Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 18 July 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 18th July 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

apologies everyone, but we're going to have to start the it isn't functioning properly if anyone's watching from home, I'm apologise to them, but apologies to you, folks, would keep you waiting for a quarter of an hour will have to make sure we don't have this problem again won't we folks
looking at the here make sure this works in future.
what an evening first evening of the year I fancy is sitting out in the garden happening, a nice squat drinking were all in here. I do apologise to everyone, but that's the way life goes. So, having said that good evening and welcome to the July Planning applications Committee, my name is Tony Belton, I'm the Chair of the Planning applications Committee and a ward member for Battersea Park ward in Battersea. I'm going to ask the people in the top table to introduce themselves so that actually this bit isn't necessary and how it is being recorded. Isn't it so top table
hi Nick colder, Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
can I bring my name's Duncan was on the external legal advisor.
use.
race, right and the clock.
I will ask Members to introduce themselves.
when they address the Committee and officers, equally, I've got the minutes of the last meeting which I Councillor Humphreys are seen happy to for me to sign them as a correct record OK agreed, are there any apologies?
I think there probably is some Councils give India
Councillor Gavin.
a member of this Committee, but goodness knows how long, if you're listening rabbi, I hope you recover from whatever you've done to elbow, but if you miss a few of these, that won't worry me too much, I hope you recover personally.
right moving onto the agenda, sorry it before then, as anyone happy interest pecuniary or otherwise, to declare as regards tonight's Committee agenda, no interests, good go onto the agenda itself, and the first item is a planning application from the housing department of the Council for 12 new units of council accommodation in Roehampton.
I believe that caffeine Malawi is going to present, it is that right Carthy.
yes, thank you, Councillor, over to you when you're ready.
coming.
is that OK?
attitude going to share costs may be if I do that.
I can understand why that smoke.
no waiting Monday to register should be sharing.
hello, everyone, my name is Katherine Meloy, and I'm going to do an overview of item 1, which is in relation to Eastwood North estate in in Roehampton.
so it's just taking some time the application forms to sites within Orbán Square, which is situated on the side of Roehampton Lane.
so there's very handsome name, and we located within these would North estate in in my Hampton, as I said, the estate is formed predominantly x 3 storey buildings, with some 5 storey blocks, known as COMAH house, and also clip Stonehouse down to the south across Roehampton.
Lane there is fair acres, which is a Grade II listed residential block, and to the east of the estate is the Dover House state conservation area the site currently has an existing community building and also multi-use games area within within the estate.
so in terms of the proposed
application, it's forms two sites which are known as EN 1 and EN 7, which can be seen here, N 1, which is facing Roehampton Lane, is proposed as a five storey building, accommodating 9 units or for social rent, and 7, which is located within more within the estates and located near the existing local shops, is proposed at 3.00 storeys and would accommodate three units within within that block just a quick overview of EN 1. It's an existing garage sites and that currently is 5 5 garages.
the playground which you can see here.
is also part of the proposal and that will be increased in size and also refurbished, and then Cromwell House, which is here on the map, and that is the the 5 storey building to the existing.
so in terms of the tree removal required as part of the EN 1 site, redevelopment the main tree where our apiculture has have raised an objection is the category B B Lime tree, which can be seen here.
the other three trees are category, C, lie Cherry Trees, and they'd also need to be removed, and in terms of other removals, 3 category U trees also need to be removed as part of EN 1.
just in terms of the proposed layout, this is just a a brief.
plan does showing kind of how it sits within within the site, so you've got the main entrance here and the north western corner, and then there will be a ground-floor residential units here at the at the bottom, and that's an them for three units, that is the existing playground which will be increased in size and also upgraded as part of the development.
and, as I say, the building would accommodate 9 units 8 1 beds and one two beds.
in terms of heights, this shows the high at 5.00 storey, five storeys along Roehampton Lane the site is designated as a midwives zone so that identifies areas which are suitable for buildings up to five storeys in accordance with Policy LP for fairer occurs, which is opposite which is the Grade II listed building is 4 storeys and as you go along,
Roehampton Lane towards the hospital, you can see more evidence of more modern and taller buildings like the one below in the in the picture.
and this is just a C. G. I. Visual of how that will have come on Roehampton Lane with the additional tree planting which is also proposed, and you can see the materiality there, it'll be red-blue red-brick, which will Lincoln to the rest of the estate and also some kind of picking up on the the kind of art deco of the the fair acres opposite.
then just a brief overview of N 7, this has also garage site, it's got 6 garages and it's surrounded by kind of two-storey and three-storey buildings within this area, the Dover House Estate conservation area is here to the east.
and again, just the proposed layout, which shows on the ground floor that will accommodate another them for three residential units and
the development consist of three units, 2, one beds and 1 1 beds units and just in terms of heights, that's just a visual, showing the heights in context with the the neighbouring properties, and showing the the kind of picking up on the pitched roofs of the nearby properties and again that's just a visual to show that,
and just really briefly just some of the wider estate improvements which are coming forward as part of the proposal, this is the existing community building that would be refurbished as part of the proposal, the multi-use games area will be resurfaced in also.
repainted.
then in terms of the existing playground that will be upgraded and then we've got a new playground posed in in the middle of the estate, and then in terms of that's where in one is and then and 7,
Over over there
suggests in terms of its summary, we've got 12 units, 10 1 beds and to two beds, or for social rent, including 2 m for 3 wheelchair user dwellings. We've got various upgrades across the estate which have just gone through. The units will meet passive house standards. We've got. The proposal would result in the loss of nine trees through these are category U, but the the main
tree that would be lost as a category B Lime tree on the Roehampton Lane frontage
but in terms of you know, we have got additional planting proposed to mitigate some of that loss and also biodiverse roofs in ecological enhancements across the estate.
thank you, Mr Maliki, this is part of the Council's thousand homes Programme, small part it may be, but part of it, the officers' recommendation is to approve the application as it stands, and if that needs a mover, I'll move that any comments.
dock Councillor Humphreys, though I was being polite waiting for somebody else to have a go and nobody certainly do so, I'll overcoat.
