the other thing is that this is a big scheme.
in Scandinavia, each one of these blocks would have its own general purpose, general use for crashes, parties, meetings, clinics.
there isn't one on this site proposed, will you please find it is about 30 square metres that service on the ground floor so that there could be a crash or a clinic or evening classes?
I do have some other points, but they're much less important.
yes, that's all, thank you very much, thank you.
I think the point I very much take the point about from doors, I think it's a bit late in this particular case, but for the officers to take on board in terms of all sorts of other developments and will but we've lots of both sides let's admit that we've got away from that in all kinds of developments everywhere and perhaps we should get back to it Councillor Humphreys, you wanted to say something about this and Councillor given the thank you Chair yes,
a few things I, I agree about the front doors are completely Councillors and actually on the original scheme that we're gonna get 89 houses, it is about 89 front doors, so there you go.
so it's a bit of a change, the design was to contemporary design and eco okay.
I have to say there was that there was a point raised, as I can't remember who said it, I think with Councillor, give India about the the, the the question about the pitched roofs so we had pitched roofs on the existing development we have pitched roofs on the John Hunter of Avenue and we've got flat roofs on the townhouses specifically, I'm wondering what the design justification for that was because it's kind of you know is it we've we've got this whole section is going off in a completely different tangent to the rest of the development and it sits uneasily to me whereas what we've already got
very little synergy. We, we heard that the design and access statement is talking about how it's reflecting elements of the existing buildings and bloodied body blow. I, I see little evidence of that. I have to say
as far as design generally. That, yes, there are the, rather than some some nudges towards the building with the detailing on the corners, but I have to say generally, it's pretty average, isn't it? It's disappointing that the scale that we're talking about here, of of of of of development, that can't be some more finesse or more details that the entrance to the entrances is that there are Councillor areas, I think are particularly unnoticeable. If you know what I mean in the designs that are using the drawings that I've seen, I I think that was something the DLP picked up on in their earlier comments that it's it. They're not very distinctive, and it's just a homogenous
lump of off of buildings that seem to generate very little interest in architects we have amongst themselves, which is disappointing to see, we've we've commented in the past on other aspects of this site.
where we've been impressed with the attention to detail was particularly the historic buildings and things like that, but the design on this one, I I find distinctly underwhelming, I have to say, and the form of the buildings were going to get onto that later on, but the form of the buildings with these big square blocks with flat roofs and very little detail except the fenestration I think is disappointing when we've got such a quantum of development as far as design go, you're not going to like me for saying this but I'm not intending to say they're like.
great can mean that view when you were involved in the development of all that stuff in Swindon Way, which is so amorphous and body, I just make that government, a Council of India. Thank you. I mean just just for Councillor s benefit. I mean my point about cross ventilation in dual aspect. Flats is that if they are actually very good for sustainability, because it does mean that there is natural ventilation, I'm just going to the design point. I mean Councillor Humphries J raised the the the townhouses and pitched roofs. For me, my specific question is how many of the 3 bedroom flats proposed will have ground floor immediately? Accessible ground floor, amenity
given that this would be family housing and inevitably would have children, and therefore direct access underground floor would be a good design feature, and I I don't know how many there are clearly the ones that are wheelchair accessible will do, but how many more have that my my other point about design is that,
you look at the four blocks, the tallest of the blocks.
is at the highest point in the land
and the closest to the listed building and the lowest block is at the lowest point in the kind of all of the land and away from the listed building, and you kind of wonder would it logically not have been right to have the tall building in the hollow of the land so it doesn't get out?
would it not be right to have a lower building more in or closer to the listed building so that it's more in in terms of the heights complimentary to the height rather than create to create this divide, and I just couldn't understand the the design justification for it and my son so you minimise the gradient so you try and make the country as flat as possible rather than.
I must say, but you then get the trees to make the break, that's what you would do, I mean Councillor, has lived a life of making those subtle differences in built form.
and no no wonder any architect today could do the same, but my final point, on the whole thing, is that going back to Council as a point of Eric about front doors is yes, these are mentioned blocked type of idiom, but even then the entrance should have a presence. It should be ashamed of itself for being an entrance. It kind of something that this marked celebrated and and shouts other than saying, such as such houses, yes, and it's that which is lacking in some of the detail. So my specific point just to
is about the three bedroom flats and direct access to ground-floor amenity and some justification for why the height is at the tallest point in the land. I think, Ms Kelly, you can probably not tell us exactly how many 3 bedroom flats are on the ground floor offhand, we might be able to give a percentage or a fee or, or perhaps you do have the figure absolutely, and what's your comment about Councillor? Given India's comment about the tallest buildings being at the highest point of the land, no, I'm afraid I don't have that figure of how many family units have direct access. Obviously the the nine townhouses are rural, family dwellings, and they do
just on the point about the flat roofs, I just point out that the John Hunter Avenue properties all have flat roofs at the present than the existing terraces of John Hunter Avenue properties are flat roofed on the point about the entrances, if you look at page 77 of the officer's report, it shows an example of one of the entrances to the flatted blocks in terms of the point about the heights and the distribution across the site. I'm going to pass to my colleague Mr. Sellers our urban design officer who can give you a little bit more comment on that aspect, leaving chairman Barry Sellers whose worm design officers wonder certainly the heights.
because I think you're gonna talk about hate later, I think, but I think that you seem seems to have substituted within this question as well at same time, so I'll take it now and that that's OK because of the fact that
you know, the design is an iterative process, you start of the pre-application process run run through, and the pre-application that the development start over 6 storeys, and we said to them that was non-compliant the it's dominant, not only the tall buildings owner, it's not a mid-rise own.
instead, we were successful in pushing it down. So now ranges from five storeys down to three storeys, now the the logic for it, starting at 5.00 at the top and going down. It basically is, as you stepped down a slope for any any sort of development on a hill. You tend to get that process whereby you're stepping down, and so that was the logic that that was brought in by by us and I was the R P bought into the idea as well, where it steps down and it also would have had a bigger impact on you face onto the EML, the symmetry, so so there was logic there, I think, related to say, and also the another point also on that is, is it the height difference between the approved outline and the proposal? There's only one and a half one and a half storeys so
there is not a great deal of difference in that sense.
now intensively at the front door catchment front doors because that was raised with the applicants at the pre-application period and somewhere they may have got lost in translation was the DLP. I don't think, refers to front doors anywhere, but but certainly they've preferred, they talked about entrances and we worked very hard with the applicants to try and improve the quality of the entrances. We wanted to see something that was celebrated as people come home to the their their premises. They want to be deeply, have a dignified entrance to that. There are those flats, and I think there's a there's a there's a sketch in the report showing the changes we we successfully negotiated as part of that process. I think the the picture if that's what it is the CJI I on page 77, which
Ms Kelly referred to makes a point about the entrances, but doesn't come over quite so much in the profile, perhaps that's just the way the pictures are taken, but certainly that entrance does make a point of it and it is clearly being considered in those terms with respect to those people who just don't agree with what Mr Sellars' just said, we we just have differences of opinions, I mean, I, I wondered, about the tall highest buildings being at the top and thought about it, and in the end, as I tried brusquely to say, I thought to accentuating with gradients in the in, in a visual sense, made for a more interesting view of the open land from the park or our places than flattening it all out, but that's obviously a matter of opinion
yes indeed, we went to the site.
yesterday.
there is a very nice line of very mature plane trees of some significant height between the cemetery and these sites, so the blocks A and B will for a very long time be shrouded by those trees and in essence I can see that if there was no such tree cover then there would be no break between the cemetery land and this, but it's a matter of taste, but I do think sometimes design review panels are designed review panels. They are advisers, they're not gods and then in, even if they were gods, they are very fallible gods. Judging by some of the design, review panel reports or gods, of course, famously were fallible. Councillor Justin
Mark Justin Councillor for Nine Elms.
visiting the site yesterday gives you not only an idea of the entire plot, but also what's around it, and it's quite remarkable that neither this development nor anywhere around it has any shops whatsoever, so it's just you know, I mean getting a pint of milk as a new resident in this place is gonna be involved, quite a journey, or is it or is the whole area? Gonna be swept up with Uber deliveries, because just a single shop would make a difference and I can't see any shops in this development or if you took a a bicycle ride away, funnily enough, yet you know I was slightly late to my own, that's partly because I went down the wrong road and there is a shop, so I mean just satisfactorily that there is a shop and there's a Sainsbury's as well. Councillor Atha's thank you, I'm Councillor Owens from the Northcote ward, just following up on on some of the we've been discussing. I know we are planning to move on to massing and scale, but it doesn't say, follow a little bit in with the the points we're making about the GLA on page 45, the GLA says that the the blocks needs to be as a storey lower is actually so specifies it there and check you on the see blocks, so I was just wondering, and then you comments on that, thank you.
this Council has just followed that up and certainly we we are made throughout the whole process that a four storey development would be more policy compliant sorry.
can you speak up?
a forced to re develop would have been policy compliant, so that's the angle we took throughout the whole process, so the applicants were aware of the fact that any 5 storey development would not be part of that process and they would have to be something we should be weighed up in the balance of the the planning application form.
