Planning Applications Committee - Tuesday 21 May 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Planning Applications Committee
Tuesday, 21st May 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.
good evening are we live and online yes we get good evening ladies gypsum gentlemen and welcome to the May meeting of the Planning applications Committee minus Charlie Bolton and the Chair of the Committee and I represent Battersea Park ward which surprisingly enough is in Battersea I will not ask as customers to members to introduce themselves now because I think it's impossible for the public to remember but when they speak are some to introduce themselves then
I've got the apologies from Councillor coldly any other apologies doesn't look like it now got a couple of messages from the Chair to pick a large it will appear or it might appear as though we go to an item or two very quickly we I can assure you we've all read our papers and if we do go through on very quickly then that's because we have no disagreement with the recommendations as they stand in the paper
I have one other comment to make and that is I'm sorry to say personally I'm sorry to say that a this will be Councillor Cooper's last meeting on the Planning applications Committee for for a while at least and that is a biddy because she was made a solid contribution to say the least during the course of the last year
apart from that
I don't think I've got any other announcements other to ask if I can sign Councillor Humphreys the minutes as a correct record thank cure ar son at afterwards actually 0 those one other introduction I always do make and that's the people on this table because people watching might wonder who on earth the other people sitting up here are so
Nick called her had a development management and once worth
good evening my name's Duncan laws on external legal adviser
today bin collection and democratic services
and that rather silly title in my view Democratic Services sorry doesn't mean he's the most important person bigger see takes all the minutes and tells everyone what we decided whether we whether he agrees with us or not perhaps
are there any declarations of interest councillor Owens and Councillor Cooper and thank you cats about and and just on number 4 and a and Navinder Hill Linden tree nursery that the sister one of the sisters of this nursery is on Webb's Road and the Battersea is Conservative Association of the freehold for that thank you
you have a freehold for one of the one of the system nurseries right OK I think I think
I think the legal advisers that's fine and Councillor Cooper
thank you Chair and thank you for your kind words earlier early Cooper and I represent the first and MoD which is in Tooting just for transparency but there's no pecuniary interests I am the London Assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth and therefore I sit in City Hall and just in cases any references to the GLA either around its planning responsibilities or tier fell and transport or anything else I just want to make that declaration thank you owe an also I am a director of CRU energy just in case anything comes up about renewables
a gay and that inspires gets the White to jump in as I thought it might
I was going to provide them anyway for always leave it to last far too polite to go first but Councillor Paul White of 13 back ward and I am a member of community renewable energy ones worth crew and by Georg no pecuniary or financial benefit from my involvement OK thank you let's move on to the planning applications you see the order of the agenda there is however one Councillor his visiting to give a presentation about application 4 item 4 on the moxie applications I suggest that we take that one first everyone agree
right Councillor freedom I think this is your first time presented the Committee we won't be too appallingly rude to you, but you have five minutes and that's it Councillor Britain.
I was expecting you to be quite rude actually, and thank you Chair,
I think it's important to state at the outset that initiatives to tackle rough sleeping are incredibly important, it's a subject about Councillor Cook and I as ward councillors, care very deeply about and were supportive of the government's approach on this issue, in particular its willingness to support local authorities in tackling it and indeed as we were also initially supportive of this particular project on that basis and on the basis that residents would be fully and properly consulted.
It is therefore a matter of of regret to both of us that the Council has so badly lost the confidence of the local community through what I regard to be a fairly shambolic process, I think, made all the more disappointing by the fact that it is the Council's own application as well. The first issue that I'd like to highlight is a lack of consultation with business, say the Linden Tree nursery next door understandably have a few concerns no doubt accentuated by the fact that they didn't feel they were consulted proactively enough and indeed, as I understand it, council officers
Only met them after residents and officers. Ward councillors pointed this out, I've discussed the matter with the nursery over the last few days and it's their view that the application does not take into account the operational needs of their business and also prejudices the activities of their operations. As I see it, this could contravene the Wandsworth Local Plan, specifically the general development principles set out over pages 288 to 289
And in light of the the strength of feeling that we've we've all seen conveyed in the objections, they believe it will become much more difficult for them to attract customers, and that's current customers will leave, I know that they've checked with their insurers and discuss this issue with them and unfortunately there's no cover for this situation and as a result they believe is quite likely that they will have to close.
now the papers from tonight's agenda state that the there is no evidence for this assertion, as comparable operational experience is not to be not available for a location such as this now, forgive me if I misunderstood.
but the Council's position appears to be that, because there is no other example of this kind of initiative being placed in a similar location, the concerns about the viability of the nursery's business are therefore not valid. I don't think that's really a sufficient answer, and I think it's regrettable that these concerns have been dismissed rather out of hand, rather than addressed properly in a straightforward and direct fashion. One factor mentions as favouring the site is that lovely Hill police station is nearby just at the rate now, as sensibly, I think this seems very reasonable, but I'm afraid I don't really have much confidence in the council's ability to liaise effectively with the local police on this issue, given that the first, the the local police team had of it was from us as ward councillors at a quarterly meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Team. Now, as I understand it, there had been no previous communication with the police on this particular issue.
Similarly, whilst the consultation meeting at Battersea Arts Centre was, I think, an excellent idea, it should have happened well before it actually took place, it would also be inappropriate for me and Councillor Cook as the Ward Councillors to be invited. Instead we only found out about the meeting from a resident too late for us to organise our attendance now I know that this was not intentional at all but I have to say it doesn't inspire confidence that the sites is going to be well-run.
the information booklet that was distributed to residents was, I think, in some ways very helpful in setting out more detail and answering a few questions that people had, however it was presented very much as a fait accompany, and it didn't mention that the Hub requires planning approval whilst I I really don't think there's been any conscious attempt to prevent or minimise engagement from residents, I can understand why someone could reach that conclusion having read the booklets,
Now, in light of all of this, it's it's therefore my view that the committee should reject this application and the Council should explore other sites now, however, if the Planning Committee is, in spite of all these issues, still minded to approve the application, I would ask that the following conditions be be imposed. The first is that there should be no building work between noon and 3 pm each day, that's because these are the core hours when the children at Linden Tree nursery tend to be asleep. The second is that the formal consultative mechanisms that have been discussed
be included in the planning conditions, so in my view, that should include hotline set out in the planning conditions and also, I think, a set cadence of meetings, perhaps quarterly which will allow residents concerns to be addressed in a timely fashion and then the final point is that actually the planning permission should be ship, in my view, be temporary planning permission and would come up for renewal after six months of the sites being in operation and what I believe that would do is it would give the committee the opportunity to consider whether the site works in practice not just in theory and also give residents a degree of reassurance that there's a formal mechanism and a waypoint for considering whether the sites are works as it should think I think the Committee for their time,
thank you Councillor, and thank you for the very balanced way you put what is obviously a tricky application from your point of view as a ward councillor and indeed from all points of view.
I was, I would not normally at this point, ask the Local Planning Officer Naidu Granger to give the position as far as the planning departments concerned, but Nigel's son had a serious accident.
Just over a week ago, and is not well on naidoo's.
with him tonight, I'm sure the committee would wish us to send our best regards to Nigel and hope for his son's reasonable recovery if you could do that with, but in his absence we have very capable, of course.
Ms Brew Amond.
Iriba, would you like care to put your recommendations to the committee?
yes, good evening, my name is Abu Hammond that I am a senior planning officer and the case officer on this application, I did prepare a quick overview of the site just to run through because some of the key planning considerations,
Before potentially offering comments back.
To the concerns raised.
So this is item 4 on the agenda and it's at what 2 and I don't want it to end and 3 Lavender Hill, and it's a change of use from existing office buildings to rough sleepers assessments HAP of sui generis classification,
in terms of the site context, the application site, which is the Redstone on the map.
