Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 23 July 2024, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 23rd July 2024 at 7:00pm
Speaking:
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
good evening.
everybody
welcome to this meeting of the conservation of the heritage Advisory Committee, my name's Michael jobs and I'm Chair of the Committee.
let me first of all call out your names, please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance and please remember to switch it off once.
you have done so her Councillor Owens, I think, is due to be here, but he's not here,
Mark Dodson I think we have apologies from France's Radcliffe.
thank you, I'm here, thank you, Andrew Catto, thank you, I'm here, Chris Rea is, I think, not here.
I book Potter.
maybe Lawson, yeah, good evening.
Pamela, Greenwood,
Peter Farrow.
there have been apologies from Councillor Belton, Laura pub Paul glaze, on whose behalf Andrew Catto is here and Roger Armstrong, are there any other apologies?
just Councillor Osborne check.
thank you.
next thing to say is following, officers are also here Lauren way.
Lauren way, principal conservation in urban design officer.
how, Barry sellers?
Parish said his present job and Henrietta Kirkpatrick Tice Henrietta to Patrick, to conservation officer.
and Councillor Owens has literally just walked into the room and I'm sure can confirm her presence.
Councillor Owens Northcote was thank you.
thank thank you all just remind you.
that microphones should be turned off, except when you're speaking, in order to reduce any background, noise or interference.
and I do recommend that people would turn off or put on silent their phones to avoid embarrassment.
right are there any declarations of interest?
either financial or otherwise.
no okay.
no, you've all received the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of May.
May I sign those as a correct record of the meeting?
yes, OK, thank you.
I think this would be a good point.
to raise and issue note on the on the agenda.
the Committee's terms of reference were agreed back at the end of 2022 when.
the former Wandsworth conservation areas Advisory Committee, with the awkward acronym w c ASC, generally pronounced work hack.
at its last meeting, and those were approved by Full Council, as I recall, at the beginning of 2023, those terms of reference of full fee, it's been drawn to my attention in at least one crucial regard in that they do not give any N date to the term of office of either the Chair or the Vice Chair Deputy Chair.
I prepare, I propose that this.
fault, if I can put it that way, in our terms of reference.
the
discussed fully at our next meeting.
on the 10th of of September.
and that we propose the proposal should be an amendment to the terms of reference to state that the appointment of the chair and deputy will be for a 12 month term.
or until the first meeting of the municipal year, whenever that might be.
and the the clock will be in or one of his colleagues will be.
contacting you at some point between now and September to seek nominations.
with an end date, I think of the 26th of August.
so I seek your agreement to that proposal
putting it bluntly, I should not be sitting here forever and a day
North no issue of my colleague Peter.
Ms Radcliffe.
Michael, it'll be ideal to discuss at second off on the 10th of September, but I do think actually one year is quite a short time.
and in any case it you know, it may be a one year period, but it should not preclude a second year could I just leave that with you.
Mr from yeah, I I, too, was surprised at the 12 month suggestion and I'd be curious to know from.
Committee Clark what periods other committees adopt for periods or or officers of the Committee I would have thought at least two to three years will be a not unreasonable period.
again and would possibly.
no precludes in as to whether or not you should stand again, but anyway I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr Catto, and then I'll seek a response from the clock right, Andrew Carter, I just wanted to to say, Michael on that, one, too, things are in my experience on being Chair of other things.
two years as the absolute minimum to get your teeth into anything and is probably the more sensible figure, but we also might consider taking sorry serial funding, Mr Potter, to to take the or a leaf out of the RBA's book and make sure that the new president Chair or whatever it is he's elected in good time to have some take overtime and over time with the previous one,
committee Clarke, please.
thank you, Chair, at the suggestion for 12 months was merely the that's ordinarily, how most council committees operate, it may be the that the Chair, they're elected for a 12 month period, but they tend to serve more than one term they just re-elected every year so that that was the suggestion.
but it is the the the Committee itself will decide upon its own terms of reference, so if you would prefer, the election would be for a period of two years, we can perhaps discuss that at at the next Committee, but in any case, unless you put it into our terms of reference, it would not preclude the the current Chair being re-elected next year and beyond.
thank you, thank you very much is that agreed?
and we can.
right.
let us move on to paper 24 2 0 5, which is the the list of applications for our consideration, and we start with one that I think everyone knows about 2024 1 3 double to the glass Mill.
one Battersea Bridge Road.
who is going to lead on this?
Mr Sellers, yes, I want to lead on this particular application.
just to give you a the context, relief for the the site misses the glass mill, building on Battersea Bridge Road at the junction with the actual listed bridge itself as the bridge, and is showing the brief glimpse of the River Thames as part of that setting of the the site.
listening building with the the the plan submitted with existing building, isn't a great shakes, but you just shout shows the outline their of that particular building has shown.
what I'm going to do is go through parts of the building itself and says proposals and then go into more details in terms of the the context and the Heritage Appraisal.
proposed Ground floor now, during the we've had quite had a long discussion about pre-application discussions, there were also to design review panels and the there were changes made between each Design Review Panel as well, and also subsequently to the design of new panels.
in this particular
area here, the the front part we shows the restaurant has been pushed back slightly to give more more generous space to the public realm on the outside of the building.
it does mean that the the is a very small restaurant, when in fact I'd probably goes far so it might be just a café as they're they're showing their, but that's good agent for a small number of covers to that to that restaurant in terms of that that side and as you go across the ground-floor there have been some changes from the previous plans went the design review panel because the the lobby area have changed slightly and also the access to the
commercial community areas, the eastern southern end, I have changed somewhat as well, so there are changes there which you might we understand from previous discussions.
moving up to the first floor plan now this is the affordable workspace now want extra say about that is the existing building is almost 5,000 square metres of floorspace and they're providing, I think, just over very about 500 square metres of floorspace so they're not reproviding what they should be providing as part of the policy so this this element is contrary to the existing policy in the Local Plan because they're not providing sufficient replacement floorspace.
just show you a quick section through the lower part of the building, which I think is quite useful.
given we have the
car parking to the ground floor and lower basement there, the cycle storage plant and then moving up through, saw the ground floors are shows you, then, that the first floor office space, and above that you've got divisions between the product flats and the affordable flats now overall there's 142 units in the building of which 45 are affordable at 35%, so it's a fast track method under the GLA is proposals so they can go through that process.
this is a typical floor plan which shows you the prayer at the front there division into two units, they're basically and units running on both sides of the building, with the Core in in in the centre there and the core due to the workspace at the end there.
I thought I'd also mentioned about the landscape.
the landscape, if you can look at the area Brown by the bridge itself and the the the the embankment area, the previous landscape was done under a section 2 7 8 agreement with the previous owners and
it is is not very good for people with disabilities, there are very difficult, very awkward and the work that was one of the benefits of moving back, that the power of the building at the front there to give more generosity to the public realm and also to allow some tables chairs to come outside for from the restaurant, but there's this this the the idea there's the there's walks based round it you can get two wheelchairs, side by side or in a rant as a gentle ran one in 20 right about that.
so that is compliant with inclusivity along that frontier.
belonging the actual front Batty Bridge Road, the CSWO lobby area and area which is which is as an overhang from the building which protects the space, but at the same time is there put some planting going in there and whether that's planting would survive at all in that location, I mean, the certain gear laid raised a question about that, and so with the we.
so that's a consideration that point of view, it is also quite a strong slope to the street itself, so there's a steps are in just outside the front of the main lobby, so if you do coming off your going Wiltshire either come up and then back double back on yourself to go into the the the lobby area so it's a little bit inconvenient there but it's just dealing with the levels along Bassey Bridge Road frontage.
this is a general, C. G. I. Of that landscaped area, showing the relationship between rival Thames and the proud of the the the ground floor and the first floor, and you'll see the the upper floors, the cantilevered with the two columns, over-sailing that so just to give you an indication and of of that.
area there and as I do our steps as well, to going up, so give people an alternative, but the main thing is it's inclusive access, accessibility for pupils, disabilities along that river frontage.
an overall view of the building now the budget has gone through virtuous iterations, both in terms of materiality in height just before the last year P they came in with 5 storeys higher than what's being shown at the moment India and they settled for 33 storeys or 34 I think if you you count them in the the top as well, so that is quite a considerable height for that location in terms of the local plan.
the the area is allocated local plan for buildings or mid-rise, which is up to 6 storeys, so it's certainly not policy compliant by any means, so 34 storeys compared with 6 is quite a change and to to the the the Local Plan status.
the building itself into two parts, really the the the shoulder area above the podium, with the the main tower rising above that, and a very slight recess in the middle of that to show the differentiation between the the, what each side and you'll see that emphasised when we look at some of the views of the building as well.
him on question at all my job on the top of the podium, by way, there is a a landscaped area for the playspace for the children in the development.
and it's below the acceptable yield, so so because of the the yield actually 4 4, that the the site as a certain amount, and it's below that so so so that they haven't provided sufficient amenity space for for children, of the families that are going to live there from that point of view.