OK.
any Councillor Coakley sorry, you're just holding the mic for effect good, I just wanted to reiterate what Mr Sellars had said earlier anyway, in response to that that initially it came in as a taller scheme that was actually revised following the G, the comments that we received first feedback thanks, Councillor Humphreys,
thank you, sir, thank you that that that that's half of it and well done officers for negotiating down, but the the premise is wrong, isn't it, it's like you can come in, you know, it's the the the the the market haggling routine, isn't it coming with a silly price going in half as much lower and you end up somewhere in the middle, the kind of thing it's a bit basic like that, isn't it? But the reality is that they could recover and set any art alike, and anything seemed to be taken as a win, but the reality is that this is still not policy compliant at 5.00 storeys. What we've ended up with. It still should be forced already
staggered, the number of yes, yes, but look at John Major see, say Swanton way again, but which the Mayor at the moment, I know I voted against that but.
we will, we've expressed our views about this, how about moving on to?
while we move, we're halfway there, massing scale, I think we've covered it really, unless no massing scale other issues of that kind.
covenant.
OK well, we sort of cover a little bit I I mean, we've covered a little bit with the thing, but the point here is in comparison with what was approved and the quantum that was expected not by the Council in the end, but one on appeal, as we've heard from Ms Kelly, in the introduction we're already at the totality of what was expected to be on this side, and here we are proposing adding another 50% again on top of what we've already got, and is that acceptable in terms of, I think it says somewhere in the report that
it's a bit wishy-washy, not the report, but I think it is because it comes from some elsewhere that it's a riff relates back to the early days the the the master plan, which was in 2000, and whatever it was a long time ago, and the walls moved on, which is which is all fair and damned. Fine and dandy. But the reality is that this was revisited much more recently when we did our new Local Plan in 2009 thousand in 2020, when it was finally approved. I think wasn't it no later than that and so, and this specific point was addressed where, in the assessment for the local plan, this specific site was still kept in the same category where four storeys was considered the maximum that would be acceptable, as we've had, when the surrounding buildings are no more than three storeys anywhere, so to say we've got to win and they're saying it's now 5 storeys, I think, is massively disingenuous. In particular, if Councillor Govindia says the point that we're putting the tallest bit closer to a listed building and the existing residents as it is, if the storeys were at least four storeys all the way down, they would decrease down the slope, wouldn't they because the slope slopes down? So if you had even the size storeys you would still get the staggering down the slope without having to make the top once all day and factor in the area we've just got to know, but the point is there isn't yet, but we've discussed it already, perhaps Mr corridor,
Land, you and the without notice.
referring to what Councillor Humphreys has just said, can you give us an indication of the overall London Plan differences, contextual differences and massing scale since the first approval and the current situation?
the short answer would probably be no.
the the there has obviously been evolution of policies. The whole way through, and we look at, the intensification are really from the 2012 and the first MPP F, which looks at brown sustainable developments and looked at re reusing land. So this actually or accords probably more closely to that than than it did in 2010 2012 when we were refused planning permission and it was allowed on appeal. So there's there's been that sort of move. The the London Plan wouldn't be so specific as to talk about this, and it's only in the Twee approved in 2023 local plan. The way we are, where we actually did. The urban design study, which came from the 2020 London Plan that we had to identify heights, what we did previous identifies this as a as a brownfield site, so it was always expected well for the that it would there would be development on this site so that that was in that was already identified, the four storey element came because, as mentioned,
looking around and the similar locations around the site, so the fifth storey is is higher, but then you have to look at what the harm is of that fifth story, you're talking about a 5 s, do that fifth storey, what something like 64 metres from the John John Hunter,
properties backing on to that site and a further 2030 metres to the listed building. So there is a there is a large level of separation, so if you're thinking about it in terms of the impact on amenity or the impact on the listed building, I'd be very concerned about that because I don't think that that would be defendable, but I think we have to look at the site and look at that application and decide whether that height is appropriate for that location, and that's something for Members to look at it in more detail. Sorry, perhaps I didn't express myself very well, almost certainly the case. What that meant was in terms of the overall objectives of the number of houses that need to be built in London now compared with 2012 and the population implications or not. The property, the population facts and the implications that follow from that, and whether 2012 decisions are as irrelevant to the current demands are well that I think it's clear to say that there has been a much more of an emphasis on on building houses, and that's come through from central government and the MPPI effs the London Plan from 2000 and 2016 to 2020 London Plan and and through our local plan. So there's always been the emphasis, or indeed you know, we've been one of the councils that have provided a lot of additional housing in the Battersea areas. Some people, you know, are very supportive of that other others less so, but it's it's provided one and the council can be
very well proud of of what we've achieved, but we need to carry on looking at new housing and new development sites, and and this this is my own officer's opinion, certainly meets meets the Bill.
Councillor Humphries, but that's not, I mean some of us believe there's more housing is required and some of us are volcanoes like to bat it. Back was awards to simply I I ma, am I saying we shouldn't build anything on the site. Now, of course, I'm not extinguishing validity on the site. I'm saying what is wow as, as Mr Calder always told us, we're judging what's in front of us tonight, and it's whether Members think tonight what's in front of us is acceptable or not, with respective officers' professional opinion, obviously, which we take a lot of note of, but the point is this Council in 2023, when it adopted its Local Plan, said four storeys was acceptable on this side and that's 2023. That's not 2012, let's drag ourselves away from 2011 to 2012. We're talking about decision that was made last year.
okay, and we all know that their guidelines don't wait, because we've used that argument as many times before.
any other comments about massing scale.
OK.
I think lots of people will be genuinely concerned about transport and traffic implications.
the access suburb in Glen Bernie and Burton Wood.
Burton Wood Lane, I wonder whether Mr Chidley can just talk about the comments in the paper on transport.
thank you Chair David TD, and the Head of Transport Strategy for.
Wandsworth Council and I do have quite a long history with the site having been dealt with the original application and provided witness statements and cross examination at the inquiry.
yeah, so we application is effectively, it's really predicated on the fact that you could have a relatively large increase in residential units here, but manage the transport arrangements by having reduction in car parking supply, so because the supply of car parking is is is is relatively very low for from this location and for this sort of development that effectively makes it almost forces users and occupants of the site to then consider other modes whether that's access to public transport walking and cycling and that's really what this effectively ha ha ha ha this is is presented here and just so just in in terms of some of the some some of the numbers here.
the development is expected to generate about 1,000 900 trips due in the OJEU in the 12 hours, a day of which over 1,000 of those trips would be public transport based, but all those trips would additionally require quite a considerable amount of walking and cycling to get to the public transport network and the numbers of vehicles, motor vehicles that are proposed are predicted to 2 T2 to access the site is as low as 47 in the morning peak period and 36 in the afternoon peak period and said that's primarily due to the fact that if there's no parking on site and the parking is managed accordingly and there's a controlled parking zone outside the site which which occupiers are not able to access that would help effectively manage manage that. No members will know, particularly if you visited yesterday, I'm not quite sure I'm not sure how you got there
normally it involves quite a lengthy walk for me from effort from the public transport note, so, as we note in the report, it is still in its a very challenging site to access, I think that that's that's recognised it was it was previously recognised by ourselves by the developer and the Inspector who, when we first looked at this and that will clearly be key clearly going forward, we clearly need to manage how people get to and from the site and don't feel isolated within it because it does have a, it does have a low public transport accessibility level.
now there are, there are funds that in mitigation the developer has provided in order to help manage highway improvements and encourage more walking and cycling, there is funding towards buses from the existing existing development, plus a Section 1 0 6 proposal for additional money for for FM or for buses as well as part of this application.
we also mentioned in the Committee report things that we think the site would benefit, from which we would be looking to pursue you in the travel plan approval process here.
certainly, members might have different views on micro mobility and E bikes, for example, but they will appear to me to be a particularly probably a useful means of getting that last mile to the site from from the Somalian public transport network, so making provision for such vehicles on the site would would clearly be beneficial.
and also of a wider improvements to the walking and cycling connectivity to to improve the location now, in terms of the actual.
so distribution of vehicle or traffic onto the highway network most is predicted to come in and out of the site via Birmingham Lane to get to this this location some would come in through Glen Burney, Road.
but the numbers again that are predicted in the context of the existing baseline on the site, so, for example, between Burton Wood Lane has well over 1,000 vehicles in the peak periods going up and down it, so within that context it is we're talking about a relatively low uplift I think that one final thing I would say is that when we when this was assessed originally
was what was what was members of considering this an extra 400 units here, the thing that we drove the trapped traffic concerns originally, the number one concern was the school, and of course the school hasn't actually been built and is a doubt about it, because it was very much the fact that you will have several hundred pupils' go into a location that was relatively inaccessible and how they would all get there that really drove the Globe a large number of the concerns about how the traffic would be would be managed in the area. Thank you
thank you, Mr Chile, I do apologise, I should have done this before you started, but given what I promised earlier, I am going to have a 5 minute comfort break and I know that's in the middle of the debate but I think that's that's what we promised ourselves earlier, so it's five minutes at the most by the way, for people in the public gallery the ladies is a long way to the right under Jones's long way down there on the left.