Is a currently vacant mid terrace, four storey office building with an existing basement level, and it's located on the south side of Lavender Hill.
the building was most recently occupied by the Wandsworth Council leaving Care Service and that has had historic uses as a community centre with some accommodation for the elderly in the 19 60s 19 70s.
in terms of the local context, the site is located just outside the Clapham Junction town centre boundary, which is the blue line on the map, and there are some heritage assets of notes within the local area, including the Battersea Arts Centre, which is Grade II star listed hashed out in pink opposite the red star and it also falls within the Town Hall Road conservation area.
And the Clapham Common conservation areas also further to the south-west, the conservation areas other areas outlined in yellow on the maps.
So the proposal will provide, we will primarily involve internal alterations and refurbishment works in connection with a change of use.
As set out in section 2 of the officer's report, the proposal does not include any new external alterations or extensions to the facades of the main building, therefore the proposed development is not considered to have a material impact on the setting of the identified heritage assets nearby.
these are some of the existing site streets views the site adjoins a mixed use buildings along the terrace with some commercial and educational uses at ground floor and basement floor levels so from the photos you can see that the sites are the two white storefronts in the middle end of notes the nursery is directly to the left at ground and basement levels and then there are residential uses above on the west side which is the right side after the mysore road junctions, a six storey mixed use contemporary building with estate agents officers at ground floor and residential flats above the areas to the south and north of Lavender Hill are predominantly residential in nature.
as previously mentioned, there is not going to be any external alterations or extensions to the main building, however, the bulk waste and recycling will be located to the rear of the site, so new metal gates are proposed to the rear alley behind the site to restrict access except for in case of waste collections and measures such as fire exit.
the corporations, although the hub, will be run from ground floor levels and above with.
sorry, so cycle parking in a laundry room, at the basement level, the hub will contain nine short-stay rooms across first and second floor levels, with meeting rooms and staff offices located at ground and third floor levels.
The principle of the loss of existing office use has been set out in the officer's report. This sets out how the application site is not included in any areas where policy protections for existing office floorspace. It's also noted that the nature of the hub would incorporate a mix of uses, including office and meeting rooms with assessment of rough sleepers, and therefore acknowledge that the hub would retain some services, which will not vastly differ from its former use as advice centre and officers for the leaving Care Service, as set out in the report, the proposed sui generis use would also beat the policy requirements of policy LP 13 1, which relates to specialist and supported housing. It's acknowledge that the initial application submission did not include sufficient detail on the proposed taboos and management, as such officers requested further information of the in relation to the nature and operation of the site, as well as further details in terms of the internal layout, accessibility and standard of accommodation. Proposed consultation letters were then reissued, once all this additional detail was received and the relevant responses have been outside outlined in the report. After reviewing the information, the proposed hub has been identified to serve an urgent local need, serving as a local coordinator facility to address gaps in homelessness, outreach services and temporary accommodation provisions. The quality of the temporary accommodation has also been fully assessed in section 4 of the officer's report and is considered to accord with the relevant amenity standards in terms of room sizes, layouts.
wheelchair accessibility at several of the accessibility and communal facilities on the site
in terms of its location, the position of the site just outside the Clapham Junction town centre, an excellent Pito of 6 affords occupants a wide range of local shops, services and leisure facilities within walking distances and well linked public transport options the proposal is not a major application nor does it provide a
self-contained permanent residential dwellings and therefore does not trigger any affordable housing requirements.
A high number of objections have been received in relation to the application, however, it is noted that the majority were received in the initial consultation period, where, though concern was expressed over the lack of any pre application, consultation and discussions with local residents and businesses, the applicants the ones with housing department has since engaged in further consultation with local residents, including holding three public consultation events in December 2023.
In line with the in line with the management of the proposal, the impacts of the neighbouring amenities and the impact on local businesses and on their operations has been fully assessed in Section 3 of the officers report and it has been found as acceptable in terms of the initial management plans with the hubs it's indicated that a well-considered strategies in terms of managing noise safety security within the local area have been proposed and officers have Rebecca amended conditions which would secure privacy and amenity for neighbouring properties including condition 3 which restricts the use of the rear garden area for any amenity purposes, access to residents condition 4 to obscure glaze any of the east-facing windows which would directly overlook the neighbouring nursery and,
Also condition 5 to restrict the use of any amplified for amplified sound to limit noise disturbance condition 6 has also been recommended in terms of the installation of CCTV in locations to the front and to the rear of the site for security purposes and this is in line with consultations with the Met police designing out crime officer and the applicant has also outlined that they have met with the inspector the Met police Inspector for Battersea as well to work with them moving forward on the application.
It has also been outlined that the on duty sat on that hub will have specific responsibility, is to uphold the safety and wellbeing of staff and residents, as well as neighbouring residents, including conducting daily room checks, regular for inspections and walk rounds in the immediate area as part of the rules for the hub. It's also proposed that any undue noise and disturbance and unruly behaviour will be strictly monitored if any such behaviour is noted
warnings and evictions would be issued in line with a draft of extreme procedure which has been presented within the application report in terms of managing the impact on local community and continuing an open communication with local residents and businesses, the applicant has outlined that there would be a hotline provided, and the details of this has been set out in the application report and also a local residents woman has been sets out an application reports which have been included as reports to be secured us as details under condition 2,
these avenues would allow for the local community to be informed of project updates and expected timescales, and will also serve as a platform for local residents to ask questions and raise concerns during the lifetime of the application,
so, in conclusion, the material, the material planning considerations. Having so far within the officer's report, then the Hub has been shown to cater to an identified need and would have an acceptable standard of location in an appropriate edge of town centre location. The team-building form will not distract from the local streetscape, nor would it would harm the setting of the nearby heritage assets and subject to the recommended conditions, and the proposed development should not cause any significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties and all waste transport sustainability and fire safety impacts have been
considered and found as acceptable.
Thank you, thank you very much.
before I opened the debate, whilst people were having time to think about the details of that, can I just ask about three conditions that Councillor Britton suggested first of all in terms of the construction works.
all the work involved in this change is interior to the building, is that not the correct?
Yes, that is correct, so the proposal does not include anything external to the building form.
but in terms of the internal refurbishments, basically these will be you know.
reviewed and
Will be form part of the Environmental Health legislator in terms of building control, what work the Council suggested was a condition that there was no building work between 12 midday and 3 pm when, understandably, the nursery kids are doing what all sensible people should be doing apply never do and having a snooze.
I'm not sure that would be practical, but in in a working day, which presumably goes from eight to four or something like that and for most construction workers.
Do you think that?
Do you think that this, because it's all internal whether it can be contained, or do you reckon on on that condition, because building works fall outside of the planning process, I don't think we could condition OK well, we will consider that.
You did mention going on to his second point, which is about consultation, you did mention clearly that there had been some movement on light, including a hotline that I had that correctly than die.
Okay and the third bit he was particularly mentioned, was a temporary permission six months now, I'm not asking you to give us, but, like your opinion on that, I would have thought that six months is really unrealistically short to for a Department to set up a facility like this I can understand the reason for having a temporary permission I'm not necessarily supporting that as a condition.
I understand the reason, but six months shortly, as a bit is unreasonable, what do you not think, and I believe, because of the way we have assessed the application in terms of it being a permanent use of the site?
it was not our consideration that a temporary condition would be required or relevant in this case.
Because?
suitable management strategies have been outlined for the site that would manage noise and privacy and any other impacts to local businesses, it was not considered that that would be necessary, that was our opinion, OK, thank you, I'm sure we've got I am sure we all understand that this is a very serious problem that is homelessness and how we how we handle homeless and there's also a very serious community.
Concern and therefore, if we're going to make this work properly, we want the very best possible treatment of it, balanced committee and one in every other way, but I open up to questions, questions and comments from anyone.