I just in terms of materiality, and that we went gateway, it's been through several iterations, from beginning, the first one or two were of a very solid brick structure and we felt that was quite heavy in its appearance and they've come back with terracotta and,
and showing the moving of the terracotta, and with, along with steal Avenue and under reinforced concrete to the the, the appears the bottom, the the top of that podium area is a metal fence around the top there, because that's the the play area.
it's quite visible, I think, really, but there again it's gonna have a safety, you can't have children playing that sort of height without being safe behind that.
just another CJI I show invasive between the building it is base with the Battersea Bridge Road frontage.
and you just see the, as you look to the left, at the relationship between that and that there have a brief frontage and the bridge itself.
now, moving on to the heritage analysis, what they applicants provided is Zona theoretical visibility across the back two and a half kilometres of that part of London, and the the dark blue shows where the building is visible from and you'll see Battery Park is colored blue so most parts of Batley park visible.
and also parts of the Royal Hospital site and Brompton cemetery, as well as other a certain number of streets within the north of north of the bar which, in Kensington, Chelsea now.
that that plan also does show the outline of conservation areas as well across the north of the borough, and also into Councillor in Chelsea and
also fires north as Hyde Park as well.
now it's gonna go through several views and this is important one I haven't haven't shown before and after it was discussed with too many sides, but what I've done is to show me the the the the showing the building itself, which will see bang in the centre of their so you got the Grade. 1 listed raw hospital buildings and the Grade II historic Park and Garden and you'll see the building popping up in this or transverse view on on on an incentive centre of the the the side, so less substantial harm has been identified, an apt location, similarly with the setting of the Royal Hospital elsewhere from Royal Hospital Road. I knew this was done by wireline, you'll see the blue. Why line of the building showing that location
again and are looking at the north part of the embankment, looking for costs to Abbott brief through our 3 above throughout, but bridge the spidery network of the cable-stayed bridge which is Grade II star and you can see the proposal there in its form and again less than substantial harm has been identified to to setting of the Albert Bridge Beaufort Street. This is go looking for north towards the building, a junction of Kings Road, and it's quite a distinctive landmark building in that location and again,
you can you, can you might want to comment that greater, but it certainly striking from that particular point.
St Mary's Church in Chelsea again, it's the relationship, it's wildlife and their against racism, to inspire and the building that pops up adjacent to it again, it's compromises the the setting of the building game, the substantial harm.
costs river from Commercial Road, C. G. I. There of the building showing its stature and very striking landmark.
in its height is really apparent in that particular view.
again from the embankment, not dissimilar from one looking down, Beaufort Street, but
just showing the the building and its adjacency to Battersea Bridge again, this substantial harm to bus routes in terms of its setting
view from Chelsea Bridge, Chelsea Bridge, looking down towards the building itself and it's quite a sizeable building in the centre for older that that bits other and gain a substantial harm its relationship to both the park itself, which has risen to historic park and garden and also that the river setting as well,
Battersea Park again, the registered park and garden, or why line here again, less substantial harm caused by the the height of the building and its massing, and so on.
Betty Church Road, the conservation area as we drove conservation area and again very striking building at the end of that view, which we've been, you know, if that was in a a navy, are, then it'd be more striking in terms of the impact on on that locations will see a few further slides coming up.
just isn't also target, we wanted to see the ratio between the proposal, an St Mary's church in Battersea Betty Square.
and again, there are two views there which I've selected one, it just pops up as a wildlife and to the right of the church spire, and it's also compromised by the mantra veto, as you will know from previous discussion and on on the on the right-hand producing it just pops up the left-hand side of the moderate back to us as an area as a C. G. I. There on that one.
West of George conservation area again, quite a dramatic view and certainly less than substantial harm for setting in this conservation area who got the you are CIA building on the right-hand side and there's little listed buildings, and there's also a listed buildings just round the corner on Westbridge Road as well, which equates to the Flint faced buildings so good Gates listened Stanciu harm and it's very dramatic.
striking appearance.
coupled more they've shown, one is you could Councillor, looking down exhibition Road Councillor dingo, and looking from Hyde Park I Park is a registered Park and Garden Grade 1 and again less substantial harm, albeit at a low level, has been identified as the building pops up in that view down exhibition Road.
so that's really gone through a whole realm of things really are, so it is quite a lot there to take it, and I appreciate that in the short time that you may have some questions at all about the proposals.
there's been, I think, about 700 objections from a Member, rightly so, it's quite a number of people have made their comments known, and thank you for those people to make those comments and be my colleague and the Development Management Team was going to have to obviously assess all that as part of a and or as a paper to the PSC at some stage.
thank thanking the sellers, two things for me to say by way of.
so the Chairman's remarks for firstly the
obviously I represent the Battersea society which has put in as a substantive objection, I know that other organisations represented round round the table have done so as well, I am not going to repeat the objections.
that the society has has has made.
the second point I'd I'd made is that there have been a number of.
responses in support of the application, some of which a substantial proportion of which have been in response to advertisements on Facebook and other social media.
and on the developers own own website substantially telling people what to say.
and not including issues such as the the height of of of the building, but concentrating on the supply of of housing that will be provided by by the scheme.
as I say, I'm not going to repeat things that have already been put in writing by my own society.
but I invite comments and suggestions, or sorry I should of course ask, first of all, are there any questions?
for Mr Sellers before we go to the comment section of the discussion, questions posed first of all Mr Dodson, who wasn't introduced the for at the beginning of the meeting but represents the balance society, Mr Dodson, it just a quick, thank you Chairman just a quick question, Mr so as referred to earlier earlier versions, sorry is this.
but not the first planning application or it is the first.
profile, yes, wanna say earlier versions, we when we go through quite a long pre application procedure.
and the the the iterations change, quite fundamentally from the beginning to towards the the end of that process, as I mentioned the started off with a very strong brick building over the that sort of height and will also there were two due to hype considerations they were evaluating 38 stories, oppose 33 34 storeys so those that only changed right before the last design review panel to bring bring the height down slightly.
and my second question is the the mid-rise area, to which you referred, extends between wearing, where do you happen to know, yeah yeah, what we've got in terms of the Thames, in particular, if you if you look at the local plan, there are too tall building zones.
just east and west of Battlebridge Road, and this particular site, is the very thin sliver just really to co, taking board the glass moves like itself.
does it?
both sides of that is, I think, seventh 12, something on that story is now.
thank you.
I think you had a question as well, Mr Pharo, thank you.
the height of the building is given as 34 storeys.
I know, I'm sorry, forgive me, yes, it was described as a 34 storey building.
my understanding is that the height of the building is 118 metres in the Local Plan, storey height is the average storey height is assumed to be 3 metres.
which makes this 38 story building, I'm curious to know.
how
it's going to be dealt with
when it's described
in the committee report.
it's 34 storeys, but the lower two floors, I think, are substantially more than 3 metres and it's disingenuous, I think to.
ignore the height of the building compared to other buildings and simply give it storey heights, where storey heights of adjacent buildings can vary, and when you have a building of this number of stories, incremental or what might appear to be incidental heights in the story can make a significant difference to the overall, might not be don't make a difference to the overall height of the building, but they do determine a much greater height than is evident by just saying it's 34 stories that was
that point and a question.
the
second thing I wanted to ask was, in terms of the consultation, the pre-app discussions that had been had, both with planning officers and possibly with yourselves.
in the planning statement for the application, I think he'd 11 pre application meetings are referred to, I've asked whether or not these are available and being told that they're privileged, I believe, vast these questions before, are they privileged for this application and will they be released?