3 Applications (Paper No. 24-105)

sort of start did people hear me they had that OK, fine?
so any I'm sure people want to ask questions of Mr Chidley about the transport and traffic implications, Councillor Boswell.
thank you very much, Chair Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Bec ward on part of the Springfield development, does border onto Tooting Beck ward, and so are some of my residents are, or are greatly affected by transport and parking issues. I have two things I want to ask. The first one on is a very practical one about parking permits, because was we've been told about the total number of car parking spaces will be 48 for 449 dwellings. On page 22, I would like also confirmation that the residents won't be able to buy parking permits for any of the other roads around the site. I know it's quite normal
that we do put that restriction in, so those roads are already chock-a-block, they couldn't take any more cars, and the second thing I wanted to ask was about the construction plan and as anyone who knows about this site or the history of this, we've had constant problems with the construction trucks accessing the site, they're meant to come through the Betway Lane entrance and they're forever coming in from Glen Burney, Road
and up into that site, and for this particular build. I note that some of it is through the Glen Barney entrance, and I would absolutely plead that that is not the case and that if any, any construction traffic has to come through Glen Burney, which is a very narrow residential road, that it cannot cannot turn left or right into Beechcroft Road, because that road really can't stand any more traffic on it. So those are my two questions, Mr tiddly
thank you, Councillor, on the first one is very straightforward, yes, occupiers and you are at the site, are not able to apply for street parking permits for the control zone outside, and they're not even in a controlled zone, so you should submit s sorts of acts that would be covered and, as you mentioned it's actually quite common of large developments like this for occupiers to be excluded from street parking eligibility in terms of the construction management plan.
it has clearly been the case in the current build that traffic construction traffic should access the site by Burwood Lane predominantly pavement, Wood Lane that can cause problems for residents on that side of the development as well, to a certain extent, there have been occasions where it has been necessary to to gain access via over.
or are other routes, but the permanent primary construction access should remain Boom, Wood Lane and name is a condition as well to choose to have an updated construction management plan, and that's what we'd be looking to achieve.
Councillor
give India vent, Councillor White and Councillor Humphreys fixture.
certainly you mentioned 1900.
movements in a 12 hour period and said that a thousand of those would be linking people to public transport, and I think the nearest public transport bus stops are probably for 500 metres away from this development, which is a sizeable distance.
but can you shed some light on what the other 900 movements might be and and?
and I got a couple of other points, but I'll come back to when you've done the 900 sorry.
yes, just a bit of the the methodology is to effectively look at trip rates from surrounding the surrounding areas and similar developments, and then also to look at the census data for how people in the local area travel around.
and in this case, a sensitivity test was also asked to be achieved to be done because quite clearly the wider a year you start bringing in Tooting Bec and Tooting Broadway where lots, you'd expect people to not drive, basically, so adjustments were made in order to teach it to get the numbers. Now we have effectively it's about 1,100 people who these Main the when these are main mode, so a journey would would take Bow potentially more than one mode, but these are main mode. So you've got about 1,100 by tube and rail rail-based and then it's less less than 100 by bus, which I found quite surprising to 81 by bus.
158 by bike 173 by walk, and then you've got taxis and and other things on on top of that, and then it's the cars that are left is a relatively low level, but I think the key point here is that was whilst there's 173 journeys, for example, where walk is the main mode. All 1,000 plus public transport journeys would also mean a 1,000 people walking or cycling to the public transport network shut together again entirely, but we then
given that this is quite an isolated location.
what about things like deliveries and?
in one post men and all that sort of stuff, so the usual other supportive traffic movements yeah, and I think it was Councillor Justin you mentioned Uber, and we have got quite clearly. This is a site where you might expect Uber Amazon, etc to nowt to be to be quite active. The the assessment indicates that about it it anticipates, there would be 62 two way delivery journeys per day. I, I think my view would be that that seems extremely low. That seems small, but even if it was two or three times that it would still be able to be accommodated within the within the network and within the rear within within the streetscene here, so I wouldn't see that as being a particular problem. I think the big issue may be that there could be a greater dependency on an Uber van and Amazon than the development would generally predicted here, but it's difficult to see how that would get to a level at which it would cause severe danger and highway safety concerns. But there is one thing that we do mention in the committee pay paper is the need to protect the people at the top of Hepburn mode
so that people are not effectively trying to get from A to F decisively illegally, say, sorry, yeah, I mean, as I understand it, Heffernan Road will remain currently cut off as it is, we're just a few Hunter John under close the properties and the main entrance and leg entrances will be the bandwidth in the Glyndebourne of which Glenn Benet is pretty tight, as is,
and this is before, even when the construction traffic has gone, it's still quite a tight road.
now, so what is the junction capacity of the Glenn Burney junction with the site and whilst the junction capacity of Barnford Lane junction with the site and then finally there'd been long term, talk about the boundary lane 20 road crossroads junction to improve the capacity of that junction,
and certainly in the context of the earlier applications for this site, there'd been some very active conversations were tearful about re figuring that junction, so could you also comment on where that is and how that might ameliorate any additional pressures on on on Birdwood Lane?
okay, the in terms of the the junction with Birdwood Lane, the site is relatively easy to do, because that junction has been improved as part of the current development in order to be able to satisfactorily accommodate not just this, about what wouldn't just be this development, the existing site as well so that has been approved as part of a or as part of a legal agreement to protect so yeah is that for the quantum of 800 or so or the for nearly a year.
him, but it would be suitable for both. It were it were. It works for both, it has a A or A and put ample sort of capacity, the junction of in terms of Glenn Burney Road into the site again for relatively low levels of traffic. That's predicted it would, but it would would accommodate that Transport for London. Certainly didn't ask for any additional traffic modelling to be done with any concerns and those that those issues, there was one other point you asked at the end the crossroads. Yes, so this is something that we we, we will look at, not simply in the context of this development, but more generally, it would be extremely good to be able to provide additional junction capacity at Trinity Road. Birdwood Lane
the at the moment that that looks to be quite difficult to do, because it involves effectively taking common land or taking metropolitan open land, which is quite difficult to do. It has split them for highway scheme. It is quite problematic, so if it thinks certainly to date, most most of the efforts have been about simply trying to improve the performance of the traffic signal junctions and the timings and the phase in there, and to have more by better high-spec, better hi-spec traffic management system. There's no, I think there's no specific requirement to improve the at junction as a result of this application. Councillor White
how is that split?
the spending of it it splits between generally the provision of safety features and in highway improvements on boom with lane.
and there's a scheme as well that we consulted on in terms of providing improved or different cycle facilities along there, that would be a scheme that would cost for probably at least 2 million pounds but not necessarily fully funded from this development and then never off of the other potential breakdown of funding is to improve the quality and the legibility of the of the routes to the site from the stations, particularly so to ensure that this high quality,
the sort of clear boots from Tooting Bec Oldfield and two in Broadway to get to the site, dealing with the crossing points and knee and and and and and in the quality of the pedestrian routes and and and and and the safety of the highway Councillor Wyatt,
thank you all got three questions on active travel and then another question if that's OK, Chair yeah, OK the first one is that on page 49, the travel plan, it talks about targets for mode shift.
so I presume that's away from the car and to active travel, and that has not.
been included at the moment, so is there anything around that any updates to that the second question is, there is no mention of car clubs to reduce car ownership, so that should reduce.
car journeys and may be some of the car parking space.
we wouldn't need so much car parking space place if we'd car clubs and the third one, and I can't find it now, but I seem to remember reading this that lonely couple of days ago, so I must be getting to say no but,
but the state layout is not as good as it could be for active travel, did I read that so is there anything to be done about improving that to make life easier for pedestrians and cyclists?
k the first one I seem to recall in a travel plan, the target is for 14% of June, needs to be Boris, but not not not the target for 14% of due needs to be by car. Obviously you'd like it to be less, but that's effectively the the the the sort of target in the in the travel plan that would such so effectively means you are. A large majority of people would not be travelling by foot by car and that is conditioned or part of the section 106 agreement and car club membership. I recall that I'm pretty sure it's a requirement that all occupiers would be sort of enrolled into a car club, but if that's not a requirement will will insurance included, it is it is good at OK, so there is no mention of the car parking spaces given over to Coghlan yeah, yes, so there is car clubs, there will be car parking spaces and said Ye egg again, it's not. It is not uncommon for a developer to be required to and effectively to to enrol various occupiers into into a car club, and then the third one on terms of active travel estate layout
I think I mentioned earlier that I certainly thought that they would lose more capacity, potentially to give up more space for cycle parking for e-scooters or su e bike bays and that sort of thing, but it's certainly something again we can we can look at and as the in details,
I think you're looking at page 1 3 3, there's comment about God club, can I add the other question I was sorry going, I didn't say, and the the other question is you've got going on from what my Councillor colleague for Tooting Bec was speaking about earlier on at the moment that's not working very well the the the construction.
traffic tends to go down Glen Burney, Road in Beechcroft, Road, and really.
you know in contravention, to what should be happening at the moment, if we can have another 450 homes built here, there's gonna be more construction traffic, obviously how can we make sure that this is done properly, because at the moment it's not very good at all?
OK, I've got no magic wand on this one and are only only that we know we we we have an enforceable construction management plan, we have the option of taking planning enforcement action where we are observed there to be things which are incorrect, but I think what one thing that we can do potentially a year is that they've ever requirements. A a developer will need genuinely needs. It's not just a case of getting a construction management plan agreed, but they need to agree things like
let me just think things like hoarding licences and parking suspensions, so there's a lot of highway input, there's a lot of highway approvals, that the developer needs and also a lot of environmental improvements as well, that a developer needs so I could probably go away and and and also speak to my traffic and highways. Colleagues, my Environmental Health colleagues, to ensure we've got the full if you'd like, to foot the full arsenal available to deal with to treat to deal with those problems, because it's not simply a planning matter, I suspect, yeah, because the the the the sort of agreements are up there, but it needs to be related down here because the construction companies just aren't getting the message, so I don't believe that they think it's important, and that's the problem. I OK just just what may be one one. One thing that we found to be quite effective is because a the taking of a planning enforcement action against the developer can be quite a lengthy process it's often why it's often easier to simply send a parking enforcement officer if if, if something is isn't, it is a traffic violation of a parking enforcement officer, because then you can deal with it directly by the issuing of a penalty charge straight away, and that is generally quite an ineffective way of trying to deal with those sorts of issues.