Good evening, everybody, Councillor Guy Humphreys, Councillor for South Fields, in Putney and opposition speaker on this Committee, thank you, Ms below, we always welcome new homes and that's good to see how I'm just looking through the objections from residents on page 19 and,
low lots of things that the resident existing residents who live there obviously aren't especially thrilled about, I'm just wanted to ask a little bit about that, the justification for the five storey building I I don't think.
in several is is is is concerning, especially it fits in quite well with the existing topography that's around there, but N1 it does stand out distinctly on the end of that corner there, and it's gonna make a real difference to the view when you're coming up very Hampton Lane on the left there so I just think,
obviously we've gone to five storeys because it's in the zone where that's potentially acceptable, but one thing that I think that concerns me about going to fight if we go on to 5 storeys and we'd got.
a whole load of of bigger sized family units which we've got predominantly around there, and that's what we have a pressing need for let's be honest in the borough and in that area as well, particularly I just find it very disappointing that we've got so many 1 bed units in that it's actually 83% of the total that we're putting in 83%.
1 bed units and folks, where necessary. No, but LP 27, our policy recommends 40 to 45%, one beds and Councillor Belton referred 4,000 homes programme of homes and yes, you know, it's numbers, isn't it, so it's another. It's another 12 homes on 1,000 homes programme, great ticking that box, but are they the kind of homes that we have a pressing need for in the borough? That's what I'm concerned about, we've got
83% of one bedroom units that only 2 2 bays no 3 beds no for beds, I'm just wondering where that decision was made and where that balance seems to be appropriate to officers.
thank you, Councillor Humphreys, just taking on board the the design issues in how we got to 5 storeys and we've had quite a lot pre-app on on on this site and the estate generally.
lots of options came through across the estate, and that's why we're down to N 1 and 7 and we've lost all the ones in between, so as officers, we felt that this was something that we could support in terms of a development site. The site is in a midwives zone and in terms of we feel, I think in in the report we set out that it will be a a standalone building. It's it's not trying to replicate the buildings either side and you know it's taking on design cues from fairy because the art deco, the care you know the curved and we think actually in terms of the overall design it it will be a high quality design
my design colleagues have been parked pre up discussions up-to-date, and they have raised no concerns with that in terms of the the one bed units.
the footprint of the building itself and the actual development site. Isn't isn't overly large, so that often dictates the unit mix and and things like that. However, this is part of the thousand home project where we're seeing a range of unit sizes coming forward and the the main thing I'm on this estate is there will be downsizing if people are are looking to for smaller units and things like that, so there will be the opportunity to to him take on smaller 1 bed units. Also, we have consulted the Director of
housing Strategy, compliance and enabling, and they've raised no concern that these units would not be, you know, would not be taken up or anything like that.
thank you, Lord, it's interesting you refer to the Director of Housing is quite by chance in another item on the agenda, to not item 6, the Director of Housing is praising the fact that of the affordable units we've got there and we've got a big chunk of larger units and family Studies Unit, so it it's quite ironic that in our own development we haven't got any family sized units. I just think it's an unfortunate trend that we're missing a trick and we've got to look at where our actual need is. However, having said that, I I understand the justification. Although residents that live there, don't seem terribly thrilled about it.
I just wonder.
how come the building it does say in the report, doesn't it? There's a negative impact on the listed building opposite I mean I get the thing about trying to make it mirrors, but it's taller than it is for a start, it's going to overshadow, is it's it's not exactly sub received to the listed building opposite, and I just think it's really going to stand out dramatically on that corner, as opposed to the rest of an where you got, because the other five storey building that's on the site is further in to the middle of the site and not so visible from the outside. I just the visually intrusively it's going to look a bit weird sat there on the end, with respect Councillor Humphreys, I'm letting you have your say, visual boundary. I understand that, but 1 5 strip Roehampton Lane we most of us nowadays and I was down there myself not long ago and look at it won five storey building on the corner of one of the block. I'll pull the other one, please I mean this is not going to make a big difference to I've asked for the I actually have some trust that the Housing Department will have worked out its requirements for one larger bedroom units with some care, and as you, I'm sure no, the big problems we have are very small units and the very large units. Those are the big problems that the Housing Department as lack of both, so if there's one one bedrooms in some places and more than three or four in others, that's the way it is to try and even up the balance, but interesting point bat on if you wish anyone else got anything to say, Councillor apps,
thank you, I am Councillor apps, I'm Shaftesbury in Queen's Tanwood, and I wanted to welcome the fact I mean, it was just such music to see the words you know 102 100%, social rented homes in a borough where we need so many more social rented homes, it's a great thing to see. I also particularly wanted to welcome the new disabled units
also strongly needed within within Estates.
and I'm sure that some people locally might want to move into some of these new homes, and I know that there's a preference for local people where they have the need, so I hope that people will take that up.
so really it was to welcome this and to say that this is one of the projects that that are coming forward, where we'll see a good deal, more social rent, available within our borough to meet a very big need that we have.
and I'm glad to see that so many of the kind of aspects that are of local concern have been as far as possible, taken into account, and I hope that will continue and that engagement and dialogue with local residents will continue to make sure it can be a synthetically introduced as possible. Thank you. Any other comments, Councillor White Councillor, on what Councillor White Councillor as collapses Boswell, are Councillor Lawrence, we don't all have to speak on this one, but there we go go on urgent just throughout on Sue Watts, Councillor at say, there's that's also the quality of the housing as well that, along with the regeneration that will go on down the road and and other develops this long,
ignored area of Wandsworth is getting really good quality social housing, and I think that's to be really applauded.
so yeah, I mean this is, I think, a really really positive thing and.
I'm pleased that it's happening in in Roehampton Councillor is.
I have a comment and a question, as it is a relatively small scheme, can we hope that it will be built very quickly without any dramatic delays, kick you, sorry, Councillor, can you bring the might closer to?