I wanted to your second question first, and I've certainly seen and pre-application.
letters contained within application documents as the applicant's discretion to do that.
I'm not sure of harm whether we do publish the pre-application discussion. I have said we do sometimes, but yes, I'm I can get some clarity from that from the Development Manager. Sorry, if I can just respond on that, Mr Sellers. My understanding is that the policy now is that once an application is submitted, then any correspondence relating to pre-app discussions should also be. I think that is a recent change but yeah, it's nothing like that. The the important point is to is that they have been to design review panels and both Design Review Panel letters, which I drafted and that I want the website as well, as you can see from those two letters
the changes and also compare that with what's being submitted as well, married and.
you refer to quotations in the planning application documents of pre application meetings, where is, I think, a significant?
a quotation in the in the planning statement submitted by the applicant, which refers to a meeting, I think where the impression you gather from it is that the planning officers have been relatively favourably inclined to the application, and this contradicts what is written in the Design Review Panel.
comments and the reason that I'm curious and keen to see these pre application documents is because what so many people have commented on the in the objection section to the scheme is how clearly the application seems to ignore almost defy what appear to be the Planning constraints in conditions which are contained in both the London Plan and the Local Plan.
it's embarrassing. I think that we agree that better saves and not on the website. I can say from day one of pre-application meetings that we said that the proposal was contrary to Local Plan Policy in that they did put a barrister in to the local planning public inquiry from the may remember that and they didn't get much joy from the the inspector at the time so again, but they persisted with that application and pre application. Despite that said, we are where we are at the moment. In that respect, and as regard your comment about the height of the building in my comments to the Development control Officer, I did point out the fact that that is certainly the height is more than the the the the technical number of stories until the 3 metre height it will be for them to work that one through, but of course you can have a five-storey block industrial building with single-storey building, so you have to, then you have to benchmark these things in some way to understand how to do to deal with them.
thank you, thank you.
on one further question from the Scrainwood.
try and get this thing to work.
alright
I thought this green.
given the amount of material from that area, what are the OK is the archaeological coverage.
for such an application is it's got outstanding, Roman and prehistoric finds around their.
so what is being commented on and it would certainly there has been a series of fines, I think, associated with probably Anglo-Saxon period and later it in the past, and I think we rely upon the draft, for example in Greater London archaeological advisory service for their input to the scheme and I think they've made a submission I haven't had come in but reading last mission in detail, but it's part with buses channel I believe area so the suddenly to due to a need to have a I certainly when they do do any if if if it ever got got permission then a clearer would be a detailed assessment of that.
there is relevant material from the Royal College of Art building when that was built, and there are extremely prestigious burial from Battersea Park, which implies that there should be a very nice Roman building somewhere in the area, because
if you have a stone coffin you're wealthy, and that they usually turn up close to Villa's and things like that, so there's something going on in Battersea and and then they're all the prehistoric finds out the best see shield and other material so there's an awful lot from just around the the the the actual site would have been, of course, excavated in Doug when the Glasspool brooding came in because of the basement below 2 is still so there may be some detailed information available from that period. Yeah, and they should be stuff
there should be scraps left at least down to.
the the natural and and getting also some landscape archaeology out of it.
I have no idea what Mark Stevenson said at the moment.
OK.
I think the point is is well made there are or archaeological issues clearly in in that low location, are there any other questions of fact, before I open the discussion to comment on on this proposal now, I've already excused myself from from making any.
further comments than of being made in the Battersea societies letter, but I know a number of other societies have made responses, does anyone want to speak to them?
Mr Katter.
yes, thank you, thank you, Michael, this is working, is just right, the partly society has already know you'll not be surprised to hear put in a a comment on this one, because it's been around for some time and we basically emphasised the point that this bears no resemblance to anything that should be permitted under the Local Plan.
which I think was the point of our letter, but I think what we are, we also would like to see stressed, is once worth priding itself not so long ago on an Environmental Strategy and becoming agreeing the council and all the rest of it.
this building seemed this application shows no sign of anybody having considered the embodied carbon of the existing building which, by the way,
is a prime candidate for upgrading because it's fills most of the allowable volume under the Local Plan.
and it is a good, solid, concrete frame of which, if it was designed for officers, is perfectly capable of taking residential loadings, so we're why not, and I think that's something that must be answered before we even anybody, even looks at.
proposed. Thank you, correspondence actually, because, is part of the assessment they will be required by the Geneva. I've asked the question about the lack of reprovision of the office space and they would obviously want to see a demonstration and said we would in terms of why the building couldn't been refurbished in that regard and their their arguments at pre-application beam that they did put it on the market for a long period of time and they can, I'm deemed to be unsuitable by the market, but that's something to, obviously for them to put details in
if I may, just to follow up on that one, if you're going to vary the local plan to even consider this, why not varied to say, actually providing a small amount of office space in that location is probably missing the point and one more for flats might allow a 6 storey building to be viable.
other other comments,
Mr Dodson and then.
and that's why I think my main comment, which I imagine my hope would be shared with other members of the Committee or many other amendments the Committee is, is that.
it's just too high, I'm heights, it's I've seen the great this great were river terms that we have running through that city and vistas absolutely obliterated if you look west from near parliament, now par Big Ben has now got a backdrop of a whole forest of tall buildings on the edge of this river. There is no sense of what lies behind the river beyond the River in any shape or form, and I think it's the thin end of the wedge to suddenly have this. This point suddenly appear near to Battersea Park, destroying you know a bit of the river that so far hasn't been destroyed
so I notice rather basic common to me, but I think it is the essential one. Thank you,
thank you, Ms Radcliffe.
thank you, I mean my my comment, is essentially the same, I don't want to repeat what what we've said in in detail in are response, but basically it is that we very much agree with the more detailed points that the Battersea society have made but from from our perspective it is a very treasured landscape between Chelsea Bridge and Battersea Bridge on both sides of the river and,
to put a building like that at the corner of Battersea Bridge, completely desecrate that rather sort of sacred area with Battersea Park, the Royal Hospital, the Thomas More Church, those sort of low lying buildings that are so harmonious and so to the pressures to London along that area.
the other point is, I mean, what is the point of a local plan, if, if it's not enforced, what is the point we we feel, that the park is a listed building with clear views or clear issue views, and those views as you look towards at building will be completely different.
thank you.
any other comments, Councillor drawings,
thank you, I concur with obviously everything that has been said.
I also know, obviously we we've had 600 objections, but but I also know, as a local, I'm not a local councillor in that war, but I know from colleagues obviously that that they have spent an awful lot of time talking to residents and I have had an awful lot of.
you know, names of people who object to this, et cetera, I'm I'm just curious on the point that you made about the support in terms of the supply of housing and this the the numbers of people through social media that had had supported this because you often find that we would work with this sort of thing that lots of people who deserve some support things and signed up to things, but I don't necessarily live locally, I mean you might have support for this from all over the country, I don't know, but it is very difficult to check, isn't it? Thank you
councillors.
right so.
so.
we feel that we should Kee the discussion to members of of the Committee.
yeah
sorry, that was that the objections, but I was just curious about the point, is support for housing from all over the country.
any objections were over the country as well, yes, thanks.
I mean, it's.
it seems to me that the
the case against this building.
is essentially on three grounds, firstly, on grounds simply of overdevelopment.
of what is a very small site and
the claims that are made for the nature of the building basically come down to we've got to build is sufficiently high because the site so small, which is of course a non-sequitur.
second objection, it seems to me, from what has been been said, is obviously the height itself, there is no building of equivalent height within 2 miles of this building, so will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
and I think, on those grounds alone, it is objectionable.
and the third key reason, it seems to me, is the impact, therefore, on a number of important heritage sites and conservation areas, several of which have been mentioned, how, those of which are, I could cite, such as Chelsea Physic Garden.