God just I mean, I think it's absolutely right that Members should challenge our experts on the basis of what they're saying, but in the end the expert advises that this is manageable in traffic terms by all means challenge and argue, but that's the that's in the end the position I think Councillor Basel wants to come back on something we all know which is because I've got one in my patch, I'm sure we all have of enforcing the intention of management processes and actually making them work but real difficulties I've got we all have them and I think Councillor Pozzo wants to expand on that.
again, I thank you very much. Chair on my was I wanted to ask, was that I think, and I believe it is possible to contact the companies that run GP, the GPS system, the satellite system that ascending those lorries along our residential roads on, and it may well be possible to send out our enforcement officers. But they're not always there and I have no of residents who are stopping the lorries themselves in that road. I've done it because we've managed to get a ban on on over 7.5 tonnes that it's completely on ignored, but I do understand that this is a planning committee, but I wondered on as part of the repercussions of this big build, if it's gonna, go ahead, if we agree to that tonight will be an exacerbated situation on during the build time, if not, when the residents are there, that that couldn't be done, but we can. I know you are able to influence on GPs that so lawyers are not directed down there. Thank you Councillor Humphreys, and then hopefully we can move on to the affordability question on drawing to an end
thank you Chair a couple of specific things and then a more general one, and while we're on the the movements of vehicles and stuff like that or the the the the delivery by on one page, one thing is that there's a map that we saw earlier in the presentation of the deliveries and the the car parking and what have you said indicates at the moment just two delivery bays and referred some some.
projections of the movement vehicles 62. I think we said in our vehicles are on, I must say, I'm slightly sceptical of that quantity, knowing in my average street the number of things pinging on my WhatsApp group constantly in my street, where people have lost their parcels, I know that's not the same street, but it's a lot more than 63 m High Street alone, let alone another 400 odd units, and we think those are those to located where they are going to be adequate for that volume, at least if it's not more
I, I think the two two formal bays are helpful for significant, particularly more significant delivery, so we know that they're there, I share your concern, Councillor, if you have a concern that an Amazon vehicle is just going to stop on the yellow line and drop off as they often do outside anybody's property.
but there is a will look to see what the the servicing and delivery plan, which is considered a condition which is a condition here is really about, is about management, not just about space. It's was a wider thing than that. I take your point because looking at that, if you're making a delivery to block B and you've got to park right up there at the top qualified block C is not going to make it all the way down there, which is little short easy. He's gonna just drive around the corner and park outside the entrance to Plot V, so I think that needs some serious looking. I have no more space allocating to the delivery bays. That's what they do anyway on another point, then, thank you. The buses, so we've had we all know, is it's dreadfully inaccessible for buses
just remind me, wasn't it the case that the applicant came back previously to remove the extension to the G bus that was supposed to go round there anyway, which seems in hindsight with the application we got before us now, with another 400 people units already coming round there that that bus isn't going to happen now at the request of the applicant that was wasn't it?
that that's correct. The applicant with TfN's approval concluded that it wasn't inappropriate or an inappropriate proposal. There are quite a lot of residents who use the G 1 are probably very pleased that it's not been re-routed away from where they live, and what we do say in the committee report is that there is a a live proposal to extend the bus 3 1 5 from Balham into the site, and that is relatively, even intermittently. I'd like to see that that occur in the next few months and then we owe him. My personal view is that we need to consider sending another bus into the site, potentially from the Tooting direction. Yeah, you're right, of course, thank you. That's helpful, but I I understand that the the the buses that are existing are pretty heavily faltering. Yeah picked out as it is anyway, let alone just be rooting at further on. They won't be able to get on it. It is already full by the time it gets around there, so the capacity that we need is something undoubtedly case, very much greater or another thing, just to pick up on something that you mentioned earlier and I Mr Collins gonna help me now to sort of slightly hypothetical, but we were talking about one of the reasons before for the for the for the needs to do something significant about the transport was because of the potential for a school
and the traffic movements that would generate further down the site and the
again, I know it's outside the scope of what we're gonna talk about with this specific application, but it's in the papers, so I think you know that we we can't can we rule out at this stage are we've we've heard that it may be unlikely that that school is going to be needed, but I personally feel dreadfully sorry for the poor people who have to do the job of projecting school numbers and looking fiscal bawling into the future, and we know those numbers do go up and down and with what we've all seen in recent history over the last few years we've covered everything, nobody quite knows, what's around the corner, so I'll I'll be categorically saying that school will not be needed. Those people will not be in place because if, in a few years' time, we have another baby boom and there is going to be a need for the school at that site, we're gonna look pretty silly if we said we don't need it, because we didn't need it now. Looking ahead, I don't think that's a really fair to us.
Ms Tilley well Dudley, whether he thinks this is going to be a school, they're not because he was saying that was a justification for the dumbing down movement, but from from the majority party point of view, let's make it absolutely clear. We never thought that there was enough space, they have brought a school anyway and the moment the projections for school population does not look like need to expand new schools for years. Girls are saying so I think that we can all work on the probability that there will not be a school there. Now you can disagree with it if you like, but that is the probability, brave man who can predict so constantly, what's gonna, be the necessity for children's places in the future, so that's very brave of you
that's keeping within your scope to say it at all.
now we have who knows how Councillor Hussain those companies Humphries and if chaired this committee feel so long, you know how relevant either or comments on the application were being considered, that we've long enough already. Let's move on to the affordability in a moment, but I think Councillor Cooper wants to come in with the last comment on this. I just wanted to amplify what Councillor Boswell was just saying about the need to keep lorry movements out of Beechcroft Road and going into Glen Burnley, and I think it's absolutely critical that that happens. I mean I'm talking about narrow residential roads but also, as I think all of us know, Beechcroft Road also is the site of the school entrance into Ernest Bevin, and also beyond Ernest Bevin, for two primary schools as well, and I think it's at I mean the the number of children crossing Beechcroft Road at various points is it's just insupportable to have lawyers mixing so much with children and it has been a considerable danger and has just been slightly improved by the installation recently of a zebra crossing? So I think that's a really important point and just on these issues about the
I mean, the site is, broadly speaking, pretty inaccessible paragraph 9.10 the Peter all the public transport access level is ranges from 0 to 1 A wow when obviously, as everyone knows, it goes up to you know the MO the most successful is is 6 A 6 p I mean you know so it's 0 in many parts of it so I think we can expect.
I don't think what it says here in paragraph 9.9.
the minimal impact on the local highway network you know people are going to have vans dropping off deliveries, there is no doubt about it if you live here, it's a really long walk back from the shops if you want to do a big shop notwithstanding, you know Tesco local or Sainsbury's extra or whatever or that they're all called.
I think people will need to have places to drop off, I think the level of car parking I I completely endorse what Councillor White was saying about actually I do, I think cut car parking should either be for a disabled bays electric vehicle charging points or it should be for car clubs and Pret preferably the car club spots should also be Electric Car Club spots I think that's crucial to provide a minimal level of accessibility for people and finally on the point about the bus,
I mean, I, you know, we're having the same discussions elsewhere in the borough, for example.
the Alton estate, and whether or not buses can be extended to provide that enhanced connectivity and I think that's critical and I hope we are going to.
very happy to join this process. Push Transport for London to extend the 3 1 5 bus route, because you know 450 extra dwellings, that's probably at least 900 people, if, if not more, if some of them have families and children, so we are talking about a very much larger number of people living there, and I think we really need to be thinking about how we make a site that ranges from 0 to 1, A on the public. Transport accessibility level are as accessible and as joined into the surrounding neighborhood as possible. Meanwhile, whilst it's under construction stopping the lorries from joining into local areas as much as possible as well. Thank you, Chair wants to
I thought we've given draft traffic and transport a pretty good go, but Councillor Coakley, one laugh, then it's just one quick, quick point because I wasn't sure where air quality would fit and therefore be cautious to mention it in transport.
again in the TFA consultation they mentioned how the development wasn't quality neutral and that further information is required to determine its compliance with the London Plan, and if there's no air quality neutral then a damage cost calculation should be taken, so I just wanted to ask officers, has there been an update on that since that first consultation is it still determined to not be air quality neutral and if so has a payment being sorted?
have we got that, can you manage?
sorry, which is trying to find the information for me.
well, perhaps you need to come back on that do.
Ms Kelly, part, shall we come back on that yeah, OK, I had to move on to slightly difficult, will come back to it, but we'll try and come back to it, but can we move on to affordability as the last issue I hope because we've covered more or less everything else.
perhaps I can ask.