I think you Brenda care are Fine as from East Putney, a councillor for, shall I start again, yes, yes, please.
as this is a relatively small scheme, can we hope that it will be completed fairly quickly, without the awful delays we've had on larger schemes, that's my said, do we have a date for?
start on site and completion. As an estimate, however, vague, would help. That's one thing I wanted to say by commented that the one bedroom flats will help with the cascading of under occupied large flats where they're trying to to downsize, so I don't have a problem with a lot of one bedroom flats here in there, so let's have a start date if you have one, I think, Mr Richardson, who is in charge of developments in the housing department
I think I think if you send an e-mail to Mr Richardson and asking for a start date, I don't think anyone here with due respect said I think this Malawi could get a give a start date, but I happened to be talking to Mr Richardson and he he wants to start as many of.
or buildings as he can, in whatever timescale they can manage, I don't think we, it'd be wrong to meet estimate what I, but they can, but he'll get a response from him if he tried honestly.
Councillor buzzer
Councillor Sheila Boswell chasing backward, yes, just to add to what everybody else has said that this is to be welcomed and I am particularly pleased about the playspace and it's going to be refurbished, and on the the it will be bigger for for the children on that because there's not a lot of local areas for them to go to play.
my question is about storage, it's on page 17, so it's it's very specific, I see that we have the storage sheds were adding 12 units, but we're not going to have there's no new space, so there won't be any more storage spaces and storage is always at a premium.
for people in London, and especially in one bed units, what was the thinking there is there a reason why?
I think in terms of the the actual layout of the flats, they've got in-built storage, so in terms of the minimum technical standards, you have to have a certain amount of storage built in the unit, so there actually built in the new units, and then it will be storage for existing residents across the state.
I thank you very much and just one other.
on storage, I noticed that there's nowhere for bulky waste collections also said on in the report that normally would expect, in a site of this size, that there will be some way, because that attracts fly tipping, which is so unpleasant for everybody, yeah, in terms of bulky waste provision so we put on a condition for further details of of that and so just in terms of that condition.
that's condition 31, thank you very much, Councillor Orange.
Councillor rounds Northcott Ward, I just a question about the removal of trees or just to draw attention to it, because it is obviously enable have said on page 22, that's obviously they're not not happy, particularly the middle of of teacher and the lion trained just drawing attention to that because enable themselves have said,
not not happy on that front, thank you.
I am sure we all regret the loss of the trees tablets that's sad, but with that and our reservations, people might have nonetheless a welcome development is that agreed greed, thank you, Councillor, is everyone else comfortably off in terms of temperature?
because obviously this this things more noisy than its helpful. As far as I'm concerned, I wanted to switch it off, but if people think it's a too hot I'll leave it on, but can I ask people to get really close to the mix if he watched people on TV during their songs singing we've got Mike strap around the right in front of the mouth and make sure they can be heard because I'm having a little bit of difficulty with it now move on to application number 2, which is.
Atlantic house in Putney.
and I think that's quite an improvement on previous situation when this committee refused it, and it's come back again.
with any do you want to comment, Mr Richards, on the the changes, thank you, Councillor, my name is Alan Richards, I'm the Team Leader for the West Area.
yet members will be familiar with this site, this was overturned in December.
for a very similar scheme, the main reason for refusal was that the two of the flats located in the apartment block, the 1 bed flats, didn't have any amenity space, the applicants have gone away, they've now introduced.
in certain balconies into the roof area again, we're not meeting the 10 square metres that the policy seeks, but, as with all applications and situations, we have to consider the balance between design and what how it would look as well, these are small mews properties essentially,
10 square metre balconies might be an overkill.
so, where satisfied in terms of officers any way that they have now overcome the grounds for refusal, so we've recommended approval.
OK, Councillor errors.
I think there's a fitting very well.
the sites either side of this side have housing on the backhand side, and this looks as though it will be at least a match for them, if not better.
there's, I think there's a lot of care being taken with this design, but I regret the basement bedrooms as always, but then I suppose there's not much else you can do, but I'm I'm in favour of this I think it's a and Bain
solution, I'm sorry, there's no council rent in it.
Councillor Coakley,
thank you, Chair, Councillor cookery for Councillor for St Mary's ward.
I just also want to echo what Councillor set-up and this is much improved from the previous application, and so I'm intended to support I just wanted to know for information because it was mentioned in the report, it's states that there's an increase in biodiversity net gain and I just wanted to know what that increase was because it wasn't mentioned and what the urban green factor is as well if that's also included,
can you help us their resurgence?
rapidly looking at things eventually caught me out, there is no reference to the urban greening factor on this, I'm not sure it Tiggers the need to actually meet that standard, so that's why it's less than 10 units.
and how about the biodiversity, Nikki again, it wouldn't have triggered it because the application actually came in before that became a requirement, okay it, because it said in the report that there is a biodiversity gain, so it must have been calculated at some point.
it would have been looked at by our ecology officers in terms of what the gains might be, the the site currently is a car park, there's not an awful lot there, so in terms of biodiversity net gain, you generally look for 10% increase on what's there.
in these kinds of sites, any amount that you'd add, would it be an increase, because it's currently not got anything on the site and the urban greening factors say doesn't trigger it in this case, but there have been improvements generally because they are introducing.
some greening and landscaping are as part of the overall scheme
thank you happy with that Councillor Gregory right.
just about to say, recommendation is to approve but Councillor Rock Humphreys to come in.
thank you, Chair are still think enormously that the storefront impact too much in, but bearing in mind the approved scheme and the refusal that we've had, it's difficult to say anything much about that I mean on those they are making that moves. House 2 metres wide us that they are doing their best to pack as much in as they possibly can. But as I say that, in the light of the context of the refusal that we've had and how they tried to address the issues for that it would be difficult to make a taste. Is there anything else and say It's OK? I do have concerns, though, about the access for deliveries, because it's a vehicle free development, as it were, and also no vehicular access to the site, and it says in the report that the only means of delivering to it is on the Red route outside on the main road, as there are a couple of car parking spaces bays marked out on a red route for deliveries, but that I understand and correct me if I'm wrong, it's not only just to serve this development, but will also have to serve the majestic store because they are losing their access to the warehouse at the back, so I'm really wants to know from officers, do they feel assured that that is going to be adequate on such a busy main road for actually so if you've got a lorryload of wine? Turning up for Majestic's at the same time as three people having their Ocado deliveries. It's going to be a bit of a struggle, it on a main road, isn't it
and there is a large loading bay directly in front of the site, in any event, it's it's just beyond the bus stop and that is considered to be unacceptable, point of set down and pick up associated with this scheme, as well as the majestic
really are, and it's been assessed, it's been looked at by our transport officers and is also a tearful route, so it's been assessed as being an acceptable in this case, they're welcoming the fact that it's car-free.