At all councillors of India check just take your guidance, and I got some comments on the conditions Councillor Pridham mentioned I just want to explore those, but I also have other questions about the applications, so shall I do the conditions related questions? First, just on the question of afternoon working and I recognise internal works are different from external works, but don't just as an example, we have recently some works done to our own flat, all internal, but actually some internal works are noisy they just have to be by nature of the things, and so I wonder whether, if the blanket ban is not practical, what the mechanism could be considered, whereby any noisy aspects of internal fitting out is is excluded from the afternoon work, I mean, I'd say it's a works management thing I appreciate planning may not be the vehicle for it, but I think the Councillors, the applicant in this case, might want to take a lead in being a good neighbour when it comes to this things aren't just explore that and the second I should say, by the way, sorry, I should have said that we have, as I'm sure, some people know, but we have
Council observers here closely associated with the app with the working of the application, so I'm sure they'll take note of what's being said so.
it would be worth hearing from Mr Worth if, if what I am suggesting is deliverable. The second suggestion I'd like to make is that in my own ward at the annual Chubby familiar with the Griston Hall Road mosque created quite a stir when it came for various planning approvals here and again through both the council's intervention and the mosques willingness. A community forum was set up which regularly met and, and it was not necessarily a forum where the Council was necessarily represented, but it created the platform for councillors for the mosque community and for the local neighborhood community to sit for and whether that is something that once again, Mr words, good officers could explore and emulate, because I think it will go some way towards strengthening the hotline and the quarterly meetings already suggested, and I just the final point on that was, I think the suggestion was not that as quarterly meetings and hotlines were offered, that's right, but it's whether it could be
Turned into a condition so that it's a planning requirement rather than the goodwill of the applicant, and I wonder whether that's something that this committee should consider.
sorry, do you want to move on, so those are my three points about the three points that are just turning onto the actual facilities, and perhaps this is where Mr Worth might be able to help I looked at the plans and I see that there are nine bedrooms, so I don't know how long what will be the average length of stay for each person and whether the dining and kitchen facilities are adequate for the nine people.
But the that incense considered to be adequate, so that's the kind of question about the internal facilities in there. The other point is that the police suggested kind of a linkage with things like street pastors and so on, and whether that's been explored. The report is silent on whether there is any work done around it and similarly the police talked about CCTV which would be picked up, but they talk about physical security and I don't know what they mean, but I'm sure that that was set out to the housing team, so I wonder whether that
whatever physical security has been embedded in this plan has met the approval of the of the
Of the police, and my final point is really about about the involvement of Richmond council in this application now appreciate the Council has a shared staffing arrangement and all of that thing, but this is actually providing a rich facility for Richmond in Wandsworth and some local residents might say to the detriment of the local community, and I just want to understand an explanation for it as to why is it just simply because the funding is being done by joint councillors, and why is that done by a joint Councillor? Why could it not have been done by just Wandsworth in order to keep this wonderful facility as a one-off facility?
it's not as though homelessness is not, or are not insignificant enough problem for it to be a sole single borough facility and Richmond do their own.
Please, please, don't take this a miss and get into one of our standard Ravi Tony arguments, but I find that very amusing given a question coming from one of the main architects of that set-up.
does that rise?
Any other specific questions or comments, Councillors.
I'd like to support the idea of restricting the noisy works between 12 and 3 I'm sorry, my name is Fine, as I'm East Putney, Councillor.
It's quite common that you have the word noisy put in front of works and that you have in brackets no use of power tools, I mean, it's really quite a common thing to see in a building contract.
with some restrictions, so I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask for.
I have a separate point, which is.
Not to do with whether I'm going to support it or not, because I am going to support it, I think it's a very significant and useful useful contribution to our services and I think that adequate
ameliorating actions have been taken to reduce some of the problems which will undoubtedly occur.
My comment is about the planning for building inside, I was absolutely furious to see that the smallest room
Of all the rooms is the female room, and I was under it.
No, sorry, that's not funny, it's very recent, but it also needs it, the smallest broom, but it has one corner taken off it with the existing fireplace, and the boiler is in this small this dream. I cannot understand how that was have escaped the attention of the planners. I think it's outrageous, I mean the awareness over the what you're providing and what it means. What you're doing is horrible, so are very cross about that, and I think that there is quite an easy design solution to improving that Richard Corner and I'm delighted to show you how it could be. Thank you
I didn't know whether I should declare an interest, but I have actually employed Fine as an architect and I know she is very inventive about solutions at that time, so people should note that anyone else.
Councillor Humphreys, all could we perhaps answer some of these questions before we move on to some well know that because we have to use it because there are general, if you may, if you lead me to Councillor Humphreys?
As you wish.
Councillor Guy, Humphreys, officers and Speaker and Councillor for South feels impotently.
I wholeheartedly support the idea of the forum being somewhat more formally set up, principally because it gives them an opportunity to
Be more proactive in the discussions, with the obviously understandably concerned businesses and residents nearby, rather than just issuing a bulletin as a bit motorways about it, and the hotline is something we frequently use, but it's kind of reactive if you know what I mean is fast responding to individual concerns and I think you've got to form whether it's quarterly as Councillor Gruen suggested or have not that more formally set up and it gives an opportunity for the
Hopefully words of it being the good progress being made to spread to the wider community, and also a wider forum for people to have those probably mutual concerns addressed in one place. I think as we've Councillor Gruen, you said the model that worked really well congressional Road was something where a lot of the concerns were initially raised, found to be resolvable with the work and good will of both parties. I heartily recommend that be more formalised and I think it is a good idea to put the other condition as a specific kind of thing is is one thing on the northern of stuff
I mean a bit of a cleft stick here on tipping a contract to myself, so I get it both ways round when you're working, it's true internal stuff can be very noisy so again, if, even if it's not possible to completely restrict works during those hours, anything that could be done, I think to do that and also, I think if there were stuff that was unavoidably going to have to happen again, if that could be flagged up to the nursery, particularly so they can make arrangements to try to ameliorate it from their side as well. So proper dialogue on stuff like that is going to be impossible to manage that completely satisfactory to both sizes. As you'll know, with party walls and suchlike you start drilling into a wall to do anything is going to reverberate throughout the whole building in those old buildings. The the acoustic properties aren't brilliant, so I think that's something that we're worthwhile doing
that's on that stuff so far there was there was a suggestion.
Again from the applicant, actually, which wasn't picked up by officers completely, which is interesting about obscure glazing some of the windows, so we've heard that they're going to be obscure glazed on the side facing the South East, isn't it I think we're facing directly on to the nursery, but it was also apparently an offer from the applicant to obscure glazed some of the other windows south, facing windows that might have some possibilities for overlooking and officers in the report took the view that that wasn't necessary because,
of the vulnerability of the residents and the fact that some of those are badgers. I could understand impacts to the bedrooms, but some of those rooms are kitchens, and I don't see any reason why the applicants offering we shouldn't take them up on their offer to obscure glazed those kitchen windows again, just in the nature of the fact that it has been something of a controversial thing, and I think any gesture, as the applicant could do, to reassure residents that the council is doing best, it absolutely can in those circumstances to to moderate things that would be really helpful. On a more general point, I just wanted to ask about
a lot of work has gone into this Bill to understand that and appreciate you put a lot of work into trying to make this work, we have to be honest, I don't read, this is the first really.
for this kind of operation. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think there's anybody else doing that kind of thing. So again I would like to hope that the Council can be agile and flexible. Moving ahead with these things to have much well-made plans are made. Sometimes things don't work out necessarily, quite as you expect us, Councillor Greenhalgh has comments about some of the police responses. It would be good to know that the council is willing to be flexible and moderate or change plans if things aren't working according to exactly how it is in. In reality,
Thank you, I'm sure we've all learnt a lot and I'm sure that people in housing department learnt a lot to the officers are eager to get in with some comments, but before we get run away by Councillor Arran's anger, I'm you all lined up ready but,
Well, I just I just wanted to pick up firstly on the the hours of works.