Mr colder, to remind us, what will the affordable allocations are in this particular circumstances?
thank thank you Chair, so just just a little background, so the outline planning permission was for 839 units, of which 168 were affordable, that was the scheme that was granted on appeal, so that would be about a 20% level of affordable housing.
on this one, we're proposing 449 units, the number of affordable units would be 220, but by habitable room it would be 50% affordable housing, it's marginally lower, is about 49%, I think, and then splitting them across social rent and intermediate it ends up again at 50%, affordable housing or a 50% of social rent to 50% intermediate but that it again because of the habitable room sizes you've actually got slightly less social renews because you've got larger house or family sized units.
what I am going to do is introduce in Roy Beggs, replacement, who's as her first meeting, Isabella Ross's joined us, and maybe you want to introduce herself and just correcting of my mistakes.
thank you, Nick, thank you, Chair, yes, I'm Isabella Rosie and I'm head of enabling replacing Ian Ruighe, as Nick said, in the Housing and Regeneration Department, I think Nick gave a very good.
synopsis of the position that, yes, the affordable housing is now at 50% overall quantum with the 50 50 split between social rent and intermediate tenures.
thank you take any questions.
comments questions, Councillor gwenda, again, sorry, the average draw again Councillor, given the spin.
it isn't about the quantum of affordable, I just want to establish two things, one is that there is from there is a loss.
of existing affordable in the Diamonds
and then there is a replacement of non replacement, but then that is a reprovision of affordable, so it is are the figures given in here, as it were, additional, taking account of the loss being lost being made up and then on top of it,
whatever number it is, or is that does that subsume the lots, so that's one question, and the second really is about how closely is the bedroom numbers that are being provided, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom flats and houses?
how closely do they mirror the local housing need from the deposing Department's point of view, because I was intrigued that there were no 4 bedroom properties, and yet I know that this part of the borough has a significant number of families, significant, maybe a sizeable number of families who, who are who have a need for larger 4 bedroom accommodation, so why no 4 bedroom accommodation and I do the three-bedroom, two-bedroom one bedroom split, mirror? What does the housing department needs and then the other point I'd already made yeah
if if I could pick up the first point and then I'll hand over to the Minister Rosie for the second point, the in terms of the diamond estate which was previously affordable, nurses' accommodation, that that was lost as part of the outline that was to be does to be removed and that's been too cancelled over the years we saw on the side of the we'll we'll undertook yesterday it was a poor form.
it was put poorly maintained, the last few tenants had left a few months previously to go to one of our were one of the developments has recently been finished in Garrett Mills I do it's not included in the at any calculations because in essence it did no longer exist if it had been removed and and and it was never the long-term aspiration of the the health trust to keep that so.
I'd add that I'm not sure how else I can finish that word limited in safety, and I just add to that Mr Gooda by saying we were always told and told by Councillor Humphreys in the past many times we're judging the application in front of us on the application in front of us as is de novo in that sense it's got nothing to do with what may or may not have been there however long ago it's de novo now about this particular site.
I accept the argument you make, but you know, maybe 10, if if, for example, community space was being lost because somebody had abandoned it, you would want in a new application for that community space to be re provided now I'm I'm not making in some ways even if if another developer were to say that I I've not been able to maintain me, that's why I got to knock it down, can you just let me get on with it? We wouldn't just say yes or no question, and I missed calls answered it, I didn't particularly want to have a debate on it. Still rolling over and the NHS have just changed the procedures in terms of nursing accommodation. It is not. We have taken the sly take your point, but it's not actually relevant to this consideration as an authority housing authority. We have provided the housing
Councillor White.
sorry, I do.
reminders quickly are about the the mix compared with the demand.
thank you, Councillor, my understanding is that the mix broadly meets the sort of unit mix size required mine on the favourite four bedroom points.
I'm I am not aware exactly of the were the reasons for that, but there is certainly a good proportion of three bedroom units to meet the larger family housing needs.
sorry, I just wanted to add that this was in consultation with our occupational therapists as well, in terms of looking at what the mix of units would be and what those for social rent would be.
offered to so we have actually consulted with relevant officers in the Housing Team in this regard. Actually, without trying to annoy Councillor Gruen, but I'd probably all succeed, he knows as well as I do that the housing on demand includes much bigger than four bedroom assessments all over the place and we can't, and we look quite often for private acquisitions to resolve those problems. We don't get an exact fit in every site, which would be impossible, as I'm sure you know just to check that we get it, since the office has given me a kind of broadly complies with what we need. I'd be grateful if she could let Ron give me details of
the bits of what we need, so in essence, what is the housing department needs in the area and therefore it mirrors what is here and specifically for one and larger units demand in the southern part of the borough?
any other comments on affordability, Councillor White Councillor Humphreys, yeah as well, we've got lots and our Councillor.
the Council is, could I ask, was there any attempt to improve on the numbers of of affordable, because, going along the lines of what Councillor gave, India was was saying, I mean, you know, we ended up with 839 in in the previous Planning,
but that was cut down from 1,200, we've got now gone back up, so you know.
I think it's impossible not to take the whole whole thing as a whole and if you take the whole things that hold is only 29% affordability here, and that's not really that good for the such a big site, so was there any attempt made, you know to try and impress upon the developer to to improve the amount of affordability and also to look at the the emerging.
plan that we have, which is actually 70% social housing, not 50%.
I think it's probably suitable for me to answer that.
we, this application, has been in what about 18 months and we've probably spent about 12 months of that negotiating unaffordable Harrison to see whether we can we can move the figures, there was an initial change up to 50% affordable because it was if there was one key policy compliant they've moved from a 60 60 40 with the majority is intermediate to 50 50.
separately, the health trusts of of.
also added in the opportunity that the Council might take on the the school site and have that available for affordable housing that would probably offers.
maybe 22 units if if it went well, so that that would increase it up to from about 30%, I had my calculations, I rounded up solves, so it's about 32%, but
we did spend considerable amounts of time looking at this, but at the end of the day, this development.
it provides a policy compliant scheme, we've pushed them on the improvements to the EML and looking at that and the the whole fundamentals for the health trust of the PA part of this development is to to fund Tylwyth to the UN and I think that's to about the tune of 46 47 million.
which would prove improvements across go across the the mental health trust which includes Wandsworth, so we have to take that on board as part of the improvements, so a 50% affordable housing from anybody, apart from the council, I do not recall seeing that for many many years on this one,
at this committee and in the current climate, where a lot of other developers are looking to add in grant funding this, they're not looking to grant fund this, this would be so a complete 50% taken on board by the health trusts.
and
barrett's and what we would point out and chums Ms Rosie would help, if possible, is that they're already in deficit in terms of what they've provided for the
viability assessment, which was which itself is over 18 months old, and the market has significantly changed in terms of costing and lots of elements have gone up and that's been taken or taken out of the equation by being policy compliant, but it's still policy compliant and we push them. I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that just in terms of viability at night. Well, yes, in terms of the viability and the Council's viability, assessor bps Dorking concluded that the scheme is in fact, in quite considerable financial deficit, but the offer and of the 50% affordable housing came forward, so it is. It is a strong offer in that regard and compliant, of course, as well. Their head counts, sorry, sorry, can I just come back on that? Yeah gone
but there is a considerable amount of grant money available with the F 14 development, for instance, as an example we managed to up the numbers of affordability by assisting the developer with that amount of money, so was an attempt made to do that.
I think that because of the the deficit that
the 50% was to push it beyond the 50% would have even with grant funding, I'm I'm I'm not sure whether that was actually pursued, but I don't think it would have been.
it not necessarily because of the deficit have pushed it beyond the 50% affordable housing has been offered on a scheme that is effectively in in that deficit position, but I think we've got to stay on the application in front of us through we went back to the assaulting we would be looking at the fact that that,
development was was gonna be left half finished because the the the applicants had run out of money, so the Council has put in there, the are our own money to enable that development, that's it, it's quite a different scenario to an application which has come in from from the health trust with Barrett with 50% affordable housing already included one and two.
the many other benefits besides in a particular location, so I think we need to look at what this application has provided, if there is a future discussion about grants that will be outside, and maybe as members of Housing Committee you would see that, but not as part of the planning application Councillor as you have the comment.
I'm finding it hard to keep faith with all this 50% hate speech.
over 107 per 8.9 it says the affordable component is 50% of 95 homes and the social rent.
sorry, it would be social ruined and 50% would be 125 home would be 50% would be shared ownership, how could 95 homes and 125 homes both be 50% if I refer you to my previous answer, whereas calculated by habitable rooms, so there are larger units, so there's less units, but there are large ones, so the amounts for habitable rooms is 50%
I think that that's the calculation that we have to use, as set out in the London Plan, so Councillor Black applies in all sorts of developments so that the quantification of whether you're doing that units or rooms and some people like to think that the units is important personally I think rooms is the most important but I'm sure we have different views on that.
but that's that explains the difference in that particular case, do you want to come back on that or do both of those 95 homes and the 125 homes they are both majored on habitable rooms, you haven't got one on a habitable room.
another
yes, they calculated in the same way search both on habitable rooms.
OK.
now Councillor Humphreys one more go, I don't know how many more unaffordable homes I've bought just to say that soon I want to wind this up and it's quite clear there's a wide divergence of views, but if anyone's going to oppose the recommendations, then they're going to need to think of the reasons
the credibility of those reasons in terms of any appeal or anything like that, because I I'm you'll need to put put forward reasons for refusal, Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair.
a couple of things just again for for clarity, is it's it's, it's, it's not often the first Councillor wife, and I are on a similar page on something to do with the housing quite interesting, even Councillor Grahame, who I think raised the same point about the 95 social rent units were going to get on this scheme, so it's just a three-way. First, it's gonna be amazing
I asked a piece of history to start with, I am feeling uncomfortable.
and on the just said, we know exactly what we're talking about to clarify those numbers, though on the on the on the split of the that mixed with intermediate and social range, could you remind me it does say something but I was just looking I couldn't find it the the income requirements for the shared ownership units please.
Mr. Z,
thank you Chair. So the yesterday. Income requirements for the intermediate homes and shared ownership homes that are proposed will be assessed in line with the Council's Local intermediate affordable housing criteria, which set out a range of household incomes of households that will be eligible for these homes. So there are a range of incomes. These are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are reflective of a local affordability. These will also be set out in the Section 1 and 6 agreements, so there is a very clear process for
eligibility and affordability in respect of these units, thank you, that's helpful, but I was asked for the actual number of.
apologies, could you repeat, your request is on page 51.