I'm sure they are the reality and you have all these things that are idealistic games, but the practicalities of life sometimes mean that if you're living there and the way we have increased the number of delivery vehicles driving all around the place, which is a good thing perhaps to stop us using our own cars to have delivery for stropping and stuff like that but with this number of units and as I say, what have we thought it through so what happens if a majestic lorries there which will fill out that BAE and its own authority?
and and somebody turns up in the delivery.
on a practical level, have we really thought this for I get, I guess, if we had loading bays for all circumstances and all deliveries, all at the same time, the world would be a massive loading by, but I'd take your point, Mr Ted league, when they come out.
yes, thank you, thank you, Chair David TD, the Head of Transport Strategy, I think Mr Mitchell said new Transport for London, with the Highway Authority have been consulted, name that they are satisfied with what's being proposed here and, as Councillor Belton has also said,
lots of things can turn up all at once and they have to make make do, and it's not unusual to have vague roots in double red lines outside properties and for people to have to work out how they adequately manage that, I suppose the only other thing to say is, as you picked up yourself that the principle of the development here has already been agreed and Highways and traffic hasn't been raised as an issue in any of the previous applications.
I I take the point, I just I just wish, sometimes there'd be more common sense than just following the policies and guidelines, but that's just me having a murder and nothing to do with their candidate, who control everyone planning, unfortunately.
there was lots of places in the stats, don't have any of these problems, but a city the size of London would then take this whole of southern England to William, with parking spaces and so on. As you know, so take the point right. The recommendation is to approve it agreed greed. Thank you move on to items 3 and 4 I found fascinating interesting. I can unusually asked Mr Moss to introduce Item 3 and 4. I think, Chairman, thank you very much indeed. Answer is the Granger for sharing the fun is the most exciting applications on this evening's agenda. I don't think Members are going to be able to get their teeth into any planning issues here. These are largely technical in nature. I don't propose who had a great deal in relation to what set out in the papers, which are very clear
I suspect that these applications have arisen either, because the applicant Nottingham genesis is going through a refinancing exercise or perhaps even proposing to sell these two properties just one Bedford Hill in the next item, very similar in terms of the applications there are no changes of use proposed to either of these premises and there are no physical changes that are proposed to either of these premises. This is a requirement to remove two conditions on each of the operative planning permissions one dating back to 76 and the other one I think to 86, which basically restrict the operation of those two premises to the council, but the obviously is being undertaken by
a registered provider, they will still be provided by a not for profit registered provider and, in addition to the removal of the conditions, the applicants have offered a unilateral undertaking which helps to secure that that will be the case moving forward. Another part of the application is a request for the unilateral undertaking to contain what's known as a mortgagee exemption clause. Now we've looked at many of those types of deed of variation applications that we've had before us. Essentially, what they do is to give a lender to a registered provider sufficient comfort, that, if the registered provider ever defaulted on its loans, which I've looked at and it's never happened so far, but it would give the opportunity for the lender to be able to sell the units
but they would have to go through a process. First, I'd have to be offered to the Council. Firstly, offer would have to be open to three months, it enables the registered provider to raise finance against a property at a higher value, so it's not subject to a tendency, so that's that takes up a fair proportion of both of those papers. I'm seeing members eyes glazing over. I'm boring myself with this, but if there are any questions, Mr Grange will be very glad to answer them
that's all I have to say thank you.
to me, one question that was mentioned to me was.
this is a planning committee why does have to come to the Planning Committee, why can't it just be dispensed with in some sense the reason is chairman under the Constitution, any applications which require a planning obligation have to come before the Committee unless it can be done through an SRO 83 process.
members may wish to consider the scheme of Delegation to see if that can be extended, and there are lots of applications that do arrive and seeing on your agendas that perhaps could be dealt with by officers subject to oversee call-in, if having any members have concerns about what's being proposed.
must say, from my point of view, I think are not quite sure about this, but I think I've been on the majority of planning applications committees for 50 years and I don't think I've ever seen has come up, so I doubt whether there's any point in making a special case of them having had that Councillor apps as a question.
yeah, I read the housing officers so condition that it should make sure that these could be maintained if needed, so, in other words, that that use wouldn't necessarily change without agreement from the Council, and I was reassured by you saying that they would have to be offered back to the Council on the basis of the loan would they would there be any kind of restriction on how much they could be offered further would we necessarily get a fair price?
the survey would the generally with these clauses there is a requirement for the lender, so the lender to the registered provider to be able to recover the entirety of the value of their loan against a property in any costs attached to it so that would be the minimum price of the registered providers lender would look for it but as I say, I don't know of any registered provider that has defaulted on loans that I've ever required one of these clauses to be enacted but,
the lenders do require them in order to be able to lowering the full amount against the value of the properties
Councillor Humphreys.
thank you, Chairman, thank you wish them all for that, something which has understood most all thing.