Cheney row, the
the Norman Shaw buildings, along with a Chelsea embankment, and so on, and so on and and and so on, so I think on those three grounds alone.
I would have to say that I find this building.
utterly objectionable, and I think it should never have got to this.
does anyone want to put in a?
Harry word of have support for this proposal.
well, I would like to compliment the applicant on this year, bloodied cheek.
because?
as you said, and there's other the said, it's difficult to know how it could we got this far.
a significant amount of work has gone into putting this application together if you look at the case file on on the Council's website.
there are, I don't know how many drawings reports and things, and it's it's the recently I was questioning the the discussions that the applicant had had with the
Councillor prior to the submission, was it it's difficult to think that they could have got this far without some kind of hint that it was worthwhile when it so clearly doesn't conform to the local plan and I hope that we will be able to see the pre application discussions at some stage in the near future and preferably before it goes to committee, you said that you didn't want to elaborate on what duet submitted and I don't want to.
due to match the same as as what we have done, but we have said we believe it to be too tall and I think, and I hope in this as any disagreement, that's the unanimous view all of this committee, our concerns over to indicated in our title as on conservation and heritage.
Mr Sellers indicated in his presentation that the effect on lots of significant
heritage assets was likely to be less than harmful, I forgive me, I can't remember exact terminology.
and I substantial Hans-Wilhelm yes and.
no, no, no, no, no hesitation in agreeing with him, it's a tall building, but it's not going to be visible from a lot of the important sites that were indicated on the map in a significant way, but it is going to be very significantly influencing its immediate surroundings both in Wandsworth and across the river.
and
the Councillors commissioned from
is it Arup a study which is referred to by the applicant?
forgive me, I cannot remember navy, you might be able to refresh my memory,
it drove the urban design study the urban design study, thank you kindly and.
there are definitions of the of how tall buildings should be judged and on every one of those definitions this fails, and in that study there is an image taken across the river showing the Foster's building adjacent to it on the next door neighbour to the building and we have the RCN buildings behind these buildings are not presently, I think locally listed are nationally listed.
but I submit that they are likely to be at some time in the future and that the the effect this building will have on what are.
significantly.
with buildings by world-renowned architects is going to be devastating and I think.
but I would suggest that our committee's view is that we should also consider the immediate environment as well as the environment.
so that included the heritage buildings that you helpfully listed as well.
you said you utterly disapprove of it, I, I think I would like to second that.
sorry, I don't.
see much point candidly on extending this this discussion further, I think the the view of the Committee is very clear, I just ask, do you have enough info for an effective minute, yes, thank you Chair, thank you.
no, no, I'm not allowing that.
yes.
could it be very clear that our objection is strong, it's not just an objection, it's a very strong objection.
OK, let us let us move on and I hope we can have a fairly brief discussion on on this item because we've considered it before I had a meeting, I think it was only two meetings ago taught me personally not more than 3,
on the the flour store outside Clapham Junction station.
over to you.
right.
and I hope we can be quite quick on this.
would you excuse me, sorry, thank you very much.
thank you, Chair, and, as you mentioned, this is in relation to the flower stall outside Clapham Junction railway station. The site location is marked in red on the map on the screen and as well as the surrounding designated heritage assets, including the Clapham Junction, conservation areas to aged yellow the and listed buildings surrounding it include the Clapham Grand Theatre, the Audi and Hobbs building, and also the Falkland public House are already give a very brief bit of that found that, as he said, this application had been presented at shack on the 28th May November 2023, which was an application of the replacement of the existing kiosk with a new kiosk following enforcement action, following an expiry of a five-year permission which had been granted in 2017, this application was recommended for refusal at Planning applications Committee on the 22 of February 2024, but that was withdrawn prior to the Committee as the applicant wish to seek from the admission for 10 years. Instead and that is what has come forward. This is a application for a proposal to retain the existing flower stall for a temporary consent of 5 years, and so are few photographs on the screen, showing the flower stall in situ at the entrance to the Dathan and then views from.
looking east along St John's Hill with the flour Station in front of the station and then, and that a view looking west along St John's Hill, with the Clapham Grand listed building in the background and then finally a longer view looking east along St John's Hill with the adding and Hobbs building in the background,
then a 3D view of the kiosk, which is going to be the same as the existing, with the same branding and advertisements on the side of it as well.
OK, thank you, thank you, thank you very much to the fore Committee expressed a a strong view against the proposal for a new
Barry slightly smaller kiosk back in November, thanks for the reminder as to when it was.
do we want to change our view?
on
the merits or demerits.
of keeping the existing kiosk, now it has to be said somewhat.
decrepit around the edges.
if, but I'll just I'll just because I don't think it particularly adds to the street scene the, but I
and I know it's not our remit, but I do feel it does you know it's in a key position and the entrance to Clapham Junction, I know it's got another entrance now, a higher up, but it is actually does impede the flow considerably. I'm so I'm quite surprised on other grounds side from what we this committee might have. I'm quite surprised that the council wants to continue with it when there is an oversupply of retail space generally, and I, I feel, sorry for the you know, the florists, probably it's quite a good deal for them, but I'm not sure where it leads his idea Hill, but that's just my comments. Thank you
Mrs Catherine, I understand you're being sorry for them to get evicted, but at a time when it is widely known that there are empty shop units, left right and centre.
I suspect that they can selfless somewhere else very close by if that's what they choose to do, it is just if we can go back one picture,
look at the junk on that pavement, it's not just these key, it's everything.
it's you know it because one because the kiosks there the cycles have been allowed because the cycles are allowed, the BT cabinet approval that because that's their there's a rubbish bin and of the whole thing, and all of it, where the pedestrian flow for various greatest it's all got to go frankly if we have if the Panel has any influence.
it is clearly I mean one thing that hasn't been mentioned, this is slap bang in the middle of a conservation area.
and you.
you could hardly say that bought there at the moment.
is compatible with a conservation area environment, is there any more to say, Councillor Owens?
not not exactly your board, but not far from.
thank you. Yes, I agree with what's being said, particularly now that you know that we so much work has been done on the aging and Hobbs building and it's getting so much smarter in the area, and it's all looking you know. The pavements had been improved and chic on St Johns Road as well. I didn't know, I might be missing something, but how is this different to what we had in November because they're saying here is for a temporary period of 10 years and obviously November was was at 5.00. Was that right? Yes, this has since the agenda was printed, it has been altered to are now proposing a temporary period of five years, and the application at which was considered by this Committee in November was for the replacement of the existing kiosk with a new chaos, and that was following the expiry of a five-year consent which had been granted in 2017
owed, basically, last time they wanted a new one, slightly smaller, now they want just to keep the existing ban.
okay, is there any more to be said on on this application?
I am going to sum up, yes.
I think the the grounds for objection here are it's complete inappropriateness in a conservation area.
that it is unsightly that it is cluttering the pavement that it obstructs the entrance to the station that aid.
obstructs the view.
as you come out of the station to buildings that are certainly meritorious in the conservation area, and for all those reasons it is highly objectionable.
for 10 years.
no, it's only five, they they reduced it.
of after the initial application, they reduced it to five years.
OK, but that doesn't help the help there because it.
OK, let us move on.
something a bit more substantial, who's going to lead on this, the power station before.
is it Lauren who is going to lead on this, I should make clear as Chair.
card.
what will not be
reflected in in this ways, presentation is that there have been further discussions between the power station and some of her, not the conservation planners, but the the case officers, as it were.
about some significant revisions to the design of of the building.
I happened to be invited to a meeting at the power station yesterday afternoon, which
outlined, those revisions proposed revisions to the the the proposal. They burn. They will not be reflected him, as I say in in Ms ways, presentation, nor are they available on the website at the moment, and I think discussions are continuing between the case officers and a power station to resolve some further issues before they are put up on the on the the website. I should also perhaps just emphasise I'm sure that
this way, one mentioned this, the this is a reserved matters, application outline permission.
for the two buildings already exist, this is for detailed approval of a design that is significantly different from the design of the existing two buildings in phase three of the of the development.
as designed by Frank Gehry and his chums, well, OK, over to you,
thank you Chair.
it's quite helpful to give that background.
whatever comments do come from chat, do you get fed back to the case officer, so if we're in a stage of still negotiation through the application stage, then these can be fed back on form part of that negotiation so?
I'll provide an outline of what the current application is as it is on the public domain, as, as Michael has said, there are negotiations in place to consider amendments to it.
by way of background, as as Michael says, this is a reserved matters application.
for the power station site. I think everyone within the room knows the site pretty well. I will just give a bit of background, has just for completeness, so this is. This is the site towards the north of Battersea Park Road is classed as 3 C within the within the master plan, which was a Vish originally envisaged in 2011 and was envisaged by architect Rafael Viñoly. It was since in 2021 we had a section 73 application, which was known as a future phases application which was presented to
what was work at the time, which sought to make amendments to the maximum parameters plans within the original master plan from 2011 and also make changes to to the due to the design codes?
within that are before that time we have phase 1, which is the sort of the hand on one side of the power station which formed phase 1, she has now been built out and then the refurbishment of the Palace Station itself formed phase two which has now been completed its full form and then this is the site just to the south of.
the the to Gary blocks that form Phase 3, a and 3 be so, this is just the red line of the site as you'll see here.
this just gives you a quick outline of what the site is in relation to the rest of.
the Master Plan and specifically the power station, the Grade II star listed power station, which is proceeding the main subject of the of why we've brought it to this Committee and, as I stated, this is just giving their outline, so have a look, you've got three see here which is the subject of the application site you have phase 3 A which is the Gary.
building that's an album built out the foster bill that we class, this as a foster buildings named after the architects have been tasked to their design, say you have foster building, which forms this sort of Swehli building that goes down towards Battersea Park Road.
here, on the other side we have within here that's the a CJI I of the original 2011 master plan, that's an indicative master plan design code was quite heavily detailed for that master plan, so it does give a quite clear indication as to what that design was going to come forward as and then this is the CJI I indicative C J of the 2021 master plan which was consented under a Section 73 application.
so just giving you some context you see here, we've got the the, they built out Gary blocks of 3 A here and then the foster buildings which slipped round side and then obviously the recently opened power station tube station.
another view here, so there is for you, can see my cursor here, so in this plot here, which is 3 D, that's what we crosses, the flower, that was the only phase within the master plan that was that was done under a detailed application rather than an outline application is as a kind of signature piece within the southern part of the master plan.
so moving towards the reserved matters application, so this is setting out the detailed design of the proposed 3 see Sky site, which is, as you say, to the north of Battersea Park Battersea Park Road, so this is looking at the site from Battersea Park looking towards the site so,
it is proposed as a single potassium block as a single floor, and then you have two blocks rising above it either side and then, as a consequence of it being a to block to to separate blocks above the podium you have this view now to the south-east chimney,
since shading you again a CJI, I view of that Bill over the building, as in terms of its detailed design, looking at the site with the power station within the background that south-east chimney.
it is designed by by Frank Gehry and partners, so the same architectural firm that did.
phase 3 A, the intention is to continue a similar sort of design to 3 A with this idea of this sort of flow income movement facade that's introduce with some elements that bring a brought forward and some elements that are bought or recess again here, just to give you another are view from Fox Prospect Place to give you an idea of the design within its context of the Gary developments, so 3 3 A just to the right site, and this is the flower which is the only element that is out in detailed design.
so, just in terms of landscaping, so you have green spaces on the top of the podium, some on top of the blocks, and then you have a landscaping area within that podium, some of it will be private space somewhere, but will be public space for allowed to spell out of tables and chairs for some of the commercial units and just to give you an idea of some of the
the build out in terms of ground-floor pound, we've got a retail and food and beverage space.
on one side which has laid out in green and then we have a community hub on the other side so.
it's a bit of a mix and then
just.
a typical residential floor plan could have an indication of how it's going to be laid out, so a kind of standard floor plan, with the central core and corridor with residential Brooks leading off from that central corridor.
and this is quite important, because this just shows how the the new reserved matters, application and the detailed design sits within the maximum parameter envelope that was consented as part of the 2 at 20.21 application, so this the the maximum parameter envelope effectively as the maximum amount of development that can sit for a maximum height density.
the main difference here was set as part of the perimeter member out there was a great there was a sort of greater amount of flexibility, so there was a slight increase in height at this point within the master plan because it was considered to have less of an impact on the setting of the
power station, where the views are mostly from that north bank of the river that come back towards the power station, its chimney stacks.
they also wanted a greater amount of flexibility with the parameter envelope to allow for one single block of a building or, as they've proposed in this reserved matters, application two blocks that sit ones alongside HR or on top of the podium.
so this is gives you a good illustration of what was an indicative massing proposals for phase 3 see as part of the future phases section 76 application, important to note this was just indicative, so this is just one idea of how that maximum parameter envelope could have been built out in terms of detailed design based on the design codes that would put that would
agreed as part of that section 73 application, and then what's proposed, as part of this detailed reserved matters, application and the difference between the two, so the Section 73 applications given a bit of an indication of the scheme being a little bit more like the Foster building so that sort of sweeping development in a similar way to what has come forward as phase one as well and similar to what was as part of the original venue early master plan which sought has had the sort of sweeping blocks which then require became slightly different when we had.
phase 3 A so as part of this detailed proposal, we're looking at a scheme that does then looks at something that's not more like 3 phase 3 A and the Gary building and that kind of continuation of that claim movement of façade, but the one thing to
really point out with the difference between these two is those the fact that there are two buildings here which allows that kind of sliver of a view towards the power station and it's.
it's chimney stack in addition to the views from the two boulevards and prospect that Bulford and Prospect Place.
thank you.
if I could be allowed, even as Chair, to make some some comments, I think the policy society has submitted an objection to this, I'll application.
to good.
thing about it is that they have not pursued the idea.
of a single block, which I think would have been pretty disastrous in terms of the the overall design of the the southern side of otherness of the site, so that that's welcome.
I think there's a second thing to be relieved about is that essentially, the materiality of the proposal is very similar to the the very striking existing built out Gary buildings with a sort of
slightly wonky.
of appearance, which I think I've worked quite well.
and I I know that not everyone agrees with that, but I think they are distinguished buildings, I think the thing that we were very disappointed by was that.
the
the essentially curvilinear look and design from the certainly from the exterior perspective of the existing buildings.
was are not being replicated in these these proposals.
that as one objector has has put it, this meant that it look really like Gary light.
rather than full blown, Gary.
and that therefore they did the new proposals sat rather awkwardly with the curvilinear forms of the existing building, but also with the fifth building that would sit between the new.
proposals and what has been built out sometimes referred to as the true Lib, which is extremely curvilinear in in form, so moving from pretty Square.
rectilinear kind of structures, which is obviously much much more efficient to build.
than a curvilinear building with no.
Winter Garden so-called.
that are very much
built has sort of mini prominent trees around the corners, the various corners of building dot no curves in in the current structure.
as proposed.
we have discussed that in fact, with one of the gory architects.
in in Los Angeles, who sought to persuade us that 10 years on from the original design, you don't necessarily replicate what you were doing a decade decade ago, which is fair enough, but it's really the relationship between the design of the current proposals and what's been being built out that that we objected to.
I have would have to admit that, because this is a reserved matters application, I think if we were to pursue the objection to the nth degree.
they will go to appeal and they will probably win, so we were quite pleased when they came back, I Dodson said, we have rethought some aspect of the of the proposal I'm not going to talk about, though is now because that would be improper.
what we have to do now is to respond to what is what is the current proposal, which has miss way, has said.
wow is subject to further negotiation and whatever we say can be passed on to the
today to our colleagues who are dealing with this before it gets to to her and her team as as conservation planet, but that was the nature of our objection.
I don't know whether any other people have comments or have looked at this in any detail, Mr Pharo.
forgive me, it was reasonably clear, but not completely clear to me that you said that what we are presently, you have seen, but we haven't seen meets some of the objections that you had to what we are now looking at.
I'm
sorry, I am deliberately not saying anything about.
well, close those proposals where it will be in proper of me, they have not been agreed, they are not publicly.
available, and I'm not going to say fit very, very all I will say is that some work is going on.
by the architect and and the power station in pupils at the power station itself, in response to the points that we and other objectors have made, that's helpful, thank you, I didn't want to pressure to reveal state secrets just curious to know.
I'm not sure that sensible for us to comment on this.
is it not something that we should might better have been withdrawn as it says it were work in progress?
I
I can't think of anything sensible to say about something which we have been told is being redesigned more or less as we speak, unless we are going to consider the absolute sort of the bulk of it independent of anything else.
I think the case for
how are saying anything if we want to say anything as a committee and you may not want to say anything the case for would be that it might add strength to the on me if I can put it, or the collective arms of?
of Laura's colleagues.
in the further discussions that are taking place, that that's all that I am prepared to say
Mr Catto Chair, can I make a or ask questions firstly within the remit of this committee, the conservation heritage Advisory Committee, I wonder what you why, in one sense we are looking at this application at all.
the building is screened from Battersea power station building that, by the way, no longer looks anything like its profile that appears on once was brighter Borough stamp in the bottom corner of your of all the little the stuff we'd be looking at today.
it screened from their it forms the massing, essentially forms part or something already approved, what is it in conservation terms, you're actually asking of this committee?
shall I respond quickly from the Chair, I think the the reason that this application is before us is because of it.
relationship with the Grade II listed building the power station, which is still a Grade II listed building.
dot I just want to get clear, in my mind, the initial massing proposals to take if more of a view of the power station.
that the earlier design that we've put forward in outline versus this orders, there's this give a more view, I mean, there seemed to be an angel where you could see just about see two chimneys, one particular between the two buildings, the two parts of the new building. I'm just a bit confused as to what we will retain from the land side of the of the chimneys.
so we have here is the subject said the 2011 a master plan that was agreed, which is up here in the corner, there wasn't a view that was shown between the buildings of this on this block insisted the Brook we're looking at that looks towards the power station they, the main premise of the master plan was loud, continue that view here from Prospect Place and then this is, I think, electric blue Boulevard
herein, which is the main, can have commercial centre that allows you to move up towards the power section those will not be impacted this part of the original master plan as part of the
as part of the section 73 application.
there was still no change in terms of there being any further opening up abuse towards the power station over and above the original master plan. So when we look at the scheme as it is presented to say in this instance, this is in addition to this is an additional view that now will be opened up as part of the scheme in terms of the reserved matters application, so as part of the original master plan and the Section 73 application. There was never a view that allowed and opening up towards the south-east chimney between the buildings. Those two views towards the buildings from the two open spaces that the DUP towards power station will not be affected the because they have to stay within the park maximum parameters envelope. So this will be an additional view towards the the chimney over and above that that was agreed within the master plan from Battersea Park Road, no impacts from the other side of the river, but I haven't shown any CJI eyes there because that was all considered as part of the parameters plans in terms of impacts on maximum height.
co dot co dot, just like the only image we've got, showing a trim needs, it needs that actually how it would appear from a place on the group on ground level, do you think?
no, it's not only afraid, so it won't be exactly, but you will have an appreciation of it.
thank you.
OK, thank you.
OK, so the as it seems to me there are two options either that we made no comment on this.
at all.
and I recognise there is a case for that or that we make some comment.
I just is your do you want to say something about whether we should make a comment or not?
so should we perhaps just say that we know that there's further work on this area, but what we've seen, so we're not going to spend time commenting in detail, but it's welcome to see an extra line of sight to a chimney and full-stop you know full stop.
this little point in going into detail if it's if it's changing.
could I suggest that what we do say is that we, we recognise, that further development is going on in relation to this proposal?
that we would welcome the opportunity to look at it again when final proposals already.
the very earliest thought it could go to PAC would be September and
I'm sorry, I don't have a a note in front of me as to when perhaps Councillor Owens has it in her diary when September PAC meeting.
meetings, the 10th of September, by way and to September PAC is 19.
so so there would be tie, there would be time just for agenda despatch.
OK, thank you all done in that case, let us move on to another one, that's been.
discussed around this table before Dial House whose dealing with this.
Ms way, thank you.
and the Committee would be aware of the site because it came forward to them Committee last year as an application for recladding of the building, and this is a follow on from that application which got permitted so just again a bit about background, so we have Dahlhaus three best in Road.
which is a modern developments sitting rather awkward position within the plot it's within West Putney conservation area within the Putney Town character area.
it gives you an idea of the site in its relationship to the conservation area and the wider say we have Putney High Street up here with a number of locally listed buildings at this junction here and then largely can three to four maximum storey buildings further down towards Upper Richmond Road, this building sits at 4.00 storeys so it was identified within the conservation area appraisal as a negative building within the conservation area by virtue of its height positioning, awkward angle and set back positioning on the street and materiality being a very
Pellatt red-brick get another picture of the sites you see he has got stir because.
that break that roofline at 4.00 storeys,
site photographs with the tree is not in leaf of the site looking from Upper Richmond Road.
and some Site photos of the of the building within its context from Upper Richmond Road, so he see it right and set back from from the the public House, which is locally listed and at that junction with burst and Road, so it's quite.
in imposing building to some extent at this point, particularly at the junction of Burton Road and then the rear elevation, so it hasn't got much architectural.
treatment, and then this is quite an important picture from Upper Richmond Road, looking back towards the site herewith their avert fairly consistent height of the buildings at this point between three and four storey.
with the full stories generally set within a mansard or every level, so it does break that roofline there, but it doesn't impose itself other than the fact that it's a very strong red brick.
so the proposed plans for this application is, as I said, it was a follow on from the previous application, which was a completely cladding of the building and introducing and in additional Stokoe along that front, the main front from Upper Richmond Road, then now proposing to add a full story on top of the building. So it now falls, forms 5 storey building is set within a mid-rise zone for five storeys. So it isn't technically in compliance in terms of just the height parameters for LP for, but obviously within the criteria for LP. For it talks about making sure that it sits well within its context and is respectful of the building heights and character of its immediate surroundings, and obviously this is situated within a conservation area. So a similar sort of cladding effect is that that will that was consented previously and that was brought to check slight changes in terms of the materiality. So there was a bit of discussion about the copper. There is still proposed to be sort of copper façade, but some of those stakeholders are now going to be a sort of stone effect, cladding,
a gold effect cladding rather than the bronze, so there is a distinctive difference in terms of the colour of some of that cladding has had a bit of a change for the main premise for chat to consider. Is that additional floor on top of the building? So, as I said, it was proof, it's it's currently for stories that already much taller in much larger in terms of floor plate to the buildings that surround it, and that add that whole additional floor on top four then bring that up quite considerably higher and they are proposing at the moment to use part of that top floor as a roof terrace and you'll see here that those stir because an lift because we're then rise up further than previous the previous application to break effectively going on waste up to 6 storeys just with those because
now there's been a request from the conservation team to have visualisation so viewpoints from various points within the bit within the site and particularly from Upper Richmond Road, looking down towards the locally listed buildings at this point, because the the Stokoe at the moment breaks that roofline when you come down and look at the locally listed buildings here, but also, as you see from the site, it's that view that received from Upper Richmond Road here at the moment it set back at this point, so it will rise up to this level potentially higher, with those circles top hasn't been provided as part of this application and we have yet to see that so they are the the impact on the visual impact of that additional story. We can only assume based on what we have in front of us. Unfortunately, that wasn't provided before check that I could add into the presentation, but just looking at the viewpoints, obviously this is above car because it's
it's taken from street view at this point, but it's still a whole additional floor and for the building.
albeit with the cladding proposed, as was consented previously, so that's a given in given an indication in terms of the materiality of the of the scheme. Some slight changes in terms of the fact that this this dare call was much larger previously. There was a comment made if, as per the previous check, about the kind of blank façade treatment of this Stokoe, that's now made smaller a lot of materials similar, but, as you say, the cladding been changed cornerstone gouge toned as opposed to the Copa, so that's what largely was was sort in terms of materiality. Previously, it's now going to be changed, but it's mainly the the additional full story on top of the building that we would like to get your views on. Thank you. Thank you any questions
before we move on to comment part of the discussion.
it was meant to be when it was mentioned at the last planning application, the they keep illustrating without the trees the trees would be retained, presumably yes, that is true, I think I can say that.
that's
Mr cattle, to answer the question has already been voiced, the trees outside are currently just outside the construction hoarding builders are on site, the trees are doing all right at the moment, thank you very much.
looking as bright as big as big and green is anything you can hope for and importantly bigger and degree, no than anything else in Putney Town Centre, so so as to Putney Society is concerned, the trees are almost more important than buildings, particularly because they do a very good job of hiding the building.
which?
as has been mentioned, is fairly dull.
we're not talking about the previous application, basically change the materiality of a building without moving at all growing at the current application, seeks an extra storey.
we think that extra story of the founding society is one too many in terms both of how it will appear as noticeably bigger than anything else in its immediate context, which is a conservation area context, as you say locally listed buildings adjacent and all of that and a view around the back is fairly irrelevant because it's got a very large postal sorting office behind it from the 19 70s.
so it's not actually that visible at the front does matter.
and that extra story is going to be one too many, both in terms of the impact of the building when the trees are away and also.
we suspect not very nice for the building across the way, which is a hotel, but has planning permission to revert as to two flats, you know in a very, very narrow section of the operation rather than the strange setback is there, because in the 19 70s the plan was to make a dual carriageway.
of the south circular, which is what it is, even though it's narrower than this rug.
as a roadway, so we're not to worry at the Putney society is not too worried about the materials, if anything, it's no more out of keeping and probably early la less hurried than the bricks that are there now, but we are very concerned about the impact of the extra height and we continue to be concerned about the fact that none of their proposals mentioned any kind of landscaping at all.
and the present forecourt to setback.
is basically as dull, broken paving and lots of gravel that this fails to be contained by the shooting, that's supposed to keep it in place, and there's a huge missed opportunity sailing on by yet again, because it does nothing mentioned they really need to do better on the the landscaping point of view.
any other comments on this, Mr Farrell.
sort of a minor aside.
I don't dislike the existing building, I think it's a child if it's time, it's not the most exciting building in the world, but it yes and another sort of irrelevant aside I'm sorry I do not understand why they want to put storey height glazing on these flats, it's it's it's the fashion these days, but the last thing I would want to do wandering round in one of those flats is to have people looking at my feet.
and the rest of me, I think there's a lot to be said for window sills,
I just answered in two in 2 levels at that point, firstly, it's going to remain as an office building 0 I thought it was residential is still in office, I write, so the windows should be taken in that context yeah, but he assigned with you I never understand why in an energy conscious age and people are still building windows down to the floor,
where there's no view gained and no no no light gain because it's falling on the back of your desk, I doubt whether what I last said is going to be monitored, but if it is I would just like to say when I'm wandering round in my office I don't want people to be looking at my feet from outside otherwise I seriously wish to say very much support everything that Andrew has said for the puppy society and I hope that is the view of our Committee.
OK, I'm lesson, prep sorry today, understand adults. Sorry did answer correctly that you'd asked for more visitors had been asked for, but did you say they had not been received or is that what you showed us and they have not been received? So we add requested for a few points here, show the impact of that additional. Yes in local views. This was provided as part of the previous application, so the assessment that I've made has been based on what I've considered this previous application in terms of the this, the additional Stokoe right, and that breaks the roofline of that view, looking from Upper Richmond Road towards the locally listed buildings on that corner, but obviously that's a previous application I didn't include it in this was hoping that we would have some more visualizations but there yet to be provided, so I can seek to consider that, as I don't know, if we can add that emits some something we can take back to Committee in September, but it may not been determined by then conspiring right now, judges posting and finding a little bit difficult. I know,
to other people perhaps more familiar with the area, but I finding a little bit hard to judge the impact from what I've seen at all.
OK, I'd.
I don't think we need to discuss this matter much more, I think we should.
support the officers in seeking further and further views,
or analysis of views, as it were, no, we.
we have no objection to the changes in materiality, but we have strong objections to the additional storey.
enough, thank God, I just put one final point is on record, as I understand it, I didn't check, but just before leaving, but certainly a week or two ago, there were, in fact two planning applications, the one we've just looked at.
and a second one, which is exactly the same without the extra storey.
so maybe they're expecting us cannot like the extra storey, but so what they're changing clinic.
right let us move on, are 56 Fruin Road who is leading on this.
thank you Chair. This application relates to 56 PA in white Reid, a 19 20s, end terraced house within the Wandsworth Common conservation area and the sub area of Ellerton Road to the south-west of Wandsworth Common. The site is highlighted in red on the map showing it is in a residential area within the boundary of the conservation area, but to towards the edge of it. Number 56 is situated at the end of the terrace. It is a two-storey, brick-built building in white, render under a tiled roof with a half hip to the end. This situation results in the inner side, elevation being highly visible from the street, most notably in longer views from the junction of phone, what road and ellerton road, as shown by the site photograph on the screen. It forms a terrace of 6 7 of properties along the north-west side of for envied
disco-pop comprises two central pairings, featuring large semi-circular a Dutch gables, with a further property to either side which gives a terrace a strong sense of symmetry, and here is a longer view of the side of the property form Ellison Road. You can see that that you might be clear in this photograph, but there is an existing dormer to the rear of the property, but otherwise, otherwise. The built form of the property remains large, largely unaltered, along for envied. There are other examples of unsympathetic dormers and large roof extra extensions, but the area is generally characterised by similar pairs and terraces of houses. Although this terrace is the only one to feature the Dutch gables
where you consider that both number 56 and the wider terrace forms part of make a positive contribution to the character of the area, that this application is for alterations, including a dormer to the front rooflight, this loan here, with the existing front elevation on on the left and the proposed front elevation on right and it is it is also proposed to add a rear mansard roof extension to the rear roof slope.
with sliding doors and a Juliet balcony again with the existing rear elevation, with a small dormer from left and the proposed rear elevation, with the large mansard style roof of the centre and on the right.
that's what it said and aside view here is showing the existing on top and the proposed on the bottom, the mansard we're not span, the would not be a full mansard and not span the whole width and height would routes light but it would still be a large addition to the rear of the reef site and as the
dormer on the front rooflight as well to consider. Thank you, thank you.
who is going to lead off first of all, are there any questions home on this has to the nature of the proposal?
any comments I'm not sure if is this I mean this is sort of those field sort of.
yeah models with.
thank you for your comments there.
you mentioned the Dutch gables and the terrorists whoo, whoo, whoo, whoo this forms one end of it, is quite coherent at present that's one of two gables in the terrorists, or was it six buildings, I'm not sure?
and at the moment the front elevations very largely unaltered, I I think I would suggest the the dormer on the front is unacceptable.
because it will cause a significant difference to the appearance, as you suggested, of the
of the contribution the terrorist makes to the area as to the extension at the rear.
there are a lot of extremely unsightly dormers on buildings surrounding this until the degree you might think it's difficult not to object to it on the basis has got lots of friends, but nonetheless I think I would register an objection to the factor to mansard that extends if I've got the drawings correctly down to the
to the the gutter on the rear.
I think that.
that screening to the balcony is just a little too much not objection to them, enlarging the dormer.
but I think I think this is just
a little too much, I can't think of much more to say about it.
has-beens.
I have a confession I live on Lochsie weighed, so I can see right down the end that was Alison and I can see some of the
some of the extensions that are similar to this from my children's attic bedroom.
there are, I mean, I completely concur with what has been said in terms of the front of the house for from Road is a s stunning Road, with those beautiful Dutch gables and clearly, and when you put up the photograph of the one on Ellerton Road, I mean that's obviously an elegant Road, it's for you know of received, it's it's different road but at the same time when you do look out across the back of those houses on for when there are
similar at the back loft extensions, in fact some of them are very modern, but but I'm just saying that as someone who can can see that from from from where I am, but thank you.
Mr Dodson.
I I think it's a nest search, sometimes distinguish between back extensions and what a mansard there can be seen only from the backs of houses, and once this can be seen from the side street and from what I've understood, this will be visible from the adjacent street and therefore I think a different approach should be had, particularly as it because it is Cornerhouse, I think it does spoil all the attempts we might have to have this the street frontage to look good, Mr is slightly washed away, if then you go round the corner and suddenly you see you know what's behind it, so that that's my view. I would object on that basis,
in yeah.
yeah yeah.
still, there is still a junction, they are at the point, yet thank you.
any other comments on on this OK, so I think what we're doing is saying that we object to the the dormer on the on, the in particular to the dormer on the on the front.
front roof
and that we had strong reservations about, to put it mildly, about the
the extension of the boarded a mansard type development on the the the rear roof.
yes, be because of its position, yes on the corner.
is that enough to say?
Mr Potter.
on these houses always.
yeah
flat roof and the
slip.
OK, have you got enough per OK, thank you, and last of all are six summers town.
and infill.
who's leading?
last one Thursday-night.
so we're going right down towards the border of the BOA with Merton.
and this is 6 Somers Town, so it is a locally listed building dating from 18 20.
a pair of semi, detached buildings brick-built, which has been had very little alteration to see here in its context. So you have the border with Merton Council just to the south of the site and then you have the public house, which is a 19 20s public house which is attached to the south of the semi detached pair, so these the reason why these Chee buildings are locally listed not within a conservation areas, you will see some of the earliest buildings within this part of the Borough specifically Somers Town, so historically Seretse town was the small village within this location, which had small terraces and semi detached villas that lined the South size of Somers Town this road it's now called Somers Town,
which has now since been quite significantly redeveloped, particularly the site to the south of of the locally listed building, which is subject to the rig redevelopment scheme, which includes the Wimbledon Football Club ground.
it's also got some particular historic interest, particularly number this particular site, number 6, as it was the residents of Robert Sadler, now he's a local of local interest as he founded the Copenhagen running ground at the end of from Mr Road there was a plot that was put up in his honour in the local area.
so here you can see the at see how much change that's taking place within this site says a very small little residential enclave of two houses with the with.
the the
brewery tap, I think, is the name of the pub.
and you'll see the extent of redevelopment of the site with the the switch, flats to the south is flipped round the other side, so to South, which is within the Merton borough, you also have a low warehouses and depots immediately, surround the site towards the north and towards the west of the site.
similarly, we've got from smaller, more smaller warehouses on the other side of Somers Town, so it's quite distinct dodging within its setting, as I say, as a little remnant of what was here previously in the 19th century, so apologies I've put then, so I said the wrong name for the public Councillor corner pin, so his just giving you some context, so you've got the corner, pine public houses are birthright next to the semi detached pair, but then, on the other side, number 6, there's a little bit of a gap. There is a bizarre a garden space right next to number 6, which is highlighted in red here, which is the subject of the application that gives a breathing space as a gap between the the small cottages and the larger warehouse buildings that immediately surrounded, so that gives some breathing space, an indication of the historic setting of of these buildings and again, some further context to this site show how it sits within rather engulfed environment with those with those flat flatted development that still being bills her as we speak.
further site here, just to show that that context with with the public house immediately Jason and that important little.
semi, detached, purchased on the corner, so the subject site is immediately next door, so it's in the side garden of number 6 here.
and what they are seeking to achieve is to introduce a new dwelling within that site Plot of number 6.
so number 6 has the entrance to number 6 on the side of the property, so you see here you have.
the sort of little poor canopy that sits over the building, so the building is proposed to see here very simple form, it will be attached to number six summers town, but set back from the building to allow that entrance side entrance to be maintained, so it's a very narrow building to will see here.
this is the rear elevation of the of the site and, as proposed a very small part of this point here will be taken away to allow for the building to be introduced to be attached to the to the side of the of the locally listed building and here you see the the depth of the of the building is proposed with the existing and proposed that will it will go far deeper into the plot, as is the small cottage of number 6 and again see here so that the point of the at the point of the roof the apex of the roof for follows the apex of the building for offices stems much further back within the plot.
and here just gives you an indication of how it's laid out, so you have a setback form here, literally sort of a catslide roof to, as you would call it.
areas names for that sort of roof and very long, narrow building that will take up large, pretty much the whole of that side, part of the private garden of number 6 and set right further back.
first floor elevation, so it would be two bedrooms with both with en-suites.
a zinc clad roof that's proposed with PV panels towards the rear part of the roof and, most importantly, these that the CJI I view, so this is the view of the building, as its shown within its context of the two locally listed buildings of 6 and 8 Smith town with that building set back.
and then towards the rear, quite
quite a deep plot of the buildings footprint is quite deep, so it will have quite in dominant appearance on on the Cottages immediately next door.
and in terms of materiality, you'll see there that we have, so we have a zinc roof, that's proposed the images within the CJI eyes, appear rather kind of greyish brick this which does seem to indicate some sort of greyish brick in terms of the proposed materials that they have set out in their Design and access Statement but,
the actual wording is is earth tone, brick with a precast, concrete features like the lintels.
and timber windows so.
whether that is considered by committee is in keeping with the locally listed buildings, obviously for you to consider but.
an interesting site in terms of trying to introduce an additional building, so I welcome the committee's views.
OK any questions for clarification about this proposal.
Mr, the Capital, One, yes.
looking at the drawings, if you could go back, please, to the proposed plans.
the changes does that there's an extension to the existing number 6 included in this I presume this is forms part of the same application is that the case?
they can introduce the rear extension under permitted development rights, rather I don't believe it's part of this application, it's just I'll be dealt with through planning to change the locally listed building by moving its door, but you will notice that they in order that that,
fully glazed across the back extension means that the ground floor is now wholly open space by the looks of things, and if you go upstairs we could please two rooms.
anybody see a bathroom.
it's and.
no, not in the new building in the old one, they're altering the House in such a way as to take away, it's only bathroom, is this really the complete application?
at say, the works for the interior of number 16 form part of this application, so it's not something for the Committee to consider at this stage, it's just the new-build that's connected to the site.
OK.
Mr Wilson,
that's alright.
sorry, it's number 6 in a middle I'm concerned about the existing house that is sacrificing its garden and one would hope benefits in some way, although presumably if the owner benefiting from the development but they do seem to be.
of leaving us for the House does not habitable.
anyway at.
sorry, I've got no comment about the new building at took, so go to me.
Ms Lawson, I think first.
thank you for bringing this committee and.
and it's nice to talk about a locally listed building, which perhaps it wouldn't be being considered if it hadn't been locally listed this, May we may have lost this, this is a survivor of Somers Town, which was a residential road from 18 118 hundredth and there is significant and it's a fantastic reminder of what was without it impinging on any further developments.
so, apart from this actual building to the side and the importance of Robert Sadler residents, sorry 6, sorry, sorry, the importance of Robert's Sadler, the resident of number 6 is, is his locally important, so were the OBR local listing for association with that but nationally too he's a foreigner pardon the pun of Monday a pioneer of athletics.
and it's a really important historic site that building and then looking on to the plaque that you talked about the commemorates the Copenhagen ground somewhere around and presented on Burma, Mr house on on Garrett Lane, so thank you for it's great I think to have a residential dwelling, a modest building being considered here amongst and his history, and the heritage is rich in this more say than some of the previous application to discuss at length. I think, but I yes and I get your point. I hadn't noticed an absence of a bathroom in number 6, and obviously that is something that needs to be looked into and the doorway being changed brought forward the entrance to number 6. I find acceptable to allow for this development because actually number 6 has a large garden that's very wide, that does have capacity for development, and that's against sort of our normal principles. