Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 24 April 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 24th April 2024 at 7:30pm
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
OK, let's start again, apologies for that good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcomed the planning applications committee from April 24, my name is Tony Belsen and the Chair of the Committee, and I am a councillor representing Battersea Park Ward.
I am going to ask everyone to introduce themselves when they feel the need to speak, I think, a mass introduction all at the start, people will just forget the names bar the people on the front table, who I think people might be interested intrigued to know who they are, so I'll start with the most important who is the Committee Clarke,
Michael Flowers, Democratic Services, he is the most important because he takes note of what we decide, I turn to my left Nick Calderon the Head of Development Management,
we've silenced the legal advice, normally the best thing grieving Duncan was an external legal advisor.
Right.
Can I say to members, sorry, not members people in general that many of these committee papers but had all been carefully read by the Members concerned, if we pass something as it were immediately, it's purely and simply because we have no particular arguments or discussions and that we just simply,
Accept the officers recommendation, but I'm sure that won't be the case all the way through the evening, some things will happen, the first item I've got is the minutes and before asking for proof of minutes.
Can I say that
The really complex application of Springfield hospital, resulting in some discussion between various interests about things like measurements, and I one particular example, if I can give, is that 60 metres was used as a measurement and it's been re-measured and more accurately, but some other figures, around 50,
the minutes are correct in my book in that they are actually a record of the meeting that we had, but there's an error atom coming round which I certainly make sure Councillor Humphreys sees which has a few technical amendments of that kind, given that all the minutes accepted,
thank you minutes are agreed, can I move on from that to say that there are some people in the public agenda pay in the public gallery who have particular interests in a couple of applications, and we have one other application to other applications where there are reasons not to keep the officers concerned.
Up all evening, so I'm going to change the agenda if that's okay and go to the enforcement papers first on page 217.
Councillor Govindia, is this really necessary, yes, it is declaration of interests are, thank you, thank you indeed.
Okay, but I will go to to
The enforcement papers first and then take the school, whichever one that is a manual school application number 5 and and the Padel Tennis application as well, because that's what people in the public gallery are interested in Councillor give India. Thankfully, thank you reminds me about declaration of interests. I can I ask Members if they have any declaration of interest in this Councillor Humphries. Thank you Chair yes, I've got a declaration of interest in
item number 5 Emanuel school because my son was a pupil at Emanuel school, so although that was a while ago, I think I should excuse myself on that one, just in case he thinks I've got any long term loyalties towards the school which of course I do.
That's very proper of you, thank you.
Noted so given that declaration of interest,
Councillor Convener, I beg your pardon that round from Councillor Gavin dig home, thank you Chair are in relation to item 7, the Garrett Lane regeneration site, I've been advised that I ought to let you know that I am a registered patient of the Brocklebank Health Centre and a regular client of the pharmacy at that site and in light of Councillor Humphreys's declaration I just wanted to know that my stepson attended the same school.
OK, let's not go too far on this, I might have to declare that I once attended a public meeting there or something like that come on, there's be sensible.
But thank you very much for those declarations of interests, can we move on to page 217, which is about Palmer Crescent and a notice of enforcement, and we have Mr Raybould online somewhere Robert you there, Mr Ray Moat, I am good evening Craig Greybull planning enforcement team manager,
sorry, I was introduced to myself Craig, while planning enforcement team manager of right.
Csokas through the application or your recommendations. Rather, yes, of course, so the first item on the enforcement agenda is at 76 Palmer Crescent S-W 11. This is a two storey end of terrace house located on the east side of Palmer Crescent without planning permission, the rear roof and gable have been removed and a second floor, rear extension, has been built in its place. This extends vertically up from the eaves to ridge height and occupies the entire rear roof space. As a result, it reads as an additional storey to the rear of the building, rather than a dormer extension, as can be found on other properties in the street, its size and scale, out of proportion with the property, and create a boxy rectilinear form at roof level.
It's been finished in zinc, cladding which adds a single block of colour that emphasises its size and fails to match the existing roof tiles, its design relates poorly to the existing building and is out of character in the street, and it's also overbearing in relation to properties to the rear on Eccles Road as it's been built only 6.5 metres from their rear facades, the extension also includes a large window which allows for overlooking between these properties and is harmful to the amenities of neighbours.
Officers have tried to resolve the breach requesting submission of a revised planning application or that remedial works be carried out to remedy the harm
But to date no action has been taken and we are recommending service every enforcement notice to resolve the breach.
enforcement seems fairly and contentious to me, is that agreed agreed that the way that you proceed with an enforcement notice and miss the rebel to continue with the next one, which is the rural bank, to the rear of Lydon Grove?
I, if I may Councillor, I'll deal with items 2 and 3 together because they involve the same issues, are and are very close to each other, so I think it might be a more expeditious to deal with it in that way, so these are platforms built over the banks of the River Wandle to the rear of 51, A Lydon Grove that's item 2 and 93 Twilight Street, which is Item 3. The Council have already enforced removal of many other similar platforms on this stretch of the river, including service of enforcement notices are authorised by this committee last year that the platforms have been built by the owners of the adjacent properties on land that does not belong to them without planning permission from the Council and without authorisation from the Environment Agency.
They're fixed into the concrete flood defences of the River, damaging their integrity. The platforms encroach on the open space provided by the river, which is an important habitat corridor for bats, small mammals and invertebrates. They also reduce the space available for Bankside vegetation to grow the platform. The platforms also degrade the sense of openness of the river channel, adding manmade clutter to it and undermining its landscape, characteristics and appearance. A request from Council to remove these two particular platforms from the land have not been met. So again we're recommending service of an enforcement notice. Thank you again, I feel probably uncontentious. Our Councillor gave India. It's just a question of Mr Rabo
the Environment Agency, which owns the land on which these platforms and be built, what is the role that they play, or do they simply rely on us as the planning authority to to do their bidding?
That's a very good question, Councillor, they do have a role to play and they do have enforcement powers that they can use to remove such structures, but in my experience they very rarely because those enforcement powers and often it does lend to us and, where appropriate to take action.
OK, subject to but not subject at all, but thank you for that interesting answer, is it agreed they're agreed, thank you.
Just just to point out that Mr Rabo would have been in the office today, but he's unwell, so he's done that overall from home, so thank you very much, Craig.
It will be a better tomorrow moving on.
Really messed up the start, because another thing I missed and should have said was, we've had apologies from Councillor Cooper this evening.
Ann Castle, Councillor Justin as well, OK, thank you, so we've got those two important apologies right.
Moving on to the school application, application number 5
do we have an introduction for a year?
Sorry, page 81.
We weren't planning on having an introduction on this because it seemed reasonably uncontentious, I know one or two people have got some questions, however, which I think it might be useful, especially given the audience.
to express, so there it is the application is on page 1 about 81, and the recommendation is to approve the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a replacement, four storey science and dining block I visited there as it happens as part of a of a
design review panel, and one thing one can't doubt is that the school definitely needs more space for a decent space for dining at the moment, it's an impossible position, but just say that in passing I know our people have got comments in general about the application does they want to make particular comments Councillor given there I see Councillor White Councillor S,
Councillor is, let me start with you and let's be alphabetic.
Thank you, my name's Fine is, I represent, East Putney, thank you.
as a relatively small point, but it is to do with demolition which
So much energy is lost in demolition that I hope that there is some condition which invites or insists that the contractor uses any materials which result from the demolition can be used again as aggregate or backfill or.
And in the construction and doesn't get carted away into back into landfill, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor, India.
thank you, Chair, to two separate points, and one is about managers looking at the sky and the plans and and the supporting drawings, there were a number of CCGs showing the new building with trees and without trees, and what I could not work out was whether the trees that were,
being put forward as ones that will shield the building ought to be the new trees or are they existing trees, because I couldn't find that so perhaps an officer could clarify that a bit for me.
my second point is that there is a condition requiring the school to make a contribution to the economic development office of something like 16 and a half thousand pounds on the basis that these improved and much-needed facilities may not generate additional jobs now I tried to compare that with the Frances Barber school improvements that we voted on not too long ago and no such condition was in that one and in fact the condition there which is different from here was that the school the Frances Barber School,
be asked to use its best endeavours to provide to obtain local employment during the construction, etc etc which is a perfectly sensible and a good thing to do, and there is no echo of this in here and yet, and however at 16 and a half grand or whatever is being extracted, so I don't know what the basis of that sum is and I don't know why different conditions apply to different education establishments.
Councillor White, do you want to make your point as well?
yeah, this sorry Councillor Wyatt, that's embed Ward I would like to go on from Councillor Age point, actually that Freud demolition wholesale, there's a massive release of of carbon through the building, so always I think most most organisations involved in environment at the moment as a are basically saying refit and refurbish much better than demolition and of course if we don't have demolition we won't have to.
destroy the mature plane tree
which you know we, we should be doing everything to to preserve, and no side a third point I'd like to make it, as well as that this score was not made available, any of the facilities are very magnificent facilities which have been subject to two pages worth of planning applications that we've allowed through.
And including the spoke speeches, and we got a severe deficit in this borough of community sports pitches and the sports pitches are not available and for the general public, so I would really like to see a condition placed rather in the same manner that Councillor Cavendish spoke about that they make they make good on the promise that all private schools should be making given there are tax exemptions that they are making their facilities available for the local community.