I'll tell me if this is completely within the remit of of of planning or either, but I just had a sort of general question in in layman's terms, if you could just saw, how do we have reassurance that the safeguarding interests of both the Council and any potential residents of these places will be,
upheld by the third provided by the registered provider, because presumably there's a Redstone, whatever because it it sounds like it is obviously.
a scheme of sort of check that any only people are on a particular list of what they will be able to do that kind of theme, but does want to make sure this is not carte blanche for anybody to walk up and said it could take this over and run into the home and maybe not to the standard that the Council might do itself or something of that that's just slight concern for me.
the question Councillor, thank you, I've had a look at the one of the unilateral undertakings one actually submitted for the second application item for a new agenda, but I suspect is in identical terms as the one for this application and there is a definition of registered provider that reference to the statutory powers under which these organisations are authorised and regulated so it won't be aim and another author,
sorry organisation, whose who doesn't have the skills and doesn't have the authority to undertake that type of use won't be entitled to by the by the property and use it without coming back to the Council for, firstly to remove the unilateral undertaking, but also they are probably a change of use application that would accompany that.
thank you that that's really helpful, and one really parochial small matter, which is which is a planning matter. I noticed there was, there was one objection from somebody called miss league, Axton and in in our objection on the website, it says she asked a query about it, but nobody got back to her necessarily slightly askance at that for now, officers that were very good about coming back to somebody, but it says in our objection that she asked the question, but nobody is referred back to her and I I just wanted to check if that was correct because it doesn't sound like our normal best practice.
can't answer that tonight and I am sorry that Mr Grange in police Mr Grainger's, I can I can't tell you whether somebody's returned to call or not that we have so much correspondence, so we do actually say that we don't enter into one written correspondence with.
and representations on planning applications, but I could see it, perhaps it would have been permanency,
not sure I pick that up, but essentially account, and Mr Grainger will reassure thousands Humphreys tomorrow on online, if necessary on.
I could not picking it up very well, but you know he is satisfied anyway, he is satisfied registered providers, I'm in the largest group of housing associations on it, but the others as well, OK now, subject to that explanation, meditate this properly from a minute takers point of view so application number 3 1 1 7 Bedford hero recommendation approve sort agreed.
application number 4 1 Lightwood Road similar agreed right, thank you move on to application number 5, which is 44 Falcon Road.
which essentially is.
a movement of Tesco's branch and Falcon Road from one side of the road to the other, but I'm sure it's more complicated than that, Mr Grainger, do you want to add anything?
you've summarised the proposal accurately, sorry, Nigel Granger, East Area Team managers, to change the views from a gymnasium to a retail store and effectively the objective is to replace an existing Tesco with the same brand on the opposite side of the road.
there are a couple of questions I know.
Councillor Coakley,
thank you, Chair, I noticed in the objections one of them was from what seems to be the leaseholder of the property, saying that the applicant has no legal right to occupy the premises, we had a 15 year lease on the property and the legal right to occupy it, we don't require a change of use and will be continuing to use the property for Jim for which we already have planning permission so.
I know this isn't strictly a planning ground, but it is concerning that.
especially considering that the the task already occupies a property across the done on the other side of the street that we're going to be bouncing our
Jim
and replacing it with a Tesco when there's not a lot of.
there's not a lot of gyms in that area, the news one would be on Latchmere Road, which could be a substantial check for some people.
so yeah, I just I just wanted to raise an and ask if officers have any more sort of context on this because which seems a little bit messy, and I'm concerned about the future of the gym.
thank you, Chair D, I think you, as he began your your rhythm, your sentence, he said it's not a planning matter which is is totally correct, it's essentially it'll be a landlord and tenant matter to be explored in terms of the locality of the lease and the secession of that that lesson will what clauses that they have, but I think,
it may be a cycle or two cycles ago, Councillor Belton mentioned that, provided that the application was valid and the correct certification was signed, he could make an application for a building in in my back garden and the same principle applies here irrespective of the legal position, this is a valid application with the correct certification and the the application has to be determined against Policy objectives which we've done and recommended for a few for approval.
and while I'd
advert question presuming it were to go ahead, what would be the loading arrangements for, I'm not just goes after the pretty large transport of goods.
I can set the scene, there is loading opportunities, the at the front on unfocused Road, and there's also opportunities at the were on Copa K-pop close, but it's quite complex and I think the only person that has a grip on the timings and the temporary bus lanes would be our valued colleague Mr tiddly on Mr tiddly.
wanted to come home I mean
the loading problem is less than across the road, because at least you can pop battleground both sides of this particular block, well, the objective is that the main the large fixed, rigid vehicles would blade of Falcon Road and then the smallest seven and a half tonne vehicles which would be restricted to a day would would load.
from Copa close, but you will have seen in the amenity section that is quite an enclosed.
slightly Canyon diarrhoea not much it's lots of masonry and hard surfaces, and the idea of unloading caged goods and wheeling them to the facility was was unacceptable on medical tourism, to garage users who have an objection to, so we we've sought to control their and the number and the timings in order to,
to protect the residential amenity of of those rare residential occupiers, Mr Sydney, yes, thank you Chair, and just to clarify I mean there's there's a bus lane, the yellow line, loading restrictions, a whole host of regulations on Falcon Road which are quite difficult to comprehend but ensures you can load before 7 am between 10 am and 4 pm and after 7 pm.
what's probably quite helpful lies at the store thinks that they need between three and five delivery, so it's not as if it's going to be have a whole load of deliveries, and Mr Grainger, as is common with us, as ensured there's a delivery and servicing condition as well, so there is a need to put a plan that will show how that will be adequately managed.
and also probably say may well be an improvement on the loading activity that takes place on the other side of the road, which is closer to the junctions.
OK.
Councillor just.
yeah Mark, Justin Councillor, for Nine Elms, I just think this application would be looked at in a completely different light if the officers had told us something that I know that before it was a Jane it was a Sainsbury's, so it's gone from a Sainsbury's to Jimmy to a Tesco's. What we discussing it, if it was a good enough, as an annex has never been sounds, know, what was it before the gym that it was? It wasn't? There was a relatively new building
I'm pretty certain, it was my Ward for years, so relatively new building in this moment it was built, it's a flats above and a gym at the bottom, more empty property for ages. I don't think there was ever a Sainsbury's, but that was it was a QI believer, unauthorised car wash in its life and all sorts of things there was. It was a sort of an empty space, but they reached the site was redeveloped, seem as if granted a scheme in 2014, so it's not that old
OK.