I formally move on page 51, the the income criteria, yes, of course, so 50% of the shared ownership units will be affordable to applicants with household incomes of up to 50 to 56,200 pounds per annum.
and 50% will be available affordable to applicants with a gross household income of up to 90,000 per annum, with the average housing costs of the intermediate units being affordable to households with a gross high income not exceeding 56,002 thousand pounds per annum and it's also just to add to that that the affordable those that are that affordable housing criteria assumes that households spend no more than 40% of their net annual total housing costs which includes mortgage service charge rents and so on and with the in in this situation the net is calculated as 70% of gross income.
thank you. Just the sort of clarity said we were, and I know it's not all just on this application, it's a general point, Butler says this does include households of up to 90,000 pounds with housing as affordable here with the administration is obviously happy with because that's the deal they've done come on well well with respect that we've all heard arguments about affordability and its meaning and both oppose your when you are cheering, and when I'm Jerry I mean we've all right that this sounds stating a fact, it's not. It's not a question of debatable principle is just a quick statement of fact
now.
now.
now, I'm I'm I think we've concluded.
the debate in general terms care Councillor Coakley on unaffordability.
it was also coming back because it sounded like you were about to wrap up, I still haven't had an answer for my question on air quality, so I beg you, I do beg your pardon, you're right.
on air quality, the Council's Environmental Services Officer has confirmed that it's not meeting air quality neutral, but that, with robust measures it feels that it could be, and that conditions are included, to ensure that the robust mitigation measures are undertaken to try and meet that criteria which conditions are there because I saw one I saw one condition that was P M 10 monitoring but I didn't see one about them it would also be included within the delivery and service plan as well OK, so these conditions are going to come later on yeah, OK,
okay, well, we have the recommendations in front.
it is in relation to the GP practices, the paper talks about inadequate provision, and I know the paper page 1 3 4, talks about 200 and 61,000 pounds to be secured through 1 0 6, I just want to know, how is that figure arrived at sorry I didn't.
it has much bigger sorry, compensation for lack of GP provision of right, OK that one layer, so there's the the the s, the NHS nationally have got something called the hoodoo model, which is which they use to to do these calculations with.
OK, you can always see the account that the officers recommendation I'd like to point out that up to 50% of 449 is a very large, very substantial amount of affordable housing, even if summers within the categories that you're talking about Councillor Humphreys, there was nonetheless a very substantial element of social rented property here it cannot be ignored. We have to take this application on the basis of what we've got in front of us, and all sorts of other arguments elsewhere are not strictly relevant. I might say, to people who would like to take my kind of position that includes the spare site and whether there's housing on that that is not part of this application and shouldn't be confused with it, but nonetheless there's a considerable increase in the affordability of affordable housing. There's the question of metropolitan open land. We have a good discussion on that and some of us clearly maintain that that is a strict bar. Others would say that it's a more open and a better use of public open land after this application than before.
again a matter of opinion. We've had the discussion about transport, I'm jumping about a little bit, I do beg your pardon, we've had the discussion about transport where our advice, our technical advice, is that we will, it is manageable, there are obviously difficulties about it. There's no question about that. I don't think Mr Chidley pretended otherwise, but it is manageable. Within general terms, there are comments on design and ecological aspects. I can, I think, Councillor. In my opinion, I think Councillor Eyre's comments about design are very interesting and should be taken note of by architects and
planners in future applications, but this is a little bit late in this particular case, I think.
now I think we ought to accept this if there's anywhere, if people are going to say no, for whatever the reasons clearly are, we need to have those reasons clearly stated because this could be heard at appeal and it could be heard of the GLA it's got to be clear and understood and and defensible reasons when considered by our inspector so I unless anyone's moves the opposite one has definite.
amendments to the recommendations I am going to move that we accept that the recommendations so as anyone going to
Councillor Humphreys, happy to re move a refusal as an alternative reasons, I, I think, we've got three three key reasons here, it's it is that fundamental point of the encroachment on the metropolitan open land. We had an application remove recently quite controversial one with the All England Club where there was a point of principle about the Metropolitan Open Land. I think we've got the same principle here.
I know we've had counsel's advice about what they think where the council is open but Metropolitan, Open Land or not, but I still think there's a principle that it was defendable that we're encroaching on metropolitan open land, we also have the point that it's contrary to our own policy LP for because it's taller than it is suggested it's supposed to be in the our current new 2023 local plan which says for storage and this is 5 storeys and or more.
and I also think we've gotten a yeah, I need some help, perhaps with facing this one, but I I struggle with the credibility that this is manageable from a delivery and transport situation, with the inaccessibility of a site with a petard rating of 0.
can I just point out that I want to spend we've argued this.
the 5 and 4 storeys.
you would have said you did say as many times there are guidelines.
and the difference between five and four storeys. If, if you do not think that 201 plus affordable units is worthless, then I'm surprised, because I just think that is not going to be tenable as as an argument, but I just state that I mean you've made your point, yet the transport we've had the officers off by saying it's OK, you know I mean
well, I did say with problems, I did say with problems to be fair.
you can take, and I think what we discussed at great length of Metropol, I don't want to repeat that particularly, but so my comment on that counts, let me just point out, by the way, that at the moment I'm sure he'll ever have any problems of this but at the moment that's not being seconded.
Councillor watch or pare it down to Metropolitano inspiration you can add in the 11 TPOs as well. I think that it's if there were very special circumstances here, such that the affordable housing was was such that it uplifted that 29%, I think we could all say Well, we're OK, fair enough, we're losing a lot, but we're gaining a lot. I don't think we're gaining a lot here, I think we can do much, much better
check. We just pop back on a few of these issues because I think I think we need to if, if this is gonna, be something that we're gonna vote upon, I think we need to be clear. I don't think the encroachment onto the Metropolitan Open Land is right, I think if we are looking at my Metropolitan, Open Land, I think it's more, but you've probably say the the opening impacts on the openness, because I think we counsel's opinion doesn't doesn't fall away just because you make a different decision, so I don't think we can go down the very special circumstances route, which is what we use at all tech, because I think that's a very different scenario, much more encroachment. This isn't an encroachment as such because it's previously development land. You're talking about the proximity of buildings and I'll hand over to Mr Moss because he's got the opinion that we we sought and he might be able to assist
assist Chairman, thank you, I don't think.
as far as I'm aware, Councillor Humphreys is arguing about the designation of the land as previously developed land, so we don't need to go into the argument of whether very special circumstances exist in this case, I think the tests that are clearly set out within section 2 of the report and the assessment,
of the officer in relation to this point is it set out at paragraph 2.5 6 on page 70, and it says on balance, after consideration of all the relevant factors, it is concluded.
the proposed development site constitutes previously developed land further when assessed against the MPPA paragraph 1 5 4G the development would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the EML and would contribute towards meeting an identified housing need within the Borough, so it's that exception and the NPP f so I think what Councillor Humphreys is is suggesting.
is that it would cause substantial harm to the openness of the EML.
I thank you for helping me out with that, I think that if the if the density that we're proposing to build on that metropolitan, open land that is issue, whereas on the previous where it was built out as I've pointed out earlier there was a lot more open space, the quantum of buildings to land was not so great and the density of what we got on the new proposed development is where it's an impact there's more severe impact on the MOU all
you want you to maintain all three of including the four and five storey argument.
yeah, I think.
just.
it's not sufficient in terms of identifying a breach of development plan policy, so the law is that this application is determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, for what we need to do is to identify any harm that would flow from this additional storey and you've had from Mr Cawdor to save it. You wouldn't think that there is any impact on heritage assets or the openness, so I'm struggling to understand what the what that harm, by virtue of though an additional storey on two blocks would would cause. Thank you. It's partly about the location of the fifth storey blocks, which are closest to the John Hughes away part of the development, the impact on those residential properties as much as it is on the listed building, and if, as we said earlier, they'd flipped it round and put the five storey building blocks at the bottom end of the site, it wouldn't impose on the neighbours as much
since so you are suggesting that a 5 storey block bin was, I think it was 50 or 60 metres away, would be the impact on on the roads and residential amenity.
the moment they have a two two storey building in front of them at the same distance, yes, Councillor Humphrey is 60 metres away, is pretty big distance and you were there yesterday with me and it's at an angle to the main historical buildings anyway and 60 metres is,
sir.
you would have dismissed the concerns in John Hunter properties by simply saying you are too far away, go away, you don't say that there is clearly, in a sense, accepted that there is an impact, it may not be the impact that they feel residents feel. It may not be an impact that you validate, but that is not to say they do not think there is an impact and that we shouldn't take account of their feelings about it, will it help, will it help? If I say each one of those are three separate amendments, speakers that because I'm not sure that otherwise
so so far it does not help, I'm just wondering whether it helps
so, for instance, if you take the transport situation, you're just saying you don't agree with the officer's advice, which is both eerie.
yeah, I know it's not yes, on balance, on balance, so others of us agree, I mean, so is it a defensible position to take in terms of an appeal let me give, I take that as an example so ask those who would be in favour of using that as a reason for objecting to the application.
1 5 5 this is a Transport just the Transport 1 2 3 4 5 6 and those against.