Well, Minister, Richards, that's an interesting group, can I say that, with the dramatic development of political interest in the ecology for four very, very good climate change reasons, I am sure we're going to get more and more questions.
About
About demolitions and the impact on it and the carbon waste involved, and that
I suspect I'm going to be told in our planning powers are somewhat limited, I'll be interested to hear what Mr Gallagher has to say about that.
but whether the limited or not, we are going to get more and more people querying it so.
Public authorities better start addressing the issue anyway, that's my my comment, so messages as we've gotten demolition.
The interesting issue about the 16,500 pound and the jobs, involvement and facilities available for the public.
Andree's indeed entries, thank you OK, thank you, my name is Alan Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area.
So in terms of the demolition they have submitted, the applicants have submitted a sustainably say sustainability statement, which sets out all the details in terms of how they proposed to undertake the removal of spoil, and so on are associated with the development as is required for a major development of this nature.
I'm afraid I don't have information directly with me in terms of where that would be located, but it is a requirement, as I understand, in terms of a sustainable development, to be able to demonstrate where they will be removing spoil and so on and recycling and use of materials on the site there is a requirement for a construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted which covers a lot of different issues associated with construction works on the site.
Has Councillor Belton has said we are not, we are not the experts in terms of that particular subject, we rely on the information that is submitted, which is then assessed independently by.
our experts.
and as
there is a also an an offset payment under the Section 1 0 6 agreement for carbon offset associated with the overall development, which is substantial in terms of the trees I think CJI eyes, probably they are more indicative than then factual, but there are landscape.
Plans that have been submitted because this was negotiated considerably by officers because of the loss of the plane tree.
which has been discussed in the report, it's almost inevitable if this building is to be built to meet with standards and with of school needs that tree was located directly on the plot, essentially, where this building would have to go, officers have assessed that and have tried to mitigate the impact of the loss of that particular tree with replanting of 23 other trees wow one set of or one group if you like, are going to sort of reintroduce an avenue feature along there, which makes more sense for the movement of children and so on from one class to another.
it is regrettable the loss of the tree without a doubt, but it is quite a who did or bushy hairier, if you like, with with quite a lot of greenery in the in the vicinity.
have lost track, playing fields, use of playing fields by the public at large can't even understand my own contributions, 0 the employment contributions, the employment contributions are calculated through our planning obligation S P, D,
through with through consultation with our economic development officer in terms of what they would need to contribute
I know you've made reference to another site, I'm afraid I I I wouldn't be able to answer or make a direct correlation between the two, although I think that's where I think I need to come in OK, thank you from the front says, Barbara, I think it was a different circumstance. They submitted a full economic and skills plan with the submission, but due, I think, to power the the funding nature of the Frances Barber, which was funded through central government. I don't think they were able to put a contribution in on that, so we've got additional
facility through the the skills.
Assessment, and I think that's correct, as is all I'll check with Mr Granger, if he has a different recollection.
certainly yet, Nigel Greensboro managed East Area Team that that is largely true, I mean that in terms of the the scale and the financial contribution that was sought, it was reported in the text in the body of the report and we are exploring mechanisms to not only get the actual employment and training on site during the construction phase et cetera, but I'm exploring how we can seek that contribution, there's also new won't sit well there's also technical differences between
The the applicant and entering into planning obligations between essentially on a possible of land and an estate that's on our own, so it was deemed necessary and also for the
the other school sites, that's the name springs, my slips my mind at the moment the new Sen school in Broadwater school, the same approach was was taken for that, but in terms of scale.
the ultimate quant the amounts of money.
arrived at goes through a a matrix and the bigger the floor area, the higher the sun.
sorry just just to add one more additional point to that. The Frances, Barbara extension, or the additional was a lot less than proposed on this, so it's proportionate goes up a different fee in the policy landscape. India, you want to get it on this point, I mean I'd like to know more, and perhaps the officers could write to me as to what is the basis on which it is done, and what is the formula that is used, because I do not recall a similar sum being extracted from the developments at the Putney High School for girls
Where it was a very significant development. So I just wonder if, if the answer is, this is a private school and they can afford it and Frances Barber can't afford it. Fine I'll take that, but I just liked more honesty and clarity. I don't think it's a lack of honesty. I'm not is a different groups of people working on different applications and possibly there's a very cogent. I think your comment about
Getting a reply offline is the best we're going to do so, it will perhaps provide Councillor Govindia with a reply of line.
Just before going on to the one other issue that I know Councillor White raised
C Councillor Owens wanted to comment as well.
thank you.
Obviously we supported this in conservation. Can you just to introduce sorry and Councillor Owens and the Northcote ward, and actually we can see this development from our side of Wandsworth Common, not just from Arundel Close, but also from the bullpens on the common, just picking up on Councillor White's points, I know that Emanuel school have over the years have actually supported some of the local state schools into my children at an Bolingbroke academy, which is on the common opposite manual school, and I know that in the past we've used the boathouse and we have used some of the facilities there, but I am curious in terms of the answer to that question because obviously they haven't had the same support in recent times. Thank you. I think I remember from when I visited when I went round the design review panel, that the swimming pool was also used by some some some state schools. I may be wrong about that, but that's what I think I record Councillor White, asked about to do to make this one subject we've got on to about making the facilities available for public like playing and generally the playing fields because we have got big flags.
I mean, the only answer I can give is that we haven't negotiated.
that has secured it as unnecessary public benefit if you like to the proposal because the
the what the proposal is offering in itself, if you like, in terms of improvements to the existing school facility.
And in terms of its overall design and and performance and so on is sufficient and and the offsetting with or contributions and also replacement of trees, and so on, as a package is sufficient for us not to have then pushed further for additional public benefits if you like through securing greater use for other schools in the in the vicinity that's all I can I can answer really or I would also add that as if it's not within it's not within the scope of this development to insist that,
A condition is put on the whole site to change an open access, or we wouldn't stand up at appeal, it would be able to of ours and unenforceable, so we we wouldn't be able to to enforce it, wouldn't be able to take it further and they have offered various aspects so there's various improvements as part of this effort.
I think Councillor White.
Could we, if it's not enforceable by law, could we just make that proposition to them, because it is something that?
They should be providing as part of their tax exempt status. So yeah, I'm we, I've got a real problem in the borough over playing fields and they've got these beautiful playing fields that are unavailable. Well, I think it's fair to say, Councillor White, there's no planning grounds at all, but the members of the school staff I mentioned fairly significant ones are here and they can hear what's being said for or by committee members about both VAT and the other issues discussed, so I think that's as far as we can take it right now was the last comment that Councillor India was gonna make, I just was going to say that perhaps this is a matter for the director of children's services to take offline. It is not a planning matter and I think there are better ways of handling this issue elsewhere in the Council. I think we've expressed our views in general
OK, subject to all that expression of view is the application agreed.
Councillor Whyte, as opposed as everyone else for that wanted to do, who 71?
Okay, moving on to, should you do?
The other people concerned in the public gallery were interested in.
Application number 6, the development of Padel Tennis on at the top of Wandsworth.
In one town on the top of the multi-storey car park, again I didn't we weren't going to have an introduction to that we were.
I think from the Member's point of view, we don't think it's very contentious but are subject to being corrected on that anyone got any particular comments, Councillor Gavin, there again.
Chairman Lloyd,
Some wondering whether the Director of Housing has any comments on this, because this is a development which is overseen by a large number of council tenants and leaseholders, and I would have thought that the Director of Housing had an interest at least to share with us his view about this, and I don't see any reference to that. I've got a couple of other points, but I'll come to this later, there was, I can recall reading it, there was reference to residents of the two tower blocks, in particular being reasonably content. I seem to recall, and it is actually covered now, most of it, isn't it so
Well, internal consultation.
should have gone, in my view, to the Director of Housing as landlord and I dunno, I don't think we are a failed landlord and with somebody with a property interest in in those area, and it's just it might be the same as what's in here, but I think it's just looks like the director of housing does not care about the interests of something like 200 odd residents and tenants in that area that starts my concern, I'm sure that's not the Director of Housing his position I I know impotently well I know he's very keen on sport of all kinds which might,
might yes, I know I can count you tigers, no sense of humour in this committee at all gosh almighty Councillor, why did you have anything to say which giggled at your jousting sorry, always giggled at your jokes, so if there is there is essentially over here?
yeah
just a couple of points really, I think that the use of two really unused floors of car parking for a sports facility seems to be better use really than.
so for that, but there seems to be a blur of padel tennis in the area, but anyway that's up to them if they want to do that, but I was, I was a bit confused about how much schools access there was going to be.
Because it mentions that there would be school access, but
there wasn't a level of school access because that would be a great facility for local schools because, as many local schools in the area that you know could get a taster for playing tennis.
resurgence we've got any view about that, thank you on page 1 3 6 of the report that refers to what Councillor White is referring to and the applicant has indicated that they work alongside rackets, cubed, who are a or a local.
Association that works with young children from school and or outside of school, I believe for for activities and so on, support for mental health and everything, because that information is quite vague at this point we have conditioned made a recommendation for a condition for further information to be submitted in that regard because we want to secure that as well, especially in this location when we know so many young people come to the shopping centre anyway so,
year.