Noisy works are normally outside the hours of 8 am to 6 pm, because that's when people are at home, the building works tend to happen during the middle of the day, I don't think I've ever seen a contract which would say you can't do building works within the middle of the day.
I wouldn't be able to be controlled through the planning process but as he is, you know,
Mr Worth and his team are here today and they might be able to come to some sort of arrangement directly where they inform the nursery at times when they're going to be doing the noisy works and there can be some sort of relation that way on the point of the the management plan is approved as part of condition 2 in accordance with the documents. If you feel that that is not sufficient, we could put that into separate condition and have it as a separate
workshop carried out in accordance with the the management plan that doesn't make a difference, but it may be. It provides members with extra security that we've got that extra condition on it,
I think those are the ones I want to pick up, I think I think the other point, the earlier scheme had the the ladies' room as the smallest, I think that's been amended up, confirmed that with Ms Brew Hammond, if that's OK,
and
Sorry, yeah, that's fine, yes, so the in terms of the standard of accommodation, the female only room has been amended out, and now all the rooms are gender neutral and I believe this was a first illustration of the of the scheme because,
I believe research has shown that the female early offering was not as high as male rough sleepers, however, now all rooms will be gender neutral to allow for females asleep in any of the rooms should they be a higher number in terms of the obscure glazing yes, officers did consider the option of obscure glazing all the rear windows as suggested by the applicants, however, striking the balance between
Having some of these being habitable rooms and these vulnerable people having to stay in these much smaller rooms in comparison to permanent residential dwellings, it was considered that the views out of these windows would not be dissimilar from what are currently available from the office use of the site and as well as other neighbouring residential flats that have views over this nursery space so it was considered that these rooms do not require.
Obscure glazing to safeguard existing privacy levels gave me there's a lot of mutual overlooking, however, the options obscure glazed, maybe some other window, such as the kitchen window could be considered how, but it is an opinion that these would not use from the kitchen would not be much dissimilar from views from the office uses and the meeting rooms which would already have views over the site.
in terms of the, I believe the noise conditions have been discussed, but in terms of the physical security, I'll just touch on it's a bit we did.
secure metal gates at the rear of the site so that the whole of the rear of the site is also you physically secure, I believe the applicant has outlined that a number of the staff would be trained in terms of dealing with the residents that will be coming to the site, whether a number of the staff would be security personnel in particular, I believe that might be a question best answered by the Housing Team.
and in terms of the average links, the scheme has been outlined to be based on a 28 day target temporary model, so it's anticipated that that would be hoping their maximum stay, however, each case would be assessed in its own individual merits, and so there could be cases where that could be longer.
Aviva, looms, Mohamed or Mr Cool, we've got anything to say about the Richmond involvement.
I was gonna then hand over to two, maybe this was 0, Mr Sheldon, should him.
Weller to sort of pick up on, firstly, the police issue in their relationship with the police and then maybe pick up on the Richmond and Wandsworth and other other examples coming forward of this, if that's OK with chair and board members members are happy about that is.
Michael sharing, while a rough sleeper coordinator for Richman and once with councils so yeah, just on the on referencing the question about interaction with the police, we actually met with the Chief Inspector for Battersea.
Around the same time as the public consultation capitation event in early December, Mr Worthing, I also attended the safe neighborhoods panel, which was an online forum.
which I think Councillor Freedom was also in attendance for just 2 x, just to speak to local residents and yet and involve the the police, so we've done those two things.
Thank you. Now I had Councillor Justin guests on the Association Mark, Justin ward councillor, for Nine Elms. We were reading in the notes here that this will be the first rough sleeper hobby in the borough, but what about other boroughs I mean I'd like to ask the officers, have they looked at other boroughs where there is a pre-existing rough sleeper hub because I would have said that it would be very helpful to find out how other people have got on with this kind of centre.
They are essential to have found out what other barriers and if there isn't one in the London borough, I'd stretch out further into other Outer London, but for something that's new cop head to head. We know that if if, if the 500 objectors knew that there were several of these hubs across London and they've found them running perfectly well, we would go a long way to allay their fears. So I would have said that some kind of investigation to other rough sleeper hubs wherever they may be, would be actually essential in assessing this application will have is the first it can't be as and I mean, if you see what I mean, but, Councillor Lyons, your question is yes, sorry, Councillor earnings, Northcote ward, I didn't explain that earlier yeah just a bit about them, picking up on Councillor Putin's comments and then find them the presentation and the consultation process, and I actually did attend the residents' meeting the three our residents' meeting and there were no awful lot of people there, and an A, and one of the reasons I changed is because this
in the nursery that is affected and impacted by this, and also parents, my own ward send their children there and I just didn't feel that in the presentation that that was particularly alluded to as it was almost like where we had this consultation we then have this meeting, it's it's all all fine, I mean I'm not entirely convinced that the businesses concerns are addressed and I'm not sure the consultation which was very quick I mean we've had 500 objections, we might have had 1,000, but I'm interested on that. Thank you.
did you want to come in schoolroom, yes?
But I don't think we answered the SSA point before we moved on and then we have to pick up the Councillor John Justin's issue about other examples in London, I'll come back to Mr Worth to solve, so thank you Chair, so I am dealing with the point about other schemes there are a couple of long running schemes which we have visited Michael and his colleagues have been visited and there's one in Lambeth by Vauxhall bus station which has been running for a long time.
And I think, from my knowledge, it's 30 30 14 rooms so bigger than this, there's also another one called capacity jobs in central London, and Westminster has been running for a long time as well, so we've gone out a lot of the stuff you see here in terms of the management plan, the eligibility criteria and the House rules, if you like, have been plagiarized far from their best practice and also we've been advised through this process by,
government officials De look
Department of levelling up etc and their rough sleepers specialists, so we think.
At this stage it is new to the borough, it's new to us, and I fully accept and apologise to the committee and the wider community, as we did previously, that the initial consultation was not what it should have been and more than happy to do I met one.
we hope we've we've improved it through the events that have been described, so we've been out and we've seen other boroughs, and we will look to take their best practice and build on it, that was one point on the sharing of Richmond, this is increasingly rough sleeper services are looked at on a sub-regional or even pan-London basis.
Richmond, obviously, is where we also run the same services enrichment for on behalf of the CSA.
and to an extent when we bid for the funding for each borough, which was very successful, bid against the deal UK government funding, we similarly bid in the Richmond bid for some space in this facility for Richmond.
Richmond residents would be a minority of the night might be one or two at any any time, and that's reflected the joint funding package makes this work, so that's that says the arts, when the essays are upon the other point, more generally, if I may Chair is that our intention here is to be a good neighbour so more than happy to take away the point about.
noisy works, if I can use that term, during those hours and if subject to your approval.
We proceed to a point of contract, as we will use our best endeavours to make sure that they they honour that and do the quieter works during those periods, one other thing on the nursery as it was raised, we met with the nursery management.
Previously, we've kept in touch with them and one of the things we did to try and mitigate their concerns is our opening hours are longer than theirs, so we will have out what I would call our daytime staff, our professional staff there before they open and after they close we will appoint again subject to approval a full time our manager and we expect that person to be talking to the nursery manager probably on a daily basis and trying to develop that that good good neighbour relationship, so I think Chair I've answered most of the points maybe not all of them
thank you, thank you, thank you. Indeed
I appreciate that you've then to use your own words plagiarised the applications from Lambeth which of course is in neighbouring Dover but most specifically since he has been in operation in some time, as you say in them, but have there been complaints about it on ongoing since the opening hours hasn't opened yet so we haven't got any complaints but did when it opened in Lambeth or on an ongoing basis have there been complaints about the unit?
If you can't thank Councillor, I think it's inevitable there will be complaints, this client group is not a easy client group and that's why we've put the 24 7 cover, so there will have been complaints, they are slightly different that one if you have used Vauxhall bus station it's facing the bus terminus so overnight you know it's a very different environment.