Councillor Humphreys.
sorry, Chair just a quickie, although Mr Glennon has told us that it's not our business, if it's Jim or supermarket or wherever it is, but I just thought it was both of Mark.
sorry, folks, yeah, I, I know we've been told it's not a planning matter that whether it's a dispute between the gym owners in the and supermarket potential new occupiers, but it is a planning matter that it's a change of use, and I just thought it was interesting that we haven't got a comment from the video of a man and you, Director of space on whether they think that's because as Councillor quality quite rightly says, the provision for gyms isn't very good down there and we've got quite a lot of supermarket. I just wanted to add if that had been had. We asked them for comments on this one, because changes using these at local areas are quite significant to the people. It just sounds like always just another supermarket, but actually and from what we've heard, any objections was quite a lot of people are unhappy that that you might be going. I'm just wondering why there wasn't a comment from the media and with the appropriateness of that change.
and the reason why we wouldn't ask, we haven't asked the idiot for four or comments on this because they would have to be governed.
on the suitability of the change of use to in strict planning policy terms from the NPV downwards through the London Plan to our plan, which it has a town centre first approach so irrespective of what they they protect, you know a wish list of all potential uses you have to go through this process of of prioritising the town centre first and if it's not as the paper talks about in terms of the sequentially testing which sounds quite grand and a bit scientific but it discounts other sites to when it's out of centre such as this site discounts other opportunities incenses to make sure that the vitality and viability of the existing town centres remains, or would would remain vital and viable so that the rules would have put, they would have to make that same assessments not being planning officers but we would have to tell them that they would have to make that same assessment as we do and arrive at the same conclusions.
I understand that and thank you that's helpful, but I just think it's odd, isn't it that we thought it was suitable to be a gym before and I was saying Well it's suitable to be a supermarket as well so it obviously within policy terms it could it could fit it either, but it's just I just sort of vision that there wasn't any comment on that thing which makes a difference to the High Street.
interesting.
but, given that the application sounds as though it might not get very far for other reasons, but nonetheless we have to process it is the recommendations approved isaf agreed.
carried thank you agreed unanimously, I think, moving on to I 6 application, which is going Road.
and I think we have a presentation from
Mr Granger.
you will need just bear with me, please.
so for the sake of recording.
whilst you're getting that going.
we're missing our nice warm evenings sitting out in the garden.
this agree yes.
you there.
me, yes, OK, when Road.
excuse me.
OK, so this is an item 6 page 113 and it's 80 to 100 Quinn Road.
the proposal is for the demolition of the existing building to provide a part 20 p 8 8 storey building, comprising 88 residential units in class E G I light industrial use over the ground and first floors with landscaping disabled car parking and servicing on servicing bay on Gwyn, Road and other associated works.
so the slide shows you the site plan, the red light and line plan of the of the application site directly to the north sandwiched between the railway viaducts and the red line site is an existing storage facilities, safe store, and this is part of the allocation which I'll I'll come on to.
later directly to the north of the site is Fred Wells gardens, and to the south is a Travis Perkins builders, merchants and to the left or the west of sites lumbar dwarf an oyster was
so this is an aerial giving this a bit more context.
I don't know if my casus going to, so the application site is where my cursor is, it's that rectangular area there with the safest or wrapping around the application site?
this is more of contextual 3 D image, showing the 28 storey tower of Lombard, was to the left of the slide, while the 14 storey 26 28 Gwyn Road.
site is located to the right hand side with you can see the builders, merchants and the other developments surrounding the site, while a bit of close rivers zoom in this is more of a realistic Angel of what what we see, albeit elevated, and this is the rectangular parcel of land that the application site is dealing with with the safe store located around the remainder of the site.
this is the site's allocation, so this is what the 2023 ones with local plan has debt has specifically looked at in terms of what development could come forward within this parcel of land and you can see that the red line of the site allocation it's called are I vi 8 within the Policy documents the where the area type entitled warehouse with a rectangle is the application site whilst safe store wraps around but you'll notice obviously from this site allocation that both of these part both of these sites ownership so within one allocation.
this is a a shot from the urban design study, this is a piece of work that it was part of the evidence base for the 2023 Local Plan and analyzed the areas or are all across the Borough PAN months' worth and assess the opportunity for various heights Tall-building zones, mid-rise buildings zones and this particular area within this coded area TB one I think that's a 3 0 3.
is the the area of the subject study that we're dealing with now this has translated in real terms into the plan adoption into this, which shows you the allocation of the site in terms of a tall buildings zone, saving you will see that the warehouse, the rectangular warehouse here is entirely within the Tall Buildings zone which can has been found to be able to tolerate between seven to 20 storey.
buildings, whilst the safe store site lies out of the the allocation or with the magic, a large slice of the art of the site lies outside of that allocation, and that isn't that's not even within a mid-rise buildings owned that's within a just a normal designation so that would go up to 4 storeys without being regarded as midwives.
in order to explore these the effectively the division of the of the Site allocation, which is talked about in policy pm one where there is the primary function of of the Site allocation system is an attempt or a focus to bring the
the the development opportunities forward in one entity. When that doesn't happen, then obviously there's a there's a and exercise that needs to be done in potentially envisaging what what could actually be taken up in the in the parcel of land and the applicant has gone through this in a in a master planning approach, of which this is. The beginning of, I don't expect you to be able to read the text above. But this is how the these site as being begun to be split up, resulting in in an exercise in looking at the existing arrangements of the buildings on site and then exploring where additional height could be tolerated or be positioned within the within the the limitations of the tall buildings zone
and this slide encapsulates that that piece of work with the blue.