I'm pretty sure. In general, most of us are very pleased to have more sporting facilities available in the borough, so I suspect we're all going to agree on this Councillor Gabriel. I just begin Councillor White's point. I mean I looked at this in context of what we agreed with the other pedal tennis application. We did, but a couple of cycles ago, where over 6,000 spaces they find opportunities, I think, but extracted from that particular operator, and I just wonder whether there is some sort of parity between that and here, and that's what I'll be looking for and I'd also be looking for in essence, access to people who live on those estates immediately. Their rackets, which is based in Roehampton is fine and dandy, but what about the people of Albion and so on, and Alvin and Knowles and so on, and I see I think there isn't, there is a need for direct relationship between the people who immediately live around there and actually on par with what we have extracted elsewhere and that's what I hope that officers will be able to deliver, and we should have a condition that say so I think we can get a little bit blazer about comparing sites. I have no idea and I rather suspect,
No Councillor does, and perhaps not many officers about the different financial circumstances of using the top of the car park and using somewhere in Battersea power station site, the different costs, capital costs involved, all sorts of things so to work out from Latin Quarter the exact equivalent condition should be, I think, is rather tricky and I think you have to look at applications on their merits and the circumstances therein so I think that's a bit unreserved realistic to be honest,
if you don't ask, you, don't get fair enough.
In that case, you don't mind if I acknowledge the question without an answer, Councillor Humphreys.
The problems that are continuing in the same vein, but all of what's like one second third Councillor White suggestion, I think it's also particularly relevant, I agree, you're right Chair, we can't be too prescriptive, but I think we should at least be able to.
Have some pointers in there where we'd like to see it to go, and I think the the idea of having some contribution for when that particular area where this is going to be located has a lot of children living in that area in those blocks around and something that can be a direct benefit to them who live on the doorstep, I think it's not unreasonable to ask the quantum of it.
As you say, I'll have to accept, we can't we can't give a number of that, but I think there should be an indication that there should be some kind of preferential treatment be so vague, it doesn't specify, doesn't specify, local children, doesn't specify what's going to happen for those children who live in that area.
Dearth of report, but it's very vague.
I thought I saw Councillor Boswell, I would come and Councillor Coakley.
Councillor Paterson
Yes, I just wanted to point out, because obviously the scenario that I'm interested in, so I looked at this and actually on page 139, at condition 11, we have to ensure that provision is made for access to the sports facilities by members of the local community in accordance with the local plan it is there on Wednesday quantum or when Councillor Bosworth says of course I have an interest she's the chair of the children's committee,
Councillor Cockley,
Thank you, Chair, Councillor Cokey, for St Mary's Ward.
I wanted to ask about the urban greening and
biodiversity enhancement, because I feel like that there was an opportunity here, it's essentially adding a refund to the car park and I feel like they fell out of a small area of green roof, but I don't see why it can be extended or throughout it radiated we would have been a really good opportunity they've been.
If you mentioned in the if you mentioned in the report about how it was all accepted that there was not really much, that can be done so yeah I'd like to know why can there be more done especially we have like green roofs again I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but I imagine that when you put a green roof in as opposed to an ordinary roof you have to increase the structural strength appreciably and there must be a financial cost if there's a lot of earth that is heavy stuff.
perhaps urgency no better.
I mean, I'm not a structural person either, I'm just basically it's it's a building that is functional for the purpose of playing the paddle tennis which requires it and
Surfaces, probably and and acoustic as well as it's proposed to be an acoustic building it's just not the structure that would take an awful lot of additional elements onto it in terms of what?
Would be required to increase the urban greening factor. We understand that it's a disappointment that there isn't they're not gonna be able to meet that, however, because of the need of the building, if you like, for its functionality, our ecologist has discussed it with the applicants and their main concern really with this location is that any additional building would impact on bats and that the do forage and fly around that vicinity. So the applicants have indicated that there'd be more than happy to introduce
sort of smaller scale additions around the site to assist in that and to also limit any lighting and so on, but otherwise and and our ecologists have have agreed that that's a good compromise given the the the the context of the site and the circumstances so,
That's that's the reason why I'm afraid.
Do we know what species of bat Piper still roam?
We've got it.
Bradford there is a little reference in the arabica, this is all interesting stuff but seriously.
Personally, I'm in favour of more sporting facilities, I think, is looks and feels like a building, I think Richard said it more or less, there can be put up fairly quickly and is not of the kind of structure that you'd expect or green roofs etc and I suggest that we accept the officer's recommendation so agreed.
just wanted to bring the attention of Members to the late items paper, because there has been a little change in the interim in regard to the five-year strategy, we were a little bit concerned initially that it was a little bit vague. The applicants have now submitted further information in advance of the meeting which, against the need for condition 12 that's recommended and also we're gonna, amend, condition 2, then to include the documents that they've subsequently submitted and also yeah, that's it. Thank you OK, I'm sure we all think we're far and DDA
conditions of admirers importance, and we gotta get those right but accepting your recommendations, we've agreed it in any event, which I think brings us back to the agenda as printed.
which takes us to land number 1 land east of Faraday and Dalton House known, perhaps Balham Hill estates and better.
any comments Councillor Coakley, thank you, Chair, I was just a bit curious because in one of the paragraphs it says both that is the Council's own application.
a contribution to the Home thousand homes programme, which would imply that Ed's social rent, but then there says to be less at London affordable, so I just wanted to some clarification as to whether it was social, all London affordable, and if it is London affordable can you explain that sort of decision but behind that,
Mr grandeur.
Thank you Chair, my understanding is that it is London affordable rent, it's it's the Mayor's version basically of social rent, all of these these London, affordable rents and socially, whether there will be low cost rent so they're all within the same species, so to speak,
I I don't have with me the understanding why the housing team behind the thousand homes programme allocate certain units as purely Wandsworth own social rent, and some all are, but there are decisions behind it, the main thing is in policy terms is that it is low cost housing that will be secured into perpetuity so that's the main policy compliance and what weighs in favour of this proposal can I just add it is actually
Policy compliant with it would need to actually provide any affordable housing, because it's less than 10 units, because the council is doing this as they kept the Council's housing policies that are dictating which what the proposal is for, so that's probably a question maybe for Housing Committee rather than for the planet.
Is it part of the thousand homes?
Year.
Councillor White.
yeah, given the objections, so I wasn't sure.
this isn't spoken about actually in the rest of the paper, but there's talk of a garden
Around the back, which would be which would be taken away.
But this is the garden exists, I mean, is it being re, provided or more, what's what's the nature of that objection?
So the those objections basically translate to the fact that this proposal would occupy a certain amount of open amenity area, it's basically just grassed area levelled with some trees interspersed around our area, it's quite featureless, but it is open space.
that is grassed with some trees, so I think they're loosely referring to the estate land as garden.
The late comments the late notices says something about the.
The person over the bank concerned about the wall.
Comment about the wall, yeah, there's a very tall wall separating there's many boundary treatments, as you can imagine, if you just look at the Ordnance Survey extract to me how many separate boundary treatments just on Lynn Road alone separate the estate from those private properties but, as with any site of this nature, there is a there's particularly to the northern boundary between the application site and the builders yard as at all.
Very tall wall, a brick wall or masonry wall that has been asserted by the occupiers to be structurally well tall and potentially and sound.
At this stage, we are certainly as part of the planning process, it's it's not for us to establish the the ownership of that wall, but certainly.
some remedial works would have to take place whether it would be a matter for the Council to to work approach the the builders merchants if it's not in the Council's ownership to to work together to stabilise that wall, but certainly I mean this is all a matter for future Building Regulations applications and we've also got condition 4 which seeks further details of all the boundary treatments surrounding the site to to make sure what's going on in terms of securing the gardens for the future occupiers. For this, this proposal
sir, You mentioned just talking about me.
ownership at the mountain, not about this site specifically has been raised with me about one or two Councillors, I am right in saying that you don't have to own land to put a planning permission on it, you could in theory put a planning permission on, I could do it on your house or your mine that would be fun, but it's true and I think Councillor Atha has had a quick question.
I wanted to know that the plan is to curiosity in this planning in the one bedroom houses, there is a curious space at the top of the landing which is called flexible space.
Which I have never seen on a housing plan before now, I can imagine that we really useful is flexible space, but it should alert ones of the fact that a one bedroom house that is with stairs is a very inefficient use of space.
Because you end up with this extra space which, if you make it a bit bigger, could be a bedroom said Tyberton.
Or if you really do get smaller, you could fit all of them on site.
But I know this is not whether you agree or not, with I vote for or against, but it's a serious, serious point coming out of a curiosity, flexible space, where did this creeping from?
but this is, this is a product of the nationally described standards, say the supplies over England said there were minimum minimum space sizes, four bedrooms, one beds, two beds, all sorts and overall space standards, so when a room is below that standard we can't call it technically an additional a second bedroom.
and if they do mean this, this is something that we, because then the actual size of the unit, the overall size of the unit would have to increase, which this can't do so. This goes across from councils own developments through to speculative developments by private developers where they propose small rooms. And we say that you'll see drawings, you'll see spaces put as studies and things like that and cinema rooms etc to deal with either substandard rooms that wouldn't normally wealth. That wouldn't end up with a nationally prescribed compliant scheme.
Described scheme.