OK not right, so the transport and in that case do I get it get the feeling that the majority of the committee are in favour of all three of these reasons for rejecting the application no.
it notified all three, OK, the total and the five, the 5 storeys, as opposed to 4 storey those in favour of the five store, that is an objection.
one, two, three, four and those against.
one two, three, four, five, six, I think.
can I can I just can I say I'm slightly uncomfortable with with, I thought you might say, sorry to be a pain, it's always a lawyer. That's the point. I'm slightly uncomfortable with this process of taking votes on individual reasons for referral. We have one proposal that's put forward by Councillor Humphreys, seconded by Councillor grimier. There are three reasons for refusal that incite it. We've expanded a couple of on sorry, the first one, which is
consideration of substantial harm to the MOU all and the second one regarding the additional storey. The third reason for refusal relates to I took a note of delivery and transport. Firstly, I'd like Councillor Humphreys pleased to be very specific as to what those impacts are and the harm, and then Chairman I think we take a vote on on that proposal as a package and if Members aren't content with that or vote against it, and then another repo proposal can be put forward. But I don't I don't think we, we try and work out what the optimum resident that I share your point. So we would take this with three move, somewhat three objections to using shorthand if someone wants to move another was one or two reasons. Then we take that, as a supplementary, may just help the process by actually moving a separate
there are a reason for refusal, motion, J embodies Councillor Humphries point on them all, and his point on transport and dropping the five storey point.
thank you.
well, let's start again if Councillor Humphreys has withdrawn his proposal, yeah, Councillor Gavin, you can put forward his proposal which and I'll I'll make another scribbled note, minus the full story so reason for refusal one stands, so that is the concern about impact to the EML and as you are moving the 5 storey objection and now it leaves us please would be more marked far more specific as to the transport and traffic implications of this proposal.
I'd say that it's barely adequate to deal with the additional quantum of development on the site, putting additional pressure on constrained roads in the neighborhood on the existing, so its impact of additional car movements on the highway network yeah
vehicle movements and bearing in mind Mr to delays, advice to you is that, because of the reduced number of parking spaces on offer and the fact that the school isn't going to come forward, a good number of them, let me say the school is just one can be accommodated because the more schools is not an issue because we are not talking about the schools, otherwise we'd have had another debate on it, but I say the letter, I think I think it's going to be acceptable, but he did say members might not accept, I mean I just got here, she did say 72, and again he did talk about 62 delivery movements and he himself said that that was a bit of an understatement and before they'll get probably three or four times we let we've covered that Councillor, given India, we agree that the officers said on balance and it was arguable, but you have now got or you are now moving, that we written this down on two grounds.
so, sorry for me, just for Mr Tivoli, because I think he's got probably a valid point.
Mr tiddler.
so I just wanted to come back on the delivery and servicing thing, because I've just to make the point that there is a condition to have an approved delivery and servicing plan, which is very common for this sort of development and, as Mr Mr. Moore says, identifying the harm is just strikes me as being something extremely difficult on that one but it was clearly its members its members' decision obviously.
while I think we have to leave it at that, don't we sorry to prolong the debate, but I think what we would need then, and it's very good point, but it was still is what the Member proposing this reason for refusal suggests that the can't be overcome by the imposition of the condition what's missing what what gaps are there that means that this application is not acceptable.
aid is about the delivery management plan, but it doesn't take into account the other traffic movements 1900 he mentioned, of which thousand would be.
bus and tube related, but they would start the journey on foot or whatever, so it's the those other journeys, the 9,900 movements that would put additional pressure on the public transport and the road networks structure in the area, and that it was inadequate provision for both the new residents and the buildings that are being proposed and the impact on the existing residents and the surrounding neighborhood.
now, with respect Mr Mowat, I mean I think.
you may not like it, but grandson on the amendment as is but as.
I mean, I am not a member charge of making the decision that just trying to make sure that Members are to understand what they're voting on, okay and so far as possible, we can make this a robust decision to try to OK if anyone needs to be understood.
so.
Councillor Gavin here now I think, has moved and Councillor Humphreys seconded, but I don't suppose they're going to argue about that that the application is refused because, and you've been writing notes because of water on the emo EML and what on the transport,
because the development would cause substantial harm to the openness of the them all, and that the there will be.
unreasonable pressure on public transport and surrounding road networks, which is not mitigated by the development.
which will have implications for existing residents and proposed residents under this scheme, Councillor Wakefield.
yeah
if?
I am sure he is not going to pursue that because of the counter-proposal about a really afforestation, and I think that's the right word. Are you Councillor Mowat? We could add that in I wouldn't be against that, but the the the other thing is that because the yeah, the EML and openness fine as well, but there isn't a VC there, I I don't think that's substantially enough, and that is to say if there was a development with enough affordable housing, to make up for the loss that we had for the previous acceptance, which was 18%, then I think that we could. We could go with that versus say that there is for me that falls down and that we're losing them all because and we're not, we're not getting enough going from it
yeah
Mr Moore's sorry it just very quickly Chairman to concerns I have about that, firstly because it's considered to be previously developed land, there is no need for the very special circumstances argument for this for that particular element to be overcome and secondly, this is a standalone application that has to be considered on its merits, we're not looking at amalgamating what was granted on appeal in 2012 with this application, so I don't think members should be looking at it that way if it's an application that provides a policy level, compliant offer of affordable housing with a better unit mix in terms of social rent, tenure mix social rent to intermediate than our current policy requires. So I don't think we need to try and make weight with other arguments that I think we would have a lot of difficulty in justifying an appeal
and
right we've got the proposal from from Councillor Govindia proposal, the amendment.
I suppose it's democratically the case, I know you ought to be the democratic about this, that Councillor White can propose to amend that by adding the point about affordability, do you want to do that, but I would I would say that,
OK, so you're moving, what exactly is the inadequacy of the of the affordability criteria, despite, despite it being compliant with policy?
thank you.
sorry, it can use the mic brisk for taking in in the wider context, but I think we need VSC to lose that EML, and I don't think we've achieved that, but I think we're going round in circles we don't need VSC on this because we're it's previously developed land
and we've got a policy compliant scheme in itself from 50% affordable housing, I know that the there's aspirations to to look at a change mix.
but that's not part of the the Local Plan as adopted, and neither it's a very early stage of are emerging, so we've, but we're trying to do here is have a defensible reason for refusal, but the GLA don't accept that at the moment in July saying that it's a natural outlined the GLIS opinion was based at an early stage of it over a year ago when we've since had the the legal opinion that we've discussed already, and that's why we come down to this openness argument rather than the very special circumstances and not being justified.
Councillor Cooper can I suggest that we?
take a vote on the proposal that has been moved by Councillor Humphreys and seconded by Councillor give India and then issues relating to mix can be picked up at a slightly later date, potentially depending on what happens in that vote.
OK.
just to be a pain, I am procedurally
Councillor, Whyte has moved an amendment, I don't think there's been a second, though it has no not a seconder, then I think it reverts to the now, it hasn't been a proposal that's been put forward, so you know exactly what Councillor Cooper addressed.
OK.
I'm being as democratic as I can add, and that Councillor Price, I can assure you.
those in favour of the amendment as moved by Councillor Gob India.
when, due to leave for 5 6, those against 1 2 3 4, OK, that's that's been, therefore the application has been refused, which I'm sure people in the public gallery will be really interested in if you followed at all, it's been turned down and refused and we move on.
can I just say this is so sorry, can I just add that there is a a see there, so we've refused a, which is the application? There is a C for changes to the section 1 and 6. It probably falls away, yeah, so I understood that, but if it goes to the GLA and the GLA allow it, or it's allowed on appeal, I'd prefer that this is resolved to be approved. So we have that in the back pocket, just in case it's not approved agreed Chair, just just as as the gallery's clearing
I think in this in no way implies the need for improved mental health facilities and in no way implies an objection to that there is a scheme here, but this is not it in that's the kind of message that they trust me to observe.
agreed.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 24-106)

I think that's arguable, but let's leave that to somewhere at the time all the time, can we.

3 Applications (Paper No. 24-105)

just for environment is the public gallery levers qualities might be.
can we move on to?
can we move on to the land added to application number 2, would you believe?
yes, I know.
can you please leave exp expeditiously good, very nice of you?
okay, moving on to
to the land adjacent to Farnborough House, we've got Cassie Malloy, Mr Holloway, here you're going to introduce it.
hello, everyone on Katherine Malloy senior planner in the West team, we were going to do a presentation, but I understand there's an IT issue.
do Members want it is late?
because it is broken.
can't do a presentation so?
I don't know about anybody else, but I found this room to be in supportive, really hot and when we had our minor break and I went round and opened all the windows.
the tech appears not to be supporting us, it's been difficult to hear some of the officers because we're all sitting in a long row, and whilst I was surprised to discover that the meetings have been moved into the council chamber,
since 2022 can I put in a plea at this point that we return to the Council Chamber, where it's a lot easier to hear the officers because of the shape, no not now.
so please, no, no, no.
but the fact that you know I, I just think it's a lot easier point taken and Councillor Cuba, can we get our act together on tech, always were then when you get down on Mr Malloy, do you wish to introduce this yeah good evening Councillors, sorry, I don't have the presentation but the proposal is for 3 5 storey blocks, sorry,
the proposal is for 3 5 storey blocks, with a total of 38 units or for social rent as part of the homes of Wandsworth programme.
in terms of landscaping, there's a play area proposed within the centre of the site.
which also includes an outdoor exercise area and also a proposed growing allotment type area for existing and proposed residents, the proposal also includes a currently underutilised area behind it's the gardens which again opens up their area and creates a woodland trail and also an additional play area.
there's also a footpath, which is proposed east-west across the site, with car parking, rearranged and 64 car parking spaces being re provided
in terms of there is existing garages on the site.
these will be replaced with storage sheds and there's 17 of those proposed, and also 6 within block C, it's quite difficult sorry without the presentation, yeah, in terms of open space.
as a result of the the rationally rationalisation of the existing car parking and the garage areas, there's actually increase in open space in terms of relationship with neighbours.