the blue rectangles and shapes effectively. This sort of can call it a square, it's more of a rectangle, and then the the elongated rectangular there, showing you that that's the application site, whilst the safest or sites is in Pinkie Jason's and where it faces the railway? Viaduct, obviously it would have to respond to the Lower High allocation. So this is an example of of what's required through masterplanning of what could potentially come forward with the adjacent sites. Moving onto the proposal itself, this is the proposed ground floor. Where there are, there is a degree of the commercial space re-provided, but obviously there's the entrances to the private sale and intermediate
which is from Lombard Road here and the affordable rent, which is from the lobbies around this area, and then there's bike storage and obviously refuse stores because they have to be able to be wheeled out at grade.
this is the the commercial space above.
and we moved to this is ground, well that's this is the second floor plans showing the first of of to amenity space, amenity spaces, and this is the amenity space above the seventh floor, so 8th floor.
the proposal would accommodate 88 units, in total, 22 of which would be affordable housing units, providing 35.4% affordable housing and out of that split 74% would be social rent while 26 would be intermediate tenure and that's calculated by habitable room.
again, this is the commercial floor area just to highlight in pink, but as part of the policy requirements, there is an exercise to be done in trying to visualise how the commercial space could come forward, not as one entity but split up to accommodate small and medium enterprise businesses who want larger or smaller spaces as such said this is this demonstrates how the space could actually be adapted to accommodate end users.
and finally, a render looking north from from Lombard Road as as they Travis Perkins wasn't there, and this shows the the ground floor and the quality of the design with facing brickwork and and cast concrete ground-floor colour colonnade with. Obviously there is no difference between the private sale and intermediate block in terms of design and quality and that of the social rents block, in both materiality and in in design, and a longer view again with Travis Perkins in the in the foreground of the proposal and conclude the proposals considered compliant and officers. View and accords with local and London Plan objectives and is recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 1 0 6 Planning obligation and GLA stage 2 referral
while the application is compliant with Policy.
and has the officers recommendation for approval do I have any comments Councillor Kolker, Councillor Humphreys?
thank you, Chair, as this is in my ward, I been following it for a while.
I want to say, and I think this is the opinion of officers, it's a shame that the two sites can be developed together to get something that's a lot more coherent and hopefully and still in the hope that, regardless of this application, hopefully they can put something forward together but as a standalone application I think this is this is a good application I like the architecture and the way it looks.
and and of course, the social housing increases welcome, as well as the good environmental benefits Service found that they've Gwyn, vowed has not much.
biodiversity or trees on the road, so I think that really help with the streetscape I wanted. I just wanted to note that there was around 48 neighbour of objections, so I wanted to ask officers if they could sort of some Updike in more areas where the objections from residents most prevalent and
and sort of what the response was to them
well, I think obviously we've summarised all of those areas, but I wouldn't be able to each concern is given the same amount of of gravity and planning merits as any other say to say that 40 of them were all about daily and you know that's obviously concerning to a number of people and only one person raised biodiversity we still take it equally as seriously, so I think in that way I think it's best to be equitable about the level of objections and deal with them all all all in that regard.
I appreciate that under the type of Hajek objection, I was also wondering, if so was at a particular was a particular block nearby that and there are more concentrated in.
then there's a relatively new 28 storyteller to the west and I think a lot of occupiers objected to the potential impacts of the proposal within Lombard Wharfe.
every every thing that has been most impacted.
in a normal British, until the World reverses itself, everything to the north and east is Fred worlds, gardens and the railway lines, as far as I can say, it's a bit difficult to see what whose daylight it has a big impact on, frankly,
is that not right well, that's more sunlight, cancer, Belton so daylight, diffuse daylight works in very different ways and this is when we start still nothing there.
other than Fred worlds, gardens that route would be surprised, I mean, we've gone into without pre-empting any questions here, but that there were failings in terms of of daylight strict daylight, which is different to sunlight from Lombard, was with the presence of the tower because each of the units that face the tower have balconies now the be all read. The Building Research establishment guidance allows, as part of an exercise to recalculate daylight loss, by removing, notionally removing the balcony and then recalculating, and then all of those all of those windows serving habitable rooms all past, and that's something that you will see it through our planning assessments where there are balconies,
yes, you were telling me earlier.
the difference between 98% and 97%, so I do accept there is a difference, but OK, Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair yes, Councillor Coffey said a lot to a lots of welcome on this application. I on the design factor. Obviously, if you like the the sort, that's gone into the arches at the bottom to echo the bridge and things like that is we unfortunately OK to get things plonked in front of us that there's just something of a template has been put down and I think there's some careful thought gone into how this is going to sit in the context of that's. That's that's very good to see
and again as Councillor because they'd unfortunate that arrangement couldn't be made with adjoining site, but hey-ho, that's that's what happens sometimes I'm pleased to see this coming forward at last, after a long gestation of time couple of queries on specific things I am concerned about the the light industrial space and, as Mr Granger were saying, it's being left pretty sort of open at this stage sort of shell and core so that, depending on the occupiers,
it could change in its necessities. I just wanted to make sure and have some reassurance, perhaps from him, that there is nothing that we might agree tonight that would prejudice the future of that light industrial space and we wouldn't want it to come back later and sale when we couldn't find a tenants and we're going to be asked to convert it into Rosie. I think we've got colleagues will probably be aware we've got a lack of light industrial space in the borough, so I'm very it was concerned when we have a site like this coming forward, that we have a reprovision, and that is here in theory, but I just I just want to make sure how robust that is that it's going to have a viability as light industrial space in the foreseeable future. Obviously, without a crystal balls know, the tenants might be
certainly it's totally valid points, but you will have seen within the assessment and and how we've pointedly referred to the the use of the ground and first floor as that light industrial within that Use class and then captured the use within conditions so that all of this is good to ensuring that that that comes forward for the intended use as light industrial so.
just moving forward,
for whatever reason, and we've we've all seen this, but there would be further applications and further assessment and further opportunities to really drill down on reasons why something wasn't going to end up like that, but the policy position now within the 2023 plan is so robust in terms of marketing evidence and everything that you need to change the use that it's quite a high bar, so the retention is is is looking very, very the the commencement and retention is looking very good. That's reassuring. Thank you, Mr Granger. It's a bit of a theme of the night, but my other concern. As far as the viability of the light industrial is the deliveries and access, and again, it's all street-based servicing, hear nothing on-site at all and again to rethink that is going to be adequate for the amount of businesses that might be in that quite significant amount of space. Mr tiddly being asked again, I think
thank you Chair.