I think we can await further interesting architectural contributions and councillors whose added dimension to the committee genuinely I mean it's absolutely genuinely that perhaps we hadn't had before, so do you carry on Councillor Humphreys?
Thank you Chair, I'm going to drag us back to the garden, I'm afraid, and it's a shame in the report. It's slightly disparaging about that, that space and obviously yes, it's not Hampton Court Palace Gardens is it, but some it's those people's garden and it's a space where you could ever kick about with the football for the kids or whatever it isn't it's trees and it might not be horticultural lyrics outstanding, but let's not be too disparaging about what the residents that live, their nouns, learn in the future. Residents wanted to use that space for it is they do consider it as their garden. Quite rightly to say, we shouldn't be too dismissive of that and we are going to lose 400 square metres of that space, so it's not a little tiny patch. It's a significant amount of land that we're taking away from the existing residents, let alone the now. This is all very well, but the housing department to get this agreed and functioning is going to improve the play areas and the general environment of this particular patch enormously, because the current play areas are not, as I understand it, terribly good, and they're going to be. How
Out aspect for the estate will be very much better, I think, so I really do think yeah acknowledging that.
Go on Councillor Humphrey, I acknowledge what you're saying that what will be left will be improved absolutely, but it was still having a massive quantum, the third loss of area for those people to play. My point was actually something secondary to that. There was that there's a strange comment and it's still on sort of safety or ecology. Anyway, on page 30 at the bottom power 7 14 it it was a bit of a strange strange paragraph. It says it's noted that an initial big BMG biodiversity net gain assessment was submitted with the application. However, given that this proposal is on a small site and the application was submitted in September, the requirement is not to pull the requirement for P and G is not a policy requirement. That was interesting in the first place because we've got a BMG report on item 1 bedroom house inquiry, which is one little house at the rear of effective road item 4. That has a of belongs somewhere in some detail, so it is strange that we haven't got this one here and then I thought well that's interesting, that they refer to something and then sort of say, Well, it's superseded and outdated and Floridi bladdy Blair, subtle I'll follow, it says it's in the report, so I I want now to look at it and that
report
Which has been dismissed reports a net loss on biodiversity of point 0.5 5 units and a net decrease of 16.96% in ecological value as a result of this construction, and it also says I didn't actually quite understand trading rules will not be satisfied so you know I can understand why it was because it was worthy of dismissing it, but that isn't a great out and it says it says something along the lines of what does it say at the end of that paragraph.
because the standards have changed and it's not an accurate representation of the biodiversity gains on su outlining on site in line with recently established standards, I doubt if, since September 2023 standards have improved so much that it's going to be a massively increased gain, but I just thought that was a bit of an anomaly that we refer to something and then dismiss it straight away because it doesn't say the right answers that the applicant would like it to say.
Mr Garrincha.
it's it's simply a case that they didn't need to calculate the the op.
perform what we now know at all know, as Fiona biodiversity net gains, which has been enacted this year, so small sites have been captured by B n g on the think by correct me if I'm wrong anyone at the 2nd of April this year, so the fact that that report, the ecology officer has has seen that the ecology officer is benignly aware that they couldn't take that report into consideration because it wasn't relevant to this application only applications submitted on or the 2nd of April for small sites
B and G is mandatory for those, so they didn't need to do it, but they have done, but rightly so, the officer has acknowledged that the that they've produced a piece of work, but then we're looking back onto the urban greening factor in which we can rely on, even though it's not a major but that illustrates further the the impacts. I mean the the. We have to recognise that the loss of irrespective of which has been grassed grassland, there is some ecology in there
Some is lost.
Can I just add to that other you, you make an interesting point, that the the standards might have changed, were actually very much delayed by the guidance coming out from central government, came out from Defra rather than from from doula, and it was it was delayed a couple of times and we've actually only just got the the actual guidance.
about the time that small sites went live, so there was. There has been a massive delay and this assessment was probably done without knowing what the criteria was, so it is sort of a guess rather than what we would apply for now and what we would see coming forward. Thank you. I understand that, but just to be clear, we're not disputing that these figures are wrong, we're just saying they might not in Officers' opinion, they're not considered relevant in policy terms of this application, but we're not saying those figures are wrong
It could be because the guidance has been has changed, how the degree of of a hub of inaccuracy we don't know yeah, but you're not going to tell me now that we've gone from minus 16 point, whatever per cent to plus 20% are we Councillor Andrews is going to change the way you decide on this application.
May it's a factor in my decision, alright OK well, OK, that's your consideration, Councillor, given the
To two points, one actually just following on from Councillor Humphrys' thing.
I mean, I know this area is becoming increasingly important and more and more complicated and relatively new what error holding biodiversity measures and so on, and the ecology of developments in more generally, I wonder whether you would want to give some consideration to doing some some training or instruction for us so that we better understand,
This area and these issues, once officers, have understood it. If I may put it, they're moving. To my more substantive point, I note that there'd be loss of 9 car parking spaces and I note that the area is surrounded by CPZ eds, and although there is some talk of this being car free, I mean only those four houses may be car-free, but there are people who will be displaced into the streets, and so I understand that they will have to be buying. CPZ ed permits
Just wanted to make sure that that's my understanding is correct, so people who at the moment do not pay to park might in future have to pay to park and secondly, in doing so there are there is no restriction on their right to apply for parking permits.
It is my understanding, correct
Mr Garrington or Mr tiddly.
Yes, even this Councillor David Titley, the Head of Transport Strategy.
Is the application agreed?
Right agreed, thank you.
I take it that some nem con, or is it unanimous?
Nem con looks to write to me, so it's now I realised that some of the committee clocks don't recognise that old fashion frightened, but it has no votes recorded against, yes, I know Nimani, contrary or whatever, it is OK, move on to application 2 which is Chillerton Road furs down again.
I think it's reasonably uncontentious, is it all the officers? Councillor Humphreys, sorry Chair, but just just a quick point. There was some concern in the objections about the potential all over again, it's speculation about the future, but it is a concern of residents, everybody about it, being thought to be converted into an HMO when it's bigger and we could just get a reminder of what the rules are on that, whether it could or couldn't be turned into an HMO depending on the size of the HMO, consider licensing things different within a certain size, isn't it the number of residents did you understand that
I understood that way perfect was a bit quick for me but don't know where Bryant can take it, yeah, that was covered off in for point 1, so given the larger size of the property planning, permission would also be required to create an HMO 7 occupants rooms or more so under that you can actually swap around within the use class from C3 to C4 but it's larger HMOs, which is 7 and occupants are or more becomes sui generis but are Latin Chair.
is that agreed Councillor White, so just make a quick point about the materials being used and is I know, it's going to be using UPC windows which are very healthy, so yeah, I'll just making that point re that.
I hope that it goes back that you know more healthy and more sustainable materials should be being used.
are there any?
Tell me if my comments are wrong, Mr grandeur.
On a development of this size, we wouldn't have any control over such a matter and whatever we may feel about PVC windows in general across the board, that's hardly a matter for this committee.
can it we can only control what relates to the application, so it is only the extension. Within that context, we can't insist that all the other windows within the dwelling house, Saara, are different materials, but this isn't in a conservation area, there is no desire, there is no heritage premise or policy standing with which to insist on timber sash windows, for instance, and PVC windows in a location like this are very common and wouldn't have a detrimental impact to the spatial character of the location, irrespective of their sustainability credentials, which we can't apply onto an extension such as this
OK, so I understandable reservation, but subject to that is it agreed great, thank you moving on to for the minutes, we just note that Councillor Boswell didn't vote on that because she had left the room.
But we we've had this issue before with.
I think she drops her drink, so I don't know whether we want a quick break before she comes Busselton.
Setting of bus rates.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile given the instructions we got from the
The legal adviser last time might bring forward a break, slightly early, just to knock the so embarrassed whatever Councillor Pozzo's issue is, so carry out a couple of minutes break back.
Yeah
that's a very relevant factors, as I can say.