But we are, what we are planning here is is to have two staff on through the night every night, one performing a chronic security, concierge role, and the other being a trained.
Rough sleeper support worker, so that will be two members of staff to nine residents.
that's not what you get, these are the large larger hostels, so we think again taken up best practice that we are.
putting inadequate provision for that, and if there are complaints, we will deal with them and what we said to neighbouring residents, neighbouring businesses is we need this to work and we will not allow if we put somebody in there who is causing raising hell with the neighbours or with our staff or with the other residents in the scheme we will invoke.
The eviction process,
Because we were not in our interests to see this fall by any measure, there is a lot riding on this from the Department for the Council.
Can ice?
Got one more contribution, none of them don't want to go all round this again at the moment we've had a very positive discussion, discussing real concerns and being very reasonable, so I don't want to go round and round it, but you haven't Councillor, both Councillor White and Councillor puzzle, I think, have not had a go Councillor White's giving way to Councillor Boswell, I think thank you and sorry just gotten here by saying to come back to the chancellor, why I'm Councillor Sheila Buswell to take backward on. Yes, I'm so pleased to see such a big section on this on community engagement because of course we all agree that this is something that is much-needed and that we need to do, but on obviously
when these things come about, they have an impact on on the local area. As all planning does on. I wanted to ask about the local residents for them. I know it's been covered with quite a lot of questions and particularly Councillor Gavin India, but we know that local residents, forums on the estates, for example, are notoriously difficult to set up and it's difficult to get engagement on. So I wanted to know if a bit more about how we're going to go about making sure that successful on that. There is some way that businesses will also be able to be included in in in that, because I know there's a lot of businesses around the area, including on local, independent ones. There are quite community minded and then finally, on it's just a suggestion really and again on thinking about community engagement. Perhaps the local residents and businesses might be an invited to visit before it opens so that they can actually come in and and see what's inside and what's being offered, because fear of the unknown are also can can be huge, and when you actually see what's there, it isn't quite such a worry, thank you very much, someone's going to say to someone on my left is going to say to me
You've got to distinguish between planning issues and the housing management issues, but just ignoring that particular complaint is good, we're having an open discussion about it and in response to Ryan.
sorry, sorry, do you want to go ahead, however, sorry, I was just going to say that in terms of the forum or as Mr Carter said, we can have a separate condition in terms of that in terms of getting that secured under its own separate condition and potentially having further details as to how it set up and the way.
businesses will be involved in.
In contributing to that.
yeah, and just just to come in on the on the forum, that was one of the things that was agreed with them, Councillor ticket him, at the on, at the in-person consultation that happened in December, I know you say about it's potentially hard to get people to attend that certainly wasn't the feeling I had when I was at that public consultation.
and certainly I am just repeating what my my colleague was saying before, about wanting to be a good neighbour, we essentially want this scheme to be something that the community is proud of in terms of getting assistance to the most vulnerable people in that specific community, so we we certainly want to be able to achieve that by involving the local community and yet I think certainly so a really good idea to to do a at all when it's a little bit better. Stephen is right now, but certainly that would be our idea of doing that. Thank you very much great. Thank you. Councillor. Given to
so there were some specific points out I'd raised in my series of questions, which probably because of the barrage of them got forgotten.
So one was about the average length of stay and we don't know that I think it had 28 days.
And then the dining and kitchen facilities, whether that is adequate because 28 days without food or whatever, it's another.
Prospector I expect so these dark side, the other one, was a police reference to engagement with street pastors and the drugs team and so on, and whether that's being taken and whether that's something that again could be communicated the local community about the way in which that's being handled and the sites the other point about the police, a reference to physical security and whether that's being included in the design of the facilities and whether they are,
Got comfortable with that, I know there was general engagement of the inspector, but was that general engagement inspector specifically addressing that point or not, I don't know.
Well, perhaps we can have an answer to that, but I thought we'd rather had to be fair, but again, just in relation to the kitchen and dining facilities, there are only nine bedrooms, there, so we've got a kitchen and we've got a a table in the communal space, we are also going to be working with.
The updated plans show a bench in the corner that can seat. I think five people, but again, if we wanted to have something where everyone was eating at 1.00 time, the communal space would allow that in terms of food. We certainly want to make things that are sort of the bare essentials. Things like clothing, food, that sort of thing, something that people don't have to worry about and think about in those first narrow days have been hopefully assisted off the street, so we will be looking to work with charities on that, and I would also include the local pastors in that thinking as well. Obviously, at the moment, all of our thinking is about getting this project off the ground, and today is a big part of that from now, until when it opens, if you have given being granted permission today, that would give us essentially between four and five months to work with partner agencies that are outside of the services that we direct the Commissioner at the moment, who are all on board, but certainly the the wider third sector, who I think would absolutely have a vital role to play in everything that, although the good that will hopefully, be able to do at the at the scheme,
I think we've had a pretty good Councillor Light, just as I've always about to say on that and goes I'll go on you should always look up, certainly if you go on unfortunately.
Yeah notwithstanding, I think the locality issues, it's really good to see that we have some a venue that we can provide her Housing First, a holistic approach to to do this, which is very successful in getting people off the streets, so you know there are other areas in.
in the borough, my own ward and wards around it, which do have a lot of rough sleepers, and obviously this is a really good attempt to to try and reduce that issue.
and also the other aspect around this is a wet shelter which
Some mangoes are being seen as road have been calling for something like this for a very, very long time.
It's when you have a judgmental approach to people and you exclude people from.
Hostels in and hubs because they have alcohol problems, where they just return to the street, causing more problems on the street in the locality.
So one or another, really really good step in the right direction for Wandsworth, I have two homeless hostels at least two home hostels in my ward and not run by the council, but they're not allowed to consume intoxicants and and they can be loitering outside and it can be loitering for from a distance outside as well.
so could I ask what daytime activities are arranged and and also what arrangements are being made to ensure those people distance from the building, not just outside the distance of the building that may go to ensure that they are kept inside, sorry not kept inside but they aren't.
Misbehaving is just before you come back on marriage, I don't like this one to one if we get too long-winded Councillor Cooper.
Thank you.
I might be the only member of this committee who's run facilities like this and much larger facilities in the centre of town but also of about this size down residential streets in a house next door to you know ordinary dwellings converted into schemes were about this number of people and I've asked a lot of questions about it and I think some of the conditions including the obscure glazing so there won't be overlooking into the nursery facility next door are excellent, I think the restrictions on the use of the back garden
are also excellent because I can see that that could create problems between this property and because there is the nursery next door, but I think the points that Councillor White has just making about loitering on the doorstep and people and being able to
drinking smoking, their own rooms, which is another area that I'd are some questions about, and I think the issues about the other agencies that are involved to provide support to people, to help them to move on with their life and to remove the sticky label of rough sleeper,
which is, you know, apply to people, hopefully on a temporary basis, he comes through the facility, I'd like to hear a bit more about that because I think it's really important for us to approve this with these conditions supplied, knowing that they're going to work and the other issue which I'd already asked about was that the staff are definitely going to be awake at night, they're waking night staff, not doing sleepovers and the issue about guests and people who are visitors or guests and visitors can be problematic, and it's really important to know how that's going to process is going to be managed. Certainly don't want guests and visitors hanging around on the doorstep, but also some guests and visitors can be
Exploitative or disruptive and certainly guests, so-called guest suites, are not you are going to potentially exploit vulnerable people is a situation I had to deal with on a number of occasions, so some answers on that because I think that will make the difference for the people that live there in terms of potential success for the purposes of this facility and for us to be happy as a planning committee that this facility can open in this location.
And that it will be a good decision that we've made, I'd completely disagree with the idea that you could go through all of this and then review it in six months' time, I think that's frankly nonsense, but some answers to those would be very helpful, thank you.
Mr Anwar, because it was the big podcast, Mr Weller, by the short order, is it always Michel because without due first-name terms and the committees are, I don't think my my dad would be happy if he just called me or I get go on.