the blocks have been.
orientated and the relationship in order to minimise the impact on neighbours block A has a separation distance of 18 metres, 19 metres with Farnborough House, but this is at an acute angle rather than directly facing each other.
block B, we've got 30 metres from Children's House and again 9 metres from Rushmere House again at any acute angle.
the block C would be 21 metres from Russia.
and 22 metres from the rear of Ipsley Gardens, as I said, the heights are 5 storeys, the site is outside of mid-rise zone but in terms of the overall balance and the provision of affordable housing in the form of social rent plus the sustainability benefits, passive house certification officers have recommended approval, subject to the completion of a legal agreement.
right.
just like to soak in favour of this and I think it's a wonderful one for additions who are one of 1,000 homes programme and also the the additionality of the the green space as well, it feels excellent, it looks good architecturally, I'm I'm really really happy about the passive house as well there's been a real attempt here to to make these.
you know the the best that we could possibly make them so, yeah, I, I think, fantastic, and we should. We should all support it. Any other comments, Councillor Ayres, Councillor Humphries, I will support this Council. I write, but I have to say that we have the same argument about the full story and the five story I have spent the afternoon on that by trying to tell myself that five storeys will work, but I don't think it will. It will make an incoherent grouping of houses and they're not subservient enough to the main towers, the towers work, because they've got space around them, putting some small H-Blocks in is fine, but I think it should be four storeys, and that's about as much as I could imagine working, but I will support this
I won't support this, although they already say it's the same old varieties. This is. It's just that too much, and I have to say this is the second month running where we've seen a council's own application and of course we welcome the affordable housing who do would not? But I think what is really disappointing is that we've got a side here where we've got single aspect units, Councillor S, again, this is councils' own and we think that's adequate to provide single aspect units. We've got amenity spaces that are smaller than they should bring it's taller than it should be, and I just think your last last month we had, whereas at Skinner Hill was a similar site application and there were mitigating circumstances
researchers are telling us about the difficulty on the site there and how the levels and things like that provided some mitigation for some of those aspects being substandard, but here we're starting off with a completely blank canvas on a flat rate of land. How can we not build buildings ourselves that are meeting policy and compliant with the best standards we should be enforcing when it's Council's own, how can we sit here as a planning committee and expect developers to do what we want to do and follow policy when we're doing something ourselves that doesn't comply with policy? I think it's inadequate. It's disappointing
could I?
so I mean I, I made this point before in context of another application it needs is about space standards.
when you look at it, the amenity standards in these, only two for every block, meet display amenity standards. Others don't we, as a Committee, refused the Atlantic House application in my own ward for poor or inadequate amenity space? Here, is Council itself, are applying and not observing the amenity standards? The Mayor's guidelines on internal space standards, which I understand is advisory, but he would expect a public authority to be more cognisant of another public authorities guidance and because we should be setting an example, and that's my problem here, that we should be an exemplar in terms of it being a developer. I'm you know, I have long accepted
that this administration is committed to delivering social rent, affordable housing. So 10 years is not a problem for me, but the problem is about. Let's actually not make in a chase the numbers to the point that we then make that the the units would deliver to be suboptimal and we have had this pursue with public housing in the past where, because we run out of time or you run out of money, we create poor housing and then three decades later we all say Well, well wish we hadn't done it, but let's not be doing that today so that we don't say in three decades time will I wish it was a little bigger or little lower or little wider or whatever, and I just do think that this is a message that the housing team does need to take on board. I mean, look, I accept entirely wait, wait where you want to create the tenure, not a problem, but no no
but
the Housing Team as an applicant here in essence, but the planning team need to then judge the housing application that it's inadequate in terms of standard guidelines on amenity standards,
if we allow housing to get away with it, why should we not allow everybody else to get away with it if the local authority has an applicant itself is less than you know from in its observance, then why should we expect others to do it, and that's the my point.
sorry, could I could I just come back in terms of the
thank you very much for your consideration.
are you two, are you moving a rejection?
you move moving rejection of the application on what grounds and what we have at the minute.
can we take that to the vote Cheryl, I think or sorry I think I'd like to hear the officers response to that full-on assault, yeah.
what is your opinion?
now, Members, please, Members, please I was possibly being a little bit twig by judgment, the support for this rejection was going to be not sufficient and therefore I thought we were wasting our time just a little bit this hour of the night, but if other majority party members also want to hear Mr Malloy then there's Malloy,
just firstly, in terms of the heights, and it being too tall.
yes, the site is outside of a Midwives Zone, however this application has been through lots of pre-app discussions we have had various schemes come forward, it's been to the DLP, our design colleagues have also supported that.
it in this in this form, in terms of the standard of accommodation.
just to clarify, all units meet the minimum standards we've also got for wheelchair.
units as part of the scheme, which are a lot bigger actually than than the kind of normal requirements in terms of the single aspects units, they are limited in terms of number our policy, LP 27, does allow for single aspect units subject to certain criteria, are you not being north facing none of these are more facing.
none of the single aspect units are family units which again.
you know kind of help with that, as I say, LP 27 does allow allow for it, but subject to certain criteria which which it does meet passive house standards set in terms of energy bills for future residents, a major plus, so I don't see this as substandard accommodation in terms of amenity space.
Everyone, every one of the units, does have a private balcony, ranging from 8.6 to 14.2 square metres, the reason why they are on sizes again through design comments, and what often you have is, if you've got oversight, balconies, you reduce the light levels and flats below so that sometimes why?
through design work it, it results in that.
and also the fact that there's gonna be all that communal space outside people's doors, for both existing and and residential, so personally is officers. I don't think we think this is substandard accommodation, judged, just to pick up on that and then the reference back to the Atlantic House that will just say that I didn't have any communal space that solely had undersized balconies, and that is why Members refused it with this one. You can include the HMO, the communal space as part of those amenity calculations, so it exceeds those the the minimum standards check. I'm only a poor member of this committee and I'm not an officer like Mr corridor
have you been called, by the way, or you know good, actually, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor Humphreys got in before you so, Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair, whichever way round said, I I think you know, de la la la, let's not be be silly here, we're not saying yeah, of course, the party, but there's a lot of very good elements in here. This is the whole point, but when it's Council's own application, why have we made those design compromises, with the balconies being there? They are because of the light impact on the flats below. We understand that this is the typical argument we get from a commercial developer, which is you know them trying to wiggle around the rules to make sure that they get what they want, but what we just want the point, the principle that we're saying is, is that why have we had to make those compromises because it's the council's own application show she hasn't this? There was still fault, he told me that the balconies are undersized so that they don't impact on the light to the fact that says that means the light is impacted on the balconies downstairs why they've not done it sufficiently, does it give us still give a single aspect units? Why do we think it's acceptable for councils applications if we don't just Councillor, given the very rightly said, if we don't set ourselves as an example to any other developer, why should any other developer to use and the bare minimum they need to do to squeeze an application? Through this committee, we should be setting a stunning example of what we can do to the ultimate degree, including the very good things that are in this application. I'm not saying it's a terrible application, it's just. The detail is disappointingly fall short of what could have been even better application when we have the space and the capacity on these sites. We've done it
do you wish to Council Councillor Givendale, please don't indulge yourself for too long on this, we now all know your position but go on the guide.
while we all do, I mean.
I I, I only relied on paragraph 13, which clearly says that the external balcony should be there. I'm happy to accept Ms Molloy's explanation, but it's not in the paper. I can't second guess what the explanation is. Similarly, 13.1 talks about Mayor's guidelines as being kind of not mandatory, and my point is I accept that it's not mandatory, but as a public authority we shouldn't be doing relying on that kind of an excuse, and therefore I move that we refuse this on the grounds of this inadequate amenity space for the majority of the units and and the units do not comply with the mayor's got a design standard guidelines
those who want to vote in favour of it are second one.
those who want to support what is it Councillor given this amendment?
those in favour for those against.
6, I think right, I move that we accept the recommendations, understand those in favour, that the best work was reversed about fine okay.
I am very keen to move to the vote, but I'm I would just like to record that I think it's extremely disappointing that we have an application before us that includes the removal of so many trees and including the removal of trees to form cut or rearranged car parking provision and I think that's quite disgraceful and I would hope that even though we've just to approve this that everything should be done to mitigate against the need for tree removal and certainly not removing trees to create more car parking, thank you.
while I understand the item, I'm sure everyone does, I'm sure the officers will take note 0 please.
you don't like it, but it's true Councillor Humphreys add, on the whole I haven't interrupted you every second, please don't OK, let's move on to.
the last application
which is flat 36 valiant House
the recommendation is to approve, is that agreed agreed, it's agreed, I thought it might be, fortunately I can move on, we haven't quite finished, I know we haven't quite finished.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 24-106)

the decisions paper is that agreed investigation files of that agreed, noting closed appeals, is that agreed greed, thank you have a paper on TPO, sorry, the supplementary and tree preservation orders away, agree I I agreed to say I do think that I I wish somebody would explain better what is so special about these trees, having seen them are they under threat is not the issue I mean paper doesn't say.
that is profoundly.

6 Closed Appeals (Paper No. 24-108)

5 Closure of Investigation Files (Paper No. 24-107)

7 Tree Preservation Orders (Paper No. 24-127)

I think we need to go back to the original paper, I can't remember off the top of my head, I just thought it was because it was near the Conservative Group that we were just going to the TPO.
I think I think we might find that the TPOs are delegated to officers, I can't remember an occasion when we've turned one down, yeah, I know I know you're not, I know you're not.
please check that we thank the officers.
we can still thank the officers, thank you officers.