resuming where we were which I think is moving on to Item 3
have we done 0 sorry it is Item III Item 3
Bounty one bounty Hall Gwendolen Avenue get my tongue around that sorry
we'd already voted
I don't think it makes a great deal of difference I'm sure Councillor Boswell more regret not being counted as one of the people supporting it bird it made that much difference so moving on to Gwendolyn Avenue
I personally
thought that there didn't seem to be enough room to have balconies there but I've seems that pictures since we weren't intending to have which suggests that there is the there is enough room and it's not a problem I wasn't intending to have an introduction is fairly straightforward but any questions from members
1 Feb Councillor White just a quick comment that the steel being used if Saket trying to find a reclamation place where they could to find so they could reuse some
stuff that's been chucked away
the the so you clear about that
I'm clear about what is being asked but I don't think we can insist on on going down to the minutiae of where they are they sourced their materials as part of the planning consideration
when you've had your answer counts so White high enough by appoints sorry you've made the that's fair enough so is the is the application agreed are the officers recommendations agreed greed thank you moving on to the rear of active Road 41 because of road in Thames field again I don't think is needs introduction and comments Councillor Humphreys thank you Chair just just just a quick one we want one thing to say to start off with that there's a there's a I presume it's so supplied by the applicant on page 63 there's the elevation drawing of the the new property whether the Garmin whatever of the surrounding properties and and and just to say it's a little disingenuous because if you'd go down that street become google maps whatever that blank facade on the side of 41 isn't a blank facade at all there's a lovely porticoed and entrance and it's quite a detailed architecturally interesting design
of its time and I think it slightly disingenuous report that with the with the contrast with the the relevant fact because the proposed building is very simplistic and Morton and simple in its terms and and from that drawing you would assume that it doesn't stand out dramatically from its context of the streetscape in fact just that little way along beside that bay window is marked out on seeing more accurately but just there to the to the right of that front door there's a there's a lovely very step and the Portico and all that kind of stuff and we do not think I just saw a slightly slightly disingenuously African to make out it's just a plain old zinc is my beef with this application and it is a tiny site and its to try to maximise the benefit and the wording was quite careful in the report from officers that there was a try quite hard to persuade the applicant to be a bit more cooperative in the way its that side balcony side extension hangs over the small very small garden space and it's it's sort of adequate I'm is not enough there for me to sound going to refuse it won't refuse it or raise any grass refuse it but it's just kind of like it just scraped through my opinion and I often with these small sites I say that if you get somebody is bit more creative you can do something really interesting and worthwhile there which makes it a feature in the streetscape this will just sit there but it's got to my mind I know it's a personal thing but very little architectural merit in it it looks a bit dumpy in school and as I say not enough to say anything objective it but it's a bit you know adequate is is is is about praiseworthy as I can get on that one or things
Councillor Wright yeah just going back to what we said earlier on very interesting that you can have planning permission on someone else's land and be quite interested, it's interesting the negotiations around now, I suppose, but the other thing is that the
the reduction in CO2 is only 35%, I think there's no solar panels on this, so it doesn't seem to be very ambitious in that regard.
and I wonder whether we can have a condition of being more ambitious than what they arrived at, and certainly using solar panel.
Researches, I would just say that it's policy compliant in that respect, so we couldn't insist on any more than what the policy requests.
Which, I suppose, begs the question of.
What should happen to policy?
which, perhaps Councillor White would like to take to the appropriate quarters.
I wish I was had more influence over policy, but that's another matter.
OK is the application agreed?
sorry, Councillor Golton did.
The consultation for this.
application happened over Christmas and many people locally said that they were not unable to respond and so on.
I have been asked to make the point, which is why I am making it.
Well, I think we note that you made the point that you are asked to at lots of people make that very same complaint as I'm sure you know, and there are rules, as you also know, and I'm not black, so our rule was about the length of time we have to consider applications validated our answers so forth.
Most unfortunate when it does happen over the Christmas period, but there it is.
Is it agreed?
Rate moving on to the seventh application, I think that's right, which is phase 2, Garrett Lane and
And could Councillor Govindia turn his mic off, apparently sorry important to us, so moving on to number 7 and Julia Kelly is going to introduce it, I think.
Sorry, we're gonna be doing a little presentation on this, just trying to get this.
Put it down again, I don't think you prestige.
Sorry about that, we're there now, Julia Kelly, Development Management, West team.
Thank you.
I'm just gonna do a short presentation on this one. This application relates to part of the Garrett Lane Apple Dean, regeneration site and specifically to phase 2 of that project, the wider site, which also includes phase 1, extends to 1.3 4 hectares but the current application proposal relates to a 0.5 2 hectare site bounded by Garrett Lane to the west Oak Shore Road to the east and Swaffield Road to the north, this slide shows the context of the current application site in relation to the phase 1 and the surrounding area the site is currently occupied by the existing singles part single part, two storey Brocklebank health centre and a temporary building which is currently providing a pharmacy.
the remaining buildings which were previously on the application site, which comprises two storey properties with retail units on the ground floor with residential accommodation, above fronting, Garrett Lane, have already been demolished.
There is an extant planning permission for the whole of the regeneration site, this existing consent was to provide a total of 193 residential units across the two phases of both private and affordable tenure, together with a new health centre, a pharmacy and two commercial units in buildings ranging in height between two and five storeys high.
This slide shows the buildings approved for phase 2 under that permission on the current application site.
The implementation of phase 1 of the existing planning permission has already been undertaken and has seen the delivery of 110 residential units, of which 72 are affordable housing units.
The planning application before Members tonight is for a revised phase 2 of the development this increases the number of residential homes in this phase from the currently approved 83 units to 113.
With an associated increase in the height of the residential buildings from 5 to 7 storeys along Garrett Lane and from 5 to 6 storeys along Oak Shore Road.
it is proposed that all 113 of the proposed residential units in the revised phase 2 would be affordable homes all in the form of social rent.
This is compared to 14 of the 83 units being affordable or 17% within the phase 2 currently consented.
In addition to an increase in height, the current proposals include a redesign of the elevational appearance of the residential buildings on the Garrett Lane frontage the building would see variations in its footprint, massing and elevational treatment.
With the top two floors, including setback elements.
a variety of materials are proposed, including red buff and grey facing bricks, together with stone detailing and dark grey fenestration, the use of these varied materials, together with other architectural design features, serve to break down the visual mass of the building vertically so that it reads more as a series of smaller buildings are placed adjacent to each other rather than one continuous elongated mass.
The ground floor frontage along Garrett Lane would incorporate two commercial units, and these would be used for flexible class E use, these would be in addition to the proposed new pharmacy.
On oak Shore Road, the building would be five storeys, plus a setback. 6 floor the ground, and first floors would have different treatment. To give more visual emphasis to the base of the building, and again, facades would be stepped in plan to give variety to the elevations, helping to break down their visual massing. These variations in plan form would enable the provision of some semi, recessed balconies. All of the proposed units in the development would have either or some form of private, balcony or private patio area.
in terms of the general layout of the two residential blocks, these would face each other over and a minimum distance of approximately 18 metres with a central, landscaped courtyard, providing communal amenity space between the two buildings, this would be supplemented by a further first floor podium level amenity space provided above the cycle storage areas which are located to the south of the new health centre building and north of these residential buildings.
In total, the scheme would provide 246 cycle spa parking spaces, of which 113 would be for the residential units, with a further 18 provided for the health centre, and further additional short-stay visited HSCPE cycle parking.
the residential element of the development would be car-free, apart from 12 blue badge parking spaces, these would all be provided on Oak Shore Road, where six parking spaces would also be provided for use in connection with a new health centre in addition, the scheme proposes the reprovision of seven existing estate car parking spaces at the northern end of Oak Shore Road.
together with further 6 parking spaces for general estate parking in Whitehead, Close which was promised under the extant planning permission.
The public transport accessibility level for this phase 2 site is 4 to 5 across the site, which equates to a good accessibility level.
excuse me, this CJI I just shows the location of the communal amenity spaces, the ground-floor one, and then showing the raised.
first floor podium level space.
this is a site, a slide showing the first floor layout and again showing where the
First floor podium level, amenity space above the cycle stores would be located.
In terms of the general layout of the residential units, a total of 49 043.5% would be true dual aspect, with a further 28 units that's a further to 24.5% having a degree of dual aspect, this compares to 56 percent dual aspect units from the currently consented face to part of the development all residential units would meet minimum floor space standard and 10 percent would be wheelchair flats
the description of the proposed development for the current application includes the provision of the new 3 storey health centre this building is currently being constructed on site under the existing extant planning permission the reason for its inclusion in the current application is due to proposed design changes at roof level specifically around the screening to the roof top plant area
the overall scale layout and form of the health centre would however otherwise be as previously approved it is understood from the applicants that the shell and core of the health centre is due to be completed by the end of November 20 24 followed by an internal fit out to NHS specification after that
it is intended that the remainder of the phase two I either residential units would be built following the completion and occupation of the New Health Centre
it is noted that some objectors in the late papers have drawn attention to works on building the new health centre stopping just before Easter
it is understood that this has been due to a number of reasons outside of the applicant's control primarily revolving around subcontractors but these expert issues are expected to be concluded this week and works building the health centre our duty commence on site this coming Monday 29th April
in terms of soft landscaping the proposals include a number of different measures including planting and landscaping in the communal amenity areas and with part within parts of the public realm the proposals would involve the removal of 11 existing trees which is for less than was proposed under the existing extent mission
and a total of 22 new trees are proposed to be planted
these would be of a variety of size and species with conditions recommending submission of final details for approval
the proposals include the use of green roofs to the buildings and the introduction of a number of ecological enhancements with the proposed development resulting in a Biodiversity net gain 18 point 6 8 percent
like the currently approved development the proposals include a pedestrian cycle route through the middle of the site running east-west from Garratt Lane to Oakshaw road unlike the currently approved however this would now be open 24 hours a day rather than being gated and closed during the hours of darkness
to overcome any concerns regarding personal safety and security the width and form of this route has been amended it would now be wider and would be well lit and overlooked by several of the proposed residential units as well as from the communal amenity areas in addition the cycle stores for the development which would also include a cycle workshop would be accessed off this route providing more activity within it
further officers have negotiated that the commercial unit on the Garratt Lane front adjacent to the entrance to this pedestrian route would also include glazed shop front windows overlooking it the design of this roofers Joe Root has drawn inspiration from the archways of the Henry Prince estate further along Garratt Lane and this theme has been carried onto the entrances to the cycle stores within the walkway overall officers consider that the current proposed public pedestrian cycle route through the site would be improved compared to the currently consented route
this slide just gives a summary of the proposed development before Members tonight
and it is being recommended for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement officers would request that in addition to the recommendation proposed on page 1 9 6 of the agenda that if Members are minded to grant consent for this development that they also authorised the Head of Development Management the delegated authority to determine as necessary any amendments to the existing Section 1 0 6 agreement associated with the extant planning permission reference 20 17 4 1 4 1 to enable the implementation of this proposed revised scheme thank you nine minutes 57 seconds
any comments or queries question marks Council airs councillor Humphreys scouts' Govindia so as
yes I have a couple of cost of a couple of points to make the roof of the podium level seems to be very well planted, it looks like a nice space, is it open to access for the public or hoop who gets to use that nice roofspace, no, it's accessed from the residential building, so it's for the residents of the scheme, it's not for public access, it's part of their communal amenity spoken that that was my first question.