So yeah, thank you for raising that. I think just firstly, on the point about guests, it's a short stay assessment centre, so guests staying is completely, we feel inappropriate and not not really necessary. I think it's the kind of thing that you introduce when you're looking at longer term supported accommodation, perhaps in the daytime, but now we will be having no no guests at all and the way that we've designed the security access is that you would have to enter the first door. The first store would have to close, they would have to come across, and then the person on on salt duty would open the second door, so you couldn't have someone sneaking anyone in either, so we we've covered all of that on the date on those basis, and thank you for the questions about the
the smoking and drinking as well we have.
consulted with places like the passage in Westminster and other schemes that do allow that in the rooms, but not in the communal areas, I think, because we know that the success of this scheme is very much dependent on what is happening on that quite large pavement area outside the front having a an option where people don't have to go outside and drink and smoke.
On the street is actually probably quite a good thing in terms of security and minimising the effects on the local area.
And you know for people that don't drink and don't smoke the communal areas will all be yeah, you won't be able to do that, but certainly in their rooms and also for people with them with alcohol dependencies, it can be quite dangerous to require someone to stop drinking completely, so we wouldn't be encouraging that either,
I think we've had a pretty fair discussion and I think people have made up their minds one way or another.
I gonna put recommendations now.
I understand Councillor prisoners' concerns and those of his residents, but I'm confident from what I've heard, that we can make this work and that the officers concerned will be very intent in doing so, so I would certainly strongly support the recommendations.
Councillor Humphries, sorry, Chair, just for just for clarity, are voting on the recommendation with those changes to the conditions that we've discussed so far, so I'm making you to separate part for the section on the whys and wherefores and also the thing about the setting up the perform as a formal basis so we've got those covered off, let's be precise, phallic committee class sorry committee clubs,
Democratic Services Officer.
we go what we are saying about the conditions as amended, exactly where it would have an additional condition which had the the the details in the Management Plan as a separate condition, which should pick up all of those those matters into one document
you and I can see afterwards agreed.
Okay, subject to that, is it agreed.
Agreed.
Let's have a vote on this, please.
Those in favour of the recommendations.
And one against.
Thank you, I think I was very helpful, Councillor Pridham, I hope I know you previously supported it because I hadn't used it because I think it would be slightly unfair, but you produced a leaflet.
A few months ago, you and your colleague saying you supported this initiative.
coming largely because the government was funding it, so I appreciate that I'm not odds inviting you to join my speech, sorry, I did mention that yeah, OK, which I yes you did impose yeah, that's true.
So I appreciate that there will be, I can I have been in similar situations in the past myself, so thank you for your attendance, okay, we move on.
Are you staying or you leave your leaving RF, or you get it going?
Yeah
okay,
right moving on to application number 1 garages west of 48 and 50 Lytton Grove, it's a minor amendment.
Being pushed.
That has to be considered by the Committee, are there any comments at all, or is the recommendation accepted Councillor demanded?
Yeah, I mean I, I know the site and I know the previous approval, and I know that there was considerable correspondence around the previous planning history, The planning history is littered with a lot of correspondence, and the same people have actually.
taking part in the correspondence around this application and I looked at it very carefully and I can't see any physical changes to the scheme that might require the amendment on the on the windows, so the amendment to the window obscure windows and reopening of windows was put in at the time we gave permission in order to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring properties, I don't see any physical change in the proposed building and so I don't understand why now we are going to remove it if we proposed it because it was deemed necessary, what is the basis for removing it other than the applicant would rather that he did have to deal with it.
Logically, I have to confess, as I thought exactly the same, so the conclusion must the only conclusion must be that well that's what we did, but there wasn't an was unreasonable and not really necessary now I don't know if that's fair but Ms Richards perhaps you'd like to say you introduce yourself,
Thank you, I'm Alan, Richardson the team leader for the West area, so yes, you're quite correct.
Planning permission was first granted for this House, we will remember the debates that occurred and it was first granted in August 2020, and there was a blanket condition attached to that permission that all windows on the first floor should be fixed, shut and obscurely glazed that was probably in direct response to the level of objection that we had received at that time.
that condition was repeated again when it was amended in 2022.
and nothing was changed as far as that was concerned, however the applicants came back.
and they did originally what they had sought was to remove the condition completely so that there was no restrictions on the windows, however, the application is before officers to consider, and we didn't think it was appropriate to remove the condition entirely, we thought it was still reasonable and necessary.
In particular, there were some windows like the bathroom windows, one of the windows to the bedrooms we felt that would impose too much on neighbours, and so we've agreed that those windows should be obscure, but they can be openable.
the bedroom window, that's gonna be openable on non obscure. Again, we considered actually in its location and the distances from various windows and garden areas that that one would be OK to be fully openable and non obscured, and then there's one last one that is intended to be fixed, shut and obscure. Still, so, as far as we were concerned, the condition was very much still necessary, so we haven't done as the applicant first intended, if you like, which is to remove the condition completely. That's not what's before members, it's still to be varied, as set out in the report, and also to vary condition 2, so that we can approve the new set of drawings and the new set of drawings basically have annotations, very clearly showing which windows are to be doing what so there's no ambiguity for future
inquiries or enforcement,
I I, I, I see where it's coming from, but I do think that them.
as far as the objectors are concerned and oddly enough, over the last four years, those objectives have remained the same. So this is a very static community, which has made the views known in 2020 22 and 20 for now, and I therefore think for that. Nothing has changed as far as the impact on their amenities to allow us to lift this kit, the condition that was correctly and properly imposed on two separate occasions, and therefore I would suggest I would certainly want to wait against this on those based on that basis. I understand the logic of that to your position, but don't accepted no. Nevertheless, sir, the application agreed those in favour
5 those against.
now, for perhaps mildly, surprised, but a good.
Move on to the next application, which is granted avenue.
Researchers.
I don't have a presentation.
so that the application desk
I don't know if the recommendation is to accept granted Avenue and he any observations, Councillor Humphries, Councillor given their accounts of White Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair before we start the sort of debate in general I just wanted to bring up the point that we've had communication about about the any conflict of interest all with with Councillor neighbours and things like that and I think you said Mr Moss was perhaps going to have a discussion about what can and can't say etc etc. I certainly suggested to him that might be raised.
Mr Moon.
just for the benefit of that, some people weren't party to the discussion, no.
I am presuming Councillor Humphreys is referring to the fact that the neighbour is an elected member, I think there are two principal issues ready for Members to consider whether they can take part in the debate and vote on this and firstly, it's the councillors' code of conduct there are a number of
References within the Code of Conduct, particularly relating to, firstly, the seven principles of public life, integrity and objectivity, and that feeds into the appendix A and disclosure of interests, part of the code of conduct, and I just read from paragraph 7, this is in relation to the disclosure of non registrable interests.
It says where a matter arises at a meeting which directly relates to your financial interest or well-being
It is not a disclosable pecuniary interest set out in table 1 or financial interest or well-being of a relative or close associate you must you must disclose the interest and you may speak on the matter only if members of the public are also allowed to speak at the meeting, otherwise you must not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.
I must not remain in the room unless you've been granted a dispensation.
I think the the the nub of this is whether the Councillor in question would be considered by members to be a close associate of theirs now the Council's Code of Conduct is based on the local government association model code of conduct and there's no definition of what a close associate would be.
some local authorities have sought to define that.
I am not suggesting that those those definitions are those that should carry forward, that it can be a person whom you are in regular contact with over a period of time. That's more than an acquaintance. Now I don't know the relationships that members have would be the particular Member here, but if Members could consider that other than the neighbour, can we call it the neighbour Councillor to be a close associate, then, under the terms of the code of conduct that you wouldn't be entitled to take part in the debate or vote and you ought to leave the room? The second consideration would be just a general law relating to apparent bias. So if or if a member of the public, a reasonable member of public sees with all the information would think that
Will it be your judgment will be clouded by your relationship with the neighbour Councillor, then you may take the view that you ought not to take part in the debate or the vote, so sorry, I can't be more definitive than that, but it's for individual members to consider their position and relationship with a neighbour neighbour Councillor in accordance with the advice I've just given and see whether it's
the matter they ought to take part in.