it's never ideal when developments.
effectively proposed service in from the street or and in this case as well, the disabled parking is on the street, ideally you would be like those activities to take place of the road.
for all sorts of reasons that said, it then becomes a matter of the planning balance in the overall waiting that Members want to give too concerns we've having assessed it were confident that the scheme can work, we may as a as a highway authority ourselves need to amend parking restrictions and loading restrictions in the timings of yellow lines outside the site and that's something that can happen over time babies,
babies a proposal here that we think is deliverable and workable, but that doesn't preclude the Council from having to do what are generally has to do to make traffic and parking and service in work life, resisted the experience that Mr children showing through their in the sense of again that future-proofing so we've got that flexibility to try and make it work as best it can when it needs to. I'd rather question if that's OK that's welcome.
again, it's reassurance really, because it's addressed in the report that the again the
pretences, though for the site next door if it does come forward safe door, so we're not going to prejudice any development, potentially on that next door site is really close, it's a metre away in some points, it's very close indeed, so I just want to be absolutely assured again that nationally we're going to decide tonight and prejudice that site being able to come forward to fulfil its potential.
certainly that's. That's why I went through so many stars to try and show you what the designations are, so the way, the what's different between all of the proposals that we've seen before and now is that the 23 low 2023 Local Plan has effectively. You know, it's laid out what the Bill envelope next next door could potentially be, so they've got to work within those parameters, as the applicant for this has has has been strict with themselves and not tried to exceed the height parameters within the within the the plan within all before, so we we, we don't the exercise that the applicant has done in master planning. It may not. Obviously there were blocks, but we will work with the applicant to ensure that that they can maximise the potential of their site within the allocation, and we think that can be done if this is approved. Thank you
thank you. That's helpful, I I was pretty because of the fact those those windows on the elevation facing the site, which again but are secondary windows, if something did come forward because they have another option, so that's that's good to see and thanks to officers for working that through with the applicant to make sure we come something that is workable just before he got two more. That raises a question mark that had occurred to me anyway, years and years and years ago there was a power, I'm not suggesting we pursue this, I'm just ask, is a matter of interest. There was a power to compulsorily purchase for planning reasons
I can remember actually considering that a few times a long time ago have never heard of it for 10 20 years, is that there are still a power to, because we're doing about the second site being so close, if we really felt so strongly that it was impossible, is still about a Compulsory Purchase for planning reasons. Yes, there is chairman, that would be a stepped wall, it's quite a, it's quite a process, it would be need to be followed, but yeah, the council has CPO powers, could look to look to exercise in, but, as I say, that would require quite a lot of investigation, a number of different resolutions, but I think there is a power, I'm sure, for fairly obvious reasons. The council hasn't done that for previous 44, but actually the case 46 years, so we have to be learning from scratch, then forget I mentioned it, but I just don't matter of interest as an elephant garlic, the power go to your head
councillor Councillor at White and then Councillor apps.
I think Councillor lapses first.
OK Councillor up,
I was going to say to the Chair that I think one of the places that he would prefer to be tonight, like myself as at the Battersea society and your reception, and I was interested to see and sorry we can't be there but interested to be able to so represent some of their comments in that they've made about this development and it very much is goes along the same lines as Councillor Humphreys around the difficulties of that road.
and the difficulties of space and the lack of a stand for either loading, unloading deliveries, you name it, I think it is of concern and I think that we need to look again at the the road sooner rather than later, because it's already quite difficult to cycle down never mind Dr there's a lot of conflict.
so I would ask that may be that something the transport, if we go ahead and and approve this scheme, that's maybe something the transport team could look at relatively soon, thank you.
draw Mr until we will have noted that.
were you we hear you how you stored gone, Councillor White?
talking to my Stoke.
I just very much in favour of this, there's a couple of things that are really catch the eye of the Environmental.
solution, I think is it is excellent and also that it meets our affordable housing emerging policy around split of 70 to 30, so it goes above that, so that's excellent, it's just a pity that the affordable didn't hits are emerging plan for 50 50 but but Conniff everything and in general is a good scheme.
OK, subject to all those comments that agreed agreed, thank you, that concludes the planning applications, can I move on to the main agenda and fairly quickly is the decisions papers that noted for information.
and the closure of files by birds agreed and closed appears is that agreed.
and moving on to the tree preservation order and there is a piper actually paper 24 2 0 3 on page 201.
has anyone got any questions about plateau is that agreed agreed as agreed, and then finally the A E all T. C. Update, as a letter from me to planning officer at the GLA and just to put people in the picture, just asking people to note this in fact just for information but,
the EIA all TC went you will recall that, at the GLA of effectively called in the application to consider at the All, T C have made certain suggested improvements and, as a matter of courtesy, perhaps perhaps they have to.
the GLA told us about the improvements and I wrote back
advised, obviously, I think I think Councillor Humphreys have seen this already saying that whilst we welcome the small changes which were indeed an improvement on the previous application and made.
a little bit more territory, more open to the public.
it wasn't sufficient to overtake our main objections so we stand by our principal position, that was it so merely for noting really counts Humphries, thank you Chair very helpful, just a quick question or have we got any idea on timeline so far further Sheila I certainly haven't have we any idea and timelines we don't have any ideas at the moment the jihadi alter we're pushing for a July inquiry that's obviously not going to happen.
I suspect they wanted it straight after the the glow of Wimbledon fortnight, I would have thought that this is gonna be September at the earliest probably late September, because we need to advertise it and consult by I will as soon as I get a date I will let all pack members and the Lead members known as well where first estimate was presumably before they knew a general election was going to happen as well, I suspect that might have had an NBA.
OK, thank you and goodnight.