The second is a point I wanted to make about the refuse stores being immediately adjacent to the entrances, I think this is a really bad thing with the smells and the rubbish that accumulate anyone who's been to Autumn State recently, you don't know if you're going into the binstore of the entrance to the flats and it's already in such a state.
Now I'm sure that the collection would be wonderful when it's finished, but it's asking for trouble any relaxation of the rounds of your refuse, collecting teams will mean that the entrances are deeply unpleasant.
So I don't like that at all, and the other thing is that I still don't know why you got so few from to do it on the street, you've heard me all say this before, but there are only two front doors on the street of this property of this whole development you could have nine or 10 or 12 and save a lot of internal corridor space as well, so I know that,
You can't redesign it, I can't redesign it, but there are points I would like to make for your officers to consider when looking at new plans, otherwise I will support it and I think there are a lot of very good things in it I like the the cycle workshop,
and spaces.
but please, if you've got too many single aspect, although you've reduced them a lot in this, there are still too many single aspect, thank you.
Kelly, can I ask?
I mean, I think I think Councillor M and Ms makes very valuable points.
But, in terms of say, the refuse being next to the front door.
how did that get back, do you report that back to the architects do is there again, is it is what Councillor is says on these matters travelling at very valuable insight, does it get back to the architects, or is it just something that the planners consider?
I mean you heard what she said, so she wasn't pushing it and can be redesigned and so on, but she wants it to be acknowledged and noted elsewhere.
I mean, it's a combination between discussions, with our refuse management team officers and the applicants, in this case the obviously it's.
Partly conditioned by what the location of where the refuse trucks can get to the refuse stores would all be in separate enclosed sections of the building, and so in terms of sort of transfer of smells, etc. I think it's unlikely that they would permeate into the entrances because they are completely sectioned off and separate segregated elements of the development.
But you get my drift,
Yes, we were quite often as members, this is, I'm speaking as a member now, not a Chair, particularly make points that are.
This tick, if you like or cultural, and sometimes we just wonder whether the planning officers just we had to answer that and anyway, the application was agreed, we want to be feel sure that it actually gets reported back and has an impact. I don't know whether that's fair perhaps Angela asked Mr Goodall to reflect on that.
I, I think some of us went behind and I think I think it's important that we hear this feedback, but it's this application for a this evening has that layer? So we often start with the position for new residential blocks. Now I have as many front doors as possible but, for instance, this is on Garrett Lane and you want to have commercial activities on those ground floors because it's part of nature. You were replacing the pharmacy and things like that, so you're limited and then obviously we've. As Ms Kelley's mentioned, we need to accommodate the waste management and there has there's rules about the distance that that has to be from for the the workers to to move to and from, I think is 30 metres. So there has to be central places, so they often are quite close to other accesses, so it's part of the planning balance that will take these into account and will actually advocate a lot of what you're saying, but
The bottom line is there is coming back to what you like to talk about is the the form and the function of the building which, and it's it's brought about by way, place these and restrictions from other departments. Another aspect, so yes, we take this on board as a general on individual applications. Obviously you're looking at this layout and this one and whether that's acceptable, bearing in mind the planning balance and your support for the other aspects. So, yes and again, coming back to your other point about a single aspect, yes, we tried to minimise that as much as possible, but again that's restricted by the new rules regarding fire safety. So it's actually means that you have more single aspect units than you would have previously, because you've got to have far more access and far more kill, because
so when you have a linear block like this you have a lot of corridor
I think I mean you have accepted Councillor as it can be changed at this stage, but it's important to members to know that these things are reflected on and Members of concerns that are erected on. I produced a paper once you will recall Mr. Gardiner, about the use of aluminium on extensions, zinc, zinc, Surrey sink, which seems to me to be completely ignored, despite everyone agree. Everyone in the Committee agreeing with me sorry, sir, better interrupt, but if I recall, we've just enforced against, yes, I know you have, but that was a slightly different, but I make the point, sorry, I've now forgotten her, so as it Councillor Humphreys and Councillor given the area Councillor Bruce, thank you Chair. I think you make a very fair point then that we do make these comments, sometimes in the course of a debate, and it would be nice to think that it does get that to the Africans and have some impact on what they do rather than the rules and regulations and whatever, but because often they are made for genuinely good reasons, and it's something that should be taken into account in the future.
this is not a specific question, first of all.
the health centre which is part of the existing scheme, so the change we're putting onto that is this this this box on top screening for the for the plant.
I just wanted to know why it's four metres high right, so what on earth kind of plant we're putting inside the top of this building that needs to be 4 metres high I just can't understand why the scale of that is so excess sounds excessive if you look at some of the things we put our thinking, for example we put on top of a listed building but on a arguing Hobbs, for example one of the areas it's very high what on earth is getting inside there?
it is high, deliberately so.
As part of the reason for that is because, obviously, with the increased height of the remainder of the buildings, there was concerns that a health centre might look quite squat compared to them, I mean, you know quite often when you look at a development at the height is on the corner rather than necessarily further along the terrace so we've deliberately been encouraging.
that height to try and offset some of that balance, but as part of that, we've also been looking very carefully at the design of that, and it's the idea is that it's gonna be a sort of.
I will say it in our installation, but there's gonna be features within it that will.
provide perhaps some lighting or provide some sort of feature that will actually enhance its appearance, rather than just being a 4 metre high screen around plant. I'm not sure that the plan behind it is that high, but I think that's that's the reason for that, just on the the front door aspect. Sorry, coming back to that, there's 10 units on the ground floor, three of them do have individual front doors, the other seven are accessed from the main corridors, but they have secondary doors that lead out onto their gardens or the other parts of the building, so they have, as they do, have activity at ground floor as well.
Councillor Glynda or sorry, do you want to come back only just to say if I I thank the Cabinet, understand that this is the logic to what you're saying, but it's kind of like inverted logic isn't that because the rest of the buildings got so big, we've got to make it rather bits of it even bigger as to make it look in proportion, so we're saying because the rest of it's got bigger, let's make it the rest of it even bigger as well, and it's kind of like a never-ending cycle. Isn't it to me, Councillor Gavin did
But some want to just understand some of the things in the report, one is the design review, which was a pre application design review.
Was that a post application design review?
or not, and then the points made in the pre application design review actually get taken up in the actual application and therefore the points they made in that view are irrelevant.
I just wanted to understand that, but it seems to me that the points that are made in here might be outstanding point so that's the first question there is a reference to four bedroom properties saying they're 4 four-bedroom properties but in the Schedule I don't see any in there so I just wonder why there's their hours or their arias four-bedroom properties
I've got two more but I could I just rather than confuse you come back after those Miskelly years looked as up gone
in terms of the accommodation is the schedule patient 1 4 7 1 4 6 and gives the accommodation schedule for this and there are no 4 bedroom units the table you're referring to on page 1 4 7 is the standards of amenity space of
yes
OK I see maybe a typo because somewhere else in the paper and I rather admitted to write the Paiza of France there is a reference to 4 four-bedroom houses say ignore but what about the design review panel
there wasn't a post submission Design Review Panel as you state that the design review was undertaken pre-application stage and subsequently that there were further pre-application meetings with officers where the design evolved before the application was submitted taking on board many of the points raised at the design review panel
secondly could I just say that one of the key things aspects from the Dr P as I recall was the access way in the route through and making it more river and inviting place for people to actually walk through whether your living there or not and I think that's been very successful in the way they've they've actually integrated that with the shops as well so I mean it's just looking at there are four specific point 1 Fyffes Bhaijaan 5 7 which the design review panel
raised and I just wanted to understand so for example it says about the peppers and design quality of the East West public private roof is that what Miss Richards just referred to it would mean so much helpful to have had in parentheses that this has taken on board I mean just would have been much easier to read this better I mean a tad for us to report whether the are peace because we are trying to report what the GOP have actually said to us whether it's before or after solid Rodriguez it says this was that concern I and then have to ask you whether that concern was taken on board I might have saved myself a lot of effort in doing it so there are four specific concerns at that end on this page were all four taken on board in the design
it's it's talking about the massing on offshore Road
it talks about the lack of detail in resolution and amenity space in landscape strategy it talks about the concerns about cycle parking under the podium what is all
yes I think all of those points were a addressed an and or answered as part of the application and therefore 4 metre false wall above the health centre or false Chamber about the health centre is part of reference to the not celebrating the corner
this is this is our way of celebrating the corner
to awkward transition that was the big concern probably with as Miskelly was trying to explain earlier between the various heights of different parts
this is a building that they highlighted in terms of their architectural commentary and and the applicants take it away and and you know you know or adjust the proposal accordingly cancer Govindia the my interpretation of the design review panels especially the ones I've been attended I've very impressed with them is they give various observations about what they think about to designs of buildings they're not always taken on Borden into account I mean sometimes they architects or the developers however may be for financial ascetic reasons say No we're not doing it that's what the Dr Paes said
but it's not the planning officer's job, in my view, to mark it in that sense, has agreed with the DLP review, hasn't agreed with the DDRB review, but they clearly take note of where it has or hasn't and C and C in its own terms where they think the application is acceptable, it's not it's not a Chairman, I appreciate that entirely, but all I'm saying is that if you draw our attention to the four gaps, according to DLP it had been easier to say Well, they've all been addressed
Just just easier okay that I wanted to ask about the parking situation, and I just want to again understand it clearly.
this is a car-free development, apart from 12 wheelchair, disabled papers and SCA parking spaces.