So this is a fellow Member of the Council, so in one sense it could be applied to any others, so I'm just asking everyone to consider in all honesty, whether they consider themselves to be a close associate and judgement affected.
If they don't, or that's their decision, and I am certainly not going to challenge it, so I just leave it to people. Councillor Humphries, sorry, I don't want to drag it out necessarily, but this is a slightly wider point here, which is applicable in this case and then applicable. I would have thought most cases where there's a situation like this with the categories. It's not just about the Councillor being a neighbour, it's about who's going to be the advocate and representative for those other people who have made objections to the application and should the Councillor by merit of being a councillor, but still a neighbour have less rights as an objector as a neighbour than any other resident of the Borough by nature of being a Council. This is a slightly broader point there, which I like a bit of clarity on, just so that we make sure of any within the future in a similar situation. I wouldn't want anybody, particularly the other objectors and other neighbours, to feel that being disenfranchised from having a proper debate and discussion of that genuine or not concerns about any applications you see where I'm coming from, I'm really
Really countless centuries, this has happened to me and I had the wit to say you have better find someone else to talk on your behalf, I mean, that's the seizure and I've done, it's not that greater problem.
If you feel that you are closely associated and and would be affected, then I think you ought to take it on board if you if you felt that strongly, then you should get someone else to, but but we we've had the advice that we just leave it at that sorry, Councillor, you're missing the point, the point is who would that other person be if all councils are in the same situation and probably an advocate if it is your you were talking about the three other people sitting round you, for instance,
Okay, I mean, I don't do do it, you've got anything to add, I just think, on that broader point.
The Labour Councillor isn't a member of this committee so she won't be determining or having a say in the determination of the application, and I think in those circumstances if there isn't anyone who is able to to advocate on the part of the wider community in the area then provided and the neighbour Councillor made it very clear that she's speaking on behalf of residents not necessarily herself and I wouldn't have thought that there would be a problem because she's not ma and she's not voting on the application.
but I think it would be better if another advocate could be found in those circumstances.
can we get on with the application Councillor, given that I've got a couple of questions to ask?
firstly, the application is described as a 6 bedroom single dwelling with a basement, and yet, when I looked at the plans, there are seven bedrooms, so that is that a correction that we need to make.
second question is about whether the land along granted avenue sort of falls from sort of.
Charfield for as it goes and North, and whether that fall in land, and therefore the relative position of properties is adequately reflected in the drawings, and my for which not a probably a question but it's about reading through the local concerns about basement I recognise that our policies don't allow in a sense a ban on basements, so I'm not suggesting that there's a ban on basements
but that the specifically concerns about basements in the area and therefore whether there is the services according to the plans, whether that will cover specifically the drawings of and the basement with its large enough small, enough, deep enough, and all of those things which are matters of consensus is that going to be kinda in the conditions safeguarded that it's according to the plans as drawn and no more.
Mr J has any comment.
Thank you.
I was just going through the plans and I don't have the basement, but it's certainly six bedrooms that I've counted unless there is a guest bedroom at basement level that's proposed, but it wouldn't be a a specific yeah, it's not a.
Habitable bedroom, if you like, in terms of what the family would use, so it is considered a 6 bedroom dwelling,
I mean when I looked at the plans as a bedroom.
there's a bed in it and is shown as a bedroom, I mean, it's not discarded a cinema room which is the other euphemism, so I mean it's plain as a bike stuff, that there are seven spaces in that house which I guess which have got bedroom beds in it and therefore I would call them bedrooms.
The point being.
in a sense, the description is misleading in saying it's a six bedroom property when the plans show that there are seven bedrooms, but if the point is the description and just the description, I'm sure Mr Richard School will check on it and convince you I did your wrong No, I'm sorry I just don't have the basement plan in front of me I've got all the other plans I just start reciting.
I am sure you convinced the Councillor, given many of these wrong off line or another occasion, or your example power and say to him tomorrow, I'm sorry you are right, but it doesn't make any substantive difference to the application does it is a description to script in fact that okay I can I suggest check that there is adequate Wi-Fi in this building and it's perfectly possible to interrogate Councils' website.
And look at the plans which are on the website and the plans on the website do share the basement level and do share the bedroom so that can be done without having to wait for tomorrow morning. Thank you, Councillor have to support that up and I can see that there is a small bedroom at the basement level, so you are correct that is probably misleading description to be 6 dwelling 6 bedroom dwelling, thank you for that right services 7 Dawn continue or if you're sorry, so it's my other two points. One was about the topography of the area
Land rang on Councillor Richards would officers not please assume that are chairing the meeting, Councillor, what you're saying, Councillor, my other two points about whether the topography of the area adequately reflected in the drawings there is a question and the third one was about the basement whether the conditions,
about billed as on the drawings adequately ensures that the bedroom the basement, will be built, as shown
Research is certainly coming.
Thank you, Chairman, and apologies for interrupting the Lamb does rise from the north end to the southern end of granddad, and I think the elevational drawings they've been submitted and assessed have that line indicated on the ground level, as well as across the roof levels to indicate that the way that the buildings would,
change if you like, as the land changes.
Councillor White yeah and sorry, sorry, no go and if you do not finish carry on.
and the information that's been submitted, there was a very sick document that has been submitted in terms of Geo tech.
report that's been submitted in relation to the basement and what all the various this basement impact assessment that's been submitted, but in any event the basement would have to comply with building regulations, approval and structural approval
that is outside of planning, thank you, Councillor White, I think we keep allowing basements, importantly, you'll be back down the six bedrooms soon enough anyway.
The issue has a varied, if I may interact, sorry, Councillor right, it's a very good job that you regularly or in once was not in Kensington Woo, where the basements go down, about 6 storeys, you'd have a really a job taught him there but sorry I interrupt you go on to Kensington on Thames and into musicals recently but,
yeah, and there can't be too many areas where water can actually seep away, or any more importantly, but anyway, that's not the point, though the one thing that I found puzzling here is that the the heating system hasn't been agreed yeah yeah, and whether we could
ensure that the heating system, as agreed, would be a renewable system. I know we have to reach 35%, but sometimes that can be achieved
in other ways, and really it would be a missed opportunity,
for a renewable system in this House, which would have to be done
overtime anyway
Mr James Danny Cohen,
the applicants have submitted an energy statement, which is the basic requirement of policy LP 10 for new dwellings that document indicates that they are thinking of using ground source heat pumps.
Also considering solar panels as part of their overall energy strategy and small hydro generation as well.
But in, as you've said, the condition requires them to meet with 35% reduction in terms of energy consumption in any event, and that is conditioned.
I regret any comment notes the want my certainly gone yeah I'll just just feel that they should have agreed a system I think, before coming forward with the, I think it's, I think it is unreasonable to expect a developer, private or company to apply standards,
a particular member of the committee you all may find appropriate, as opposed to what its approval is in policy, after all, that's what works they've commissioned, an architect presumably to do, however, I agree with your comment entirely that I think you need to get through the at least Planning Policy Committee and not through here, so you can follow that hint where you like Councillor Justin
I've been on Planning for two years and anarchy every meeting as part of my learning curve can can someone explain to me why this application is liable for the Community infrastructure, I thought that kicked in at 9.00 bedrooms knowing.
and if this is only got 6 stroke 7, I think the charity advice and advice on so.
The Committee and the infrastructure levy is on additional floor space, so anything over 100 square metres when, when it's added we get that on residential developments, the need for affordable housing is when you get over 10 units and things like that service that's the difference and that's where we've turned into a major application where we have the highest standards for energy sustainability those sorts of things they will pop in at a major level so pops in anything over 100 square metres.
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you to just to drag us back to Councillor White on the source of energy, whatever can we just be reassured whatever system issues, because I'm thinking of it's an air source heat pump they can be quite noisy and stuff and the rate of restrictions on how classical music neighbours, the noise, output and stuff and whatever system they do go for. Can we be reassured that they will meet the necessary criteria for that kind of thing like siting location, noise or that kind of staff and
Apropos the same kind of thing is, is it right, because that's I'd been told that the both the energy assessments and the fire strategy statement from the old the previous application is just again to make sure that before this is dotted eyes and cross tees it will have current up to date ones that do reflect what we've actually got in front of us rather than what was being proposed which isn't in this application.
Thank you, condition, 5 has been recommended to ensure that we do get an updated energy statement, they are used, one that they submitted previously, that was withdrawn and just before the policy changed.
Okay.
Is the recommendation agreed?
Agreed.
It unanimously agreed unanimously.
Thank you that we move on to Sefton Street,
Any comments observations.
is the recommendation agreed?
move on to Bellamy Street again, recommendation to approve Councillor Owens, yes, sorry, I just wanted to.
Just add which back the impact, obviously on neighbouring properties, and a request about the air conditioning ducting not crossing the boundary between and number 15 and number 13 that was raised, obviously under some of the residents' concerns, thank you.
sorry, I thought I was somewhere else, could you repeat that no problem at all I was just raising the concerns that had been raised with me, I'm in a neighboring water Balan about the air conditioning ducting which is currently obviously there are units being moved but that the concern is that the any air conditioning Ducting could possibly cross the boundary wall into a neighbouring property.
Wanting to ensure that didn't happen, thank you.
Do we have a?
Mr Golden.
my understanding is that there was amended and it's not just at the rear of the property at first floor level and is enclosed now.
Councillor Gruen, yeah, thanks for it's a general observation about air conditioning units and minutes are continuing with their sustainably done. I appreciate it might be a policy matter rather than a planning matter, but I just wonder whether the Department could give some thought to creating some kind of general guidelines on an air conditioning unit, the placing of them and the noise levels expected of them, because I do know of how anti-social there can be. At the same time, how sort of can some high demand and energy levels it can be? So I just wonder whether there's a piece of work that the Department could do that might
to where create clearer guidelines for both applicants and neighbours.
Now, if you ask me, I mean we were hate to hear this, my views about air conditioning are.
Will add a bit one with a dinosaur, I suspect on on this I mean it's this that uses more energy and creates more goodness knows what than in summer and in the United States and winter, for instance, we ought to be forced to.
To put up with the heat until we know how to control it in some way or other, so my views on it are really dinosaur-like, but but you suggesting that we need to change the policies.
Well, I mean, I think, in a way that there is a proliferation and it's about where they are positioned on a site. It's about some sort of basic guidelines. Air source heat pumps are coming up with their own sort of work would be best and ideal place to have them. It's just helpful to know that somebody's complying with the guidelines and therefore we're doing our job and they are doing their job. Can we do such a thing within the garden within the pulses we have? I think it would be very difficult to because there's lots of different types of air conditioning units, and that's why we have to go to our special advisers to have them assessed different locations where there are acoustic enclosure, for instance, there is a lot of different parts 2 to 2 to it, so I don't think you can have a general if you put it here, it's going to be fine because I think in some circumstances it might be, but there's different windows in different parts of the borough, with different background noise levels that might have different effects just going back to the the issue about air source, heat pumps, some similar sort of issues, but I know that the government actually look into
really relax the rules about where those can go, so we are likely to end up with a lot, more than perhaps, enforcement complaints, for those going closer that way, because they don't need planning permission, but obviously they do cause concerns to two to neighbours, so it's this is all sort of evolving, but yes, if we could just ban air conditioning units, it would take those out, but I don't think we can
Please do not hesitate to do that, OK, I mean subject where all these interesting discussions about how planning is evolving, which I know people like Councillor White, is keen on in terms of basements and heating works stuff.
Is that agreed?
move on to can I just like something you certainly can, I do apologise, I keep me intending to Mr Corbyn has got something to say about recent application as at the beginning of this meeting.
To ask the Chair if I could say something, to ask for his findings, let me we've got we've had two applications recently have become gone through this committee, which we're referral to, to the mayor's office, the GLA, the first one, the old tech application the Lawn Tennis Association was called in back in March, they have now made some amendments to that application and that's out to public consultation so you might well have received letters or be aware of it from from local.
Local members or residents
my understand that where we've been consulted as well and we've got until the 9th of June to respond with any comments that we have, that's not going to make it give us enough time to bring anything further to committee.
Before the June Committee, but what we're suggesting is the will draft of the latter and if Councillor Belton as chairs is happy with that later, he'll send it on obviously discuss it, perhaps with Councillor Humphreys in advance and then we'll put it for information on the next next committee survey, it's public publicised, it will be put on our website as soon as it signed off anyway.
The second application I wanted to talk about was the the application at Springfield hospital that we had, I think it was at the March Committee for 400 and 49 units, that's that has now been called in as well the information of why the reasons for who've been called in by the GLA are up on our website so again I think we will end up with a similar process where they will look look at the scheme whether they can address some of the concerns that Members have when they discuss.
we discussed and resolved to refuse it and they will probably be a further consultation, and there will be a further hearing, probably not until I would have thought after after the summer, probably late summer, early autumn time, so I just thought I'd update you all because those are all decisions that you as a committee have made and make.
May be interested to hear where they go in or indeed attend the hearing GLA officers and on show Councillor Cooper will be that, particularly for one of them anyway.
Do you want to say something about it, Councillor Booth, thank you yes, having made my declaration at the beginning in relation to the Greater London Authority, it is my intention to attend, for both of those hearings and as the Assembly method for,
McKinnon once was, I will have the right to speak, so obviously, as well as submitting her further representations from this Committee, should anybody here wish to express a view that they would wish me to go through in the Committee than I am, I can do that wearing a different hat, not that that I'm wearing this evening and I did actually draw the attention of the ward councillors to what had happened with the Springfield application because obviously I was informed as the Assembly member, but that is my other hand and not the one I'm wearing this evening. Thank you
thank you interesting.
of course, on cigarette winter, just just and on the All England application, I mean, I know that that's been happening, but I have no sight of it. This area is there somewhere where you can actually see what they're proposed I minutes and if you could just circulated offline, that would be fine, I'll read it on my own, I think there is yeah yeah, there is then some members, I will send round the the letter we've received, which has the links, I think, is it on it's on the German website, they've also got some public consultation meetings, I can ping it on the first one was last Friday and I think they may still be others that you can attend, but I've I've also got the link to all the paperwork which I can share with you. I didn't realise it was something that you would want, otherwise I would have sent it on to you
okay.
tree preservation order, and you are going to vote against a tree preservation order, I suspected not No, that's agreed.
Moving on we have due to the decisions paper paper, 24 1 4 1 any comment or agreed agreed noted.
Closure investigations foul, noted noted.
Closed appeals noted and rewarded on with a tree preservation order, thank you and goodnight.
Thanks for that deficit.
I must apologise all round.
I
- Front sheet May 2024, opens in new tab
- 2023-4223 west, opens in new tab
- 2023-4546 west, opens in new tab
- 2024-0233 west, opens in new tab
- 2023-3434 east, opens in new tab
- 2023-4759 east, opens in new tab
- 24-140 Background paper, opens in new tab
- Late Items - May PAC 2024, opens in new tab
- 24-141 - Decisions, opens in new tab
- 24-142 Closure of Investigations, opens in new tab
- 24-143 Closed Appeals, opens in new tab
- 24-144 - TPO 480, opens in new tab
- 24-144 Appendix 1, opens in new tab
- 24-144 Appendix 2, opens in new tab