7 replacement park parking spaces not associated with the development and 6 off-site provisions, and am I right, there's no other parking for less plus parking for the health centre that those six are for the for the health centre?
Within the site boundary. Yes, and then there's a further further signature by Tim Oates outside of the site boundary on Whitehead Close, so then comes to this question about if somebody who comes to live in here wants to have a car park space, would they apply to a CPZ Z, or would they be barred from applying for a CPZ at Barnet and the application recommends that there are residents apart from people requiring blue badge would be exempt from being able to provide apply for CPS ED permits and also there would be a car parking management strategy and are employed to ensure that that is
activated on, you know is', as part of the overall, seeing of parking on the site as well, so was majority of the new residents will not be able to park in the CPZ, that's correct.
That starts a bit of relief and finally my point was about this, the biodiversity met gay and the urban greening be being below benchmark, and I couldn't understand.
Can you have one without the other, can you have both or I don't know, I'm just curious to understand how you can have that scenario.
as far while urban greening factor is linked to the London Plan policy requirement, which then feeds through to our own local policies, the biodiversity net gain is a new legal requirement, but it has.
For major developments in otherwise, but there's a lot of exemptions and so on.
And one can ha operate without the other.
urban greening factor, I believe, is more of a London based policy requirement.
B and G would be across the country.
in this case, this was submitted again, we were coming back to that cut-off point, the trigger point and this Bill, this application was submitted prior to the dates where this becomes legal and so on, but in any event they have submitted information re relating to that the demonstrates that they exceed the requirement in any event.
That the that the biodiversity net gain trumps urban greening, it depends if your coffee qualifies for B and G requirements. Urban greening is intended for all development. As far as I understand, I'll just jump in yeah, it's well the urban urban green factor. Can I ask you to assist in your your BMG scores because they're all producing, so they're not trumping each other, they're actually working together, and that's why we're thinking, probably in London, a peek at the councils that have followed the London Plan policies as such as Wandsworth will actually be in a better position coming forward with the with the B and G, but you need you need to do two separate calculations, but they tend to be following a similar sort of pattern, but they're all wrong for these ones that are all a major applications. There's a separate site, slightly different calculations for the minor ones didn't know if that helps or hinders cheaper. Councillor White
I might liberty to make a bit of a statement about this.
I haven't been able to stop you so far.
I've spoken to both the local councillors and they want it their views.
minute, while at least referred to anyway, but because this development has been uppermost in their mind,
I mean, this is the third iteration with the heights becoming higher every time
And this time it is a rise of 5 to 7 storeys, although the set back of floors 6 and 7 are definitely helpful, and this might help to reduce the impact of this change in the local area, there is also a lot of a loss of light to some unacceptable in in a regard but,
4 for a minority of the people there.
Of the current residents, and this being not unacceptable in an urban environment.
Is no complete comfort for those who will lose sunlight in affected rooms, it can also be said that there may be more imagination in design and Little's a little more subtlety, given the size of the proposed building and more uniformity with the car colour palette of the new school building next door.
Although new scheme, landscaping with design is welcome, this area has long called for more trees in garret lines to shield the homes from traffic fumes and noise.
So you know it would be nice to see more trees and also on the pathway between Garrett Lane and Ocho Road.
this might be a good opportunity to provide that also is a very great shame that the pedestrian pathway between Oak Shaw and Swaffield roads is not retained, maintaining a link between the key to communities and a quick connection to Swaffield School.
on a busy roads such as Garrett Lane, sorry now, and A Higgins, you know could have done a little bit more to support local community.
endeavour also
but given all of this, the position that this Council is in after 44 years of selling off and disposing of over 24,000 council homes.
Not building anywhere near enough as many to replace, and indeed having an entrenched disdain for such a notion this Council has had to act as the MP P P F in towns to maximise development opportunities and given these are 113 100% council rent homes, this development does not does look to achieve this to continue not to maximise these opportunities would be to to
ignore the 3,700 homeless for families up from 435 in 2011, and not to do so in the developments that we have most influence on, and we in the London mayor have helped to finance this development to ensure that those currently in substandard temporary accommodation,
Sometimes miles away from their family network and hope to find their way back to the borough in satisfactory housing so that it would be easy to ignore the great harm to this borough and take on board the very strong arguments made against this development Development has paid attention to the London Plan, the emerging ones with plan.
and the mitigations made in reflection of local representations are enough for me to to say that this is a positive impact on on the local area.
1.7
Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair, and was interesting that I I got a bit confused with Councillor White's speech there, whether which it was what he was saying and which was what is the the the Ward Councillors, were expressing concerns about, but obviously the Ward Councillors didn't feel strong enough about their objections to bother to come tonight to talk to us about it unfortunately it's interesting, though isn't it because because,
Iain has made the position of this administration very clear. A quantum of affordable houses trumps any concerns of existing residents, future residents that are going to partake in this monstrous building or anything else. That is irrelevant. If you look at the comments from residents on page 154 and actually also in the late items on page 3, I think that gives you quite a good answer of what your existing residents in the borough think of the Council's policy. In this regards, the design seems to hail back to social housing, failed desires and is simply building in problems for the future just to rush through the thousand times pledge anywhere. Anyhow, the Council should be aware that housing thrown up under these conditions is locking in future problems for others to solve. Does the Council really want to be associated with this? Moreover, will people want to live with an eyesore like this
a key part of making a borough that is brighter for all is making sure people who already live there are able to see open space and green, creating a housing development of six to seven storeys in height would give a crowded, oppressive feel.
So that was people currently feel as an open community has festivals. That's just a few examples of what the residents who live around there and your voters as well, think of the council's policy so far, so it's quite instructive in itself. I remember when this scheme first came to the councils. Not many was here until IT were part of the team on either side, officers or ourselves at that point, but I thought we were pushing the boundaries on this site at 5.00 storeys all those years ago and we maxed it out as much as we possibly could. I was completely horrified. I have to say, when this proposal came in at 7.00, storeys high on the same site and as for the arguments that, as we heard earlier, let's just make the bits that are smaller, taller to make it blending with the really tall elements that just seems extraordinary logic to me to make. That seems anyway a kind of acceptable
barometer,
just a few examples of what we're actually building as well. I quite admire Councillor, why it's absolutely right that we should be building good social housing for residents, but you know, as I said before and how numerous occasions, let's build something that we're properly proud of the idea here, where we're going to whack in another 30 units and the answer to Councillor Eyre's points earlier as to why we haven't got those details about it because we're trying to pack in too much into a small space, there's no other answer for its, you can't have the quantum of development that you want and make it a nice environment for people to live in just a few states that when they were obviously obviously without saying it's not policy compliant and the fact that this is very aware to 7 storey buildings are appropriate anyway. There's no justification of that at all outside of the town centre, that's one policy. We've already straight away
defaulted in our quest for increasing volumes and bulk regardless.
This is a neighborhood that is predominantly two and three storey terraced houses like much of the borrowers, and we think it's acceptable to plonk a seven storey building down in the middle of that, and then what are we plonking down the mix isn't policy compliant and for putting in a load of extra units onto what was there there's no 4 bed units.
which is what the Bill is pressing need is in our community, as you very well know, why are we putting why haven't we put a few four beds in there to satisfy that need? We've got 23% one beds, 61% 2 beds, 16% three beds. How many for beds 0? I just don't think that's acceptable, we've got 32 Councillor airs referred to this. Can I'd have got 32% 32% single aspect filled if you want to take it, you'll be voting against gas Humphreys are well, I just want to point out, can we conclude no, we can't know, I've won, I've got I've been for Surrey, we're gained I you don't want me to apply Council rules do and have guillotine speeches as well. You've been talking for a lot longer than you get away with and a Council meeting, and I
Want to reply as well, then we can just forget the politics and get down to the reality, but would you please wind up? I'm raising perfectly valid planning reasons why this isn't acceptable and I think I should have every opportunity to be able to say that I think Councillor well, I haven't spoke about politics for quite a long time as well, so I haven't stopped, you are just saying, would you please come to a conclusion? I shall to other
two other facts of facts relevant to this particular application directly again only 86% comply with BA guidelines on daylight only 73% comply with the guidelines onset on sunlight, I just ask, colleagues, do you think that's acceptable in a council's own application when we're supposed to be building quality development?
thank you.
Councillor Andrews, I checked it out a little bit raw in my ward, where the planning zoning was 10 storeys, I can't remember, you were responsible, you and your folk who are responsible for passing an application for a 23 storey block, I'm very sorry to say you had some support from, as it happens, people on the same side as me, I could never understand why I opposed it, then 23 storeys as opposed to 10, and here we are talking about two
stories. Can I point out that in on page 1 5 1 6 1,
there's a reference to the London Plan which, like it or not, I think your.
The current government would have approved of, and it says, for the plan for London suggests it once was would need 19,500 extra units in in the current 11 years that would be, and if that was applied equally we'd be passing applications for 200 extra units, every single planning applications committee to get anywhere near there which at the moment we are not so there's a really major reason for approving this application, in that it is such a vital contribution to the London Plan achievement and I think you ought to recognise that. Unfortunately, I think you and maybe a couple of my colleagues ought to have recognised that on a recent application, but there we go. That's another discussion really, I've looked at this scheme myself personally, I rather like the verticality of the new version it gives me it makes
Look like mansion blocks in a way rather typical of many areas of Wandsworth, not least the areas around safe Battersea Park, for instance, as compared with the rather flat blocks that were there before. As Councillor White said, there are laid back as well at the highest storeys. I believe that this will look actually much better as a consequence of this redesign than it did before and we need it, and there's just no getting around the fact that we need it. London is a growing city still and we need a lot of housing. I just cannot see how you can vote this application down. We've had a good debate on both sides. Can we now stick, if any, to purely planning applications Star reasons which is OK, but I'm not getting back into into the argument the political argument that you brought in and which I think we have been disgraceful on your party's behalf, but that's another matter, Councillor Coakley council, please keep it short. Councillor Colin Buckley, and Councillor Boswell, and I think Councillor India. Thank you, Chair, I first of all I think I agree with you that I quite like the set back and I think the design is an improvement.
So my question for officers were on both the reduction and lie in which they gave the percentage terms in the application and then also the urban green in factor.
I was wondering if you could compare this application to the currently consented one,
just because that will also be a useful frame of reference, because we're not just do we're not just boldness in relation to nothing, we're building in relation to the permission before can I just pick up on the the Urban Green, in fact it wouldn't have existed for the previous application because it was brought in in the 21 LA London Plan and the previous application was determined. Think the June 19 committee, so that was before that so there is no one equivalent to have, I don't know if we can answer on the the other aspect. Sunlight
in terms of daylight sunlight, it's it's a bit difficult to do a compare Paris and because obviously the previous one covered both phases but taking both phases together, the previous approved scheme would result in a 58% compliance with vertical Sky Component compared to 72% under the current application.
And 86% sunlight average sunlight compared to 96% under the
correct, I mean, there are instances where some properties which previously would have lost light have would now be improved compared to the
Current design of the proposals, and there would similarly be others, which would, as a result of the increased height, particularly those opposite on Garrett Lane, May would lose more light, so it is very difficult to do a comparison between the two, but as a general benchmark that they're not too dissimilar both would have resulted in some losses of lights, but overall are both judged to be acceptable, particularly in an urban situation like this. I think Ms Kelly was quite clear about it being a comparison of apples and pears and him why, when describing the difference between then and now, Councillor Buswell,
Councillor Sheila Boswell, ticketing, backward on, I wanted to ask it's on page 179 under play, provision at 8.18, and through I have to say that I am disappointed to see that there's quite a big shortfall
In the amount of play space that is going to be available, I says they've used the J-Lo space calculator.
for children on this site and nothing for 12 to 18 year olds, what will be available will be for the 12 and under age group, I'm sure it will be very good quality and much better than anything that would have been there before I have a question on this, it says in the paper that the children will be able to go to St George's Park, which is quite true, it's it is very nearby to the west and of course also there
is what was
Kimberley Road, an adventure playground, which was some closed down about 10 years ago, very, very, sadly, but there is a skate park there now, and the question that I wanted to ask is, would it perhaps be possible for any children who are going to be in this development aged 12 to 18 to have the fee, I think it's 5 pounds on the teenagers have to pay to be part of the skate club on a Saturday morning whether that could could be waived how how we might make that happen.
in terms of the playspace, you'll write it, it is less than the required for the yield charge yield on the site, but officers felt it was important that the under 12th were the ones that were catered for on the actual application site.
There are also other play facilities provided as part of the phase 1 of the development, so there are other actual place play elements on the other part of the wider regeneration scheme, as said in the report and as you stated, King George's Park is,
Close by, and it was felt, that that was would be provide appropriate play provision for the over 12th without having to walk too far in terms of.
I think on jobs and tourists, I think in terms of the 5 pound contribution which you may have been addressing, I think that's something that you will have to address to either the housing.
Or the children's I don't think you can ask a planning officer to give him a view about that. That's just a little bit outside her bones, I think, subject to you telling me, I'm wrong and you know all about it while I haven't got any roller skates,
thank you, thank you very much, I was just trying to find a sensible.
solution and I'll pursue that myself.
Councillor G of India,
thank you, I just wondered whether the previous approval or the phase 1 hard local employment clause, I don't see any local employment, because in the end it's quite a significant development and I just wondered whether that's an omission.
And which we can make good now.
I got just one more point.
that comes under the proposed section 1 0 6 Planning obligations, you'll find that there so that it does still form part of this application, thank you very much for that.
And I just wanted to clarify a point you made earlier about and whether there was any four bedroom units on the site or not, I think that what you were referring to in that table it said for person, so it was the number of bed-spaces as opposed to the number of bedrooms, so I'm sorry for any confusion there.
I mean chum.
The issue really here is not, if I may put it very bluntly, about the provision of housing
or the tenure, because I think we are already there and we have agreed, I think it's about the way in which our plan, our own plan or policy all before, which talks about tall buildings and the location of those tall buildings, and I think this is probably the more important issue. It is not, that is a tall building, but it is located where we in our plans say they should not be located. The purpose of this debate of this application is fine. I can understand the reason I see the argument, and that's not the argument that I'm making. I am making the argument that this is the right solution in the wrong place. The other thing is that, particularly in in the aspect
the people in Oxhill Road will have it is at the moment or until now, largely being a cul-de-sac which is quiet undisturbed and so on three storey with the tallest block of Khan ex council or council, no council block houses which will now be faced by 5 and now 7 in fact and I think it's it's a huge diminution in the quality of life that they have said that too hard.
The report itself talks about Oxford Road being domestic.
Were like posts in comparison to Guardian, it is domestic and 60 s of less than 7, but it is actually going to make their life incredibly incredibly different from what they have had and there'd been used to, and I just think that wrong right solution in the wrong place is the rock is not the reason for approving a scheme.
just one final word when you find the right site in East Putney, let me know when you find the right sites.
To sorry it was I yelling at you now come on Councillor position, I'm not going to take any notice of your said when you do find the right side. You will indeed tell me, and I look forward to hearing it tomorrow, but also when will you also when we put forward also when we put forward an application with 5 bedrooms everywhere just in some area? I'll look forward to hearing you support that too. I think that I don't want to get into this too much, we know I don't you started this, let me say so, you started it and and that's ended there I think we've had a pretty good debate while you make the I'm going to church. Am I going to take the vote unless you have specific amendments against the recommendations? You made a personal point about East Putney, and let me just make it clear to you
that Castle Road site was in East Putney still easily spot me, the site that was identified and I did identify it, and houses were built on it, and in fact there was local opposition and we in fact engaged and sorted that out, so don't give me lectures about that.
when you find another site, we can play this game for I find it, I'll tell you, yeah yeah, so I'm sure of that. The point is still that we what I still maintain two points about it. One is the housing gain is very significant. Secondly, I actually quite like the refreshed design. I think that the verticality of it will work quite well, and I think you'll find it nowhere near the concern that you're, I think encouraging people to think it will be. So can we take a vote if anyone's opposed
otherwise, I just move it straight and those in favour of the recommendations and those against five votes to three OK, thank you, can we move on to, I think, the last items which are substantially for information, and that is the decisions paper paper 24 1 3 to item 4 on the agenda that noted agreed.
The closure of investigation files,
Noted agreed.
Closed appeals noted agreed and a tree preservation order, of course, something later that we're all going to argue about for ages.
Those in favour of identity, to put it that way, anyone against a tree preservation order, no, thank you very much, that concludes the meeting.
- 24-131 - Index of Applications, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 2023-3622 E - Item 1, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 22023-4644 E - Item 2, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 2023-3962 W - Item 3, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 2023-4028 W - Item 4, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 2023-4589 W - Item 5, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - 2023-4751 W - Item 6, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - W 2023-4840 - Item 7, opens in new tab
- 24-131 - Background Papers, opens in new tab
- Late Items of Correspondence, opens in new tab
- 24-132 - Report, opens in new tab
- 24-133 - Report, opens in new tab
- 24-134 - Report, opens in new tab
- 24-135 - Enforcement Paper - 1, opens in new tab
- 24-135 - Enforcement Paper - 2, opens in new tab
- 24-135 - Enforcement Paper - 3, opens in new tab
- 24-136 - Report, opens in new tab
- 24-136 - Appendix 1, opens in new tab
- 24-136 - Appendix 2, opens in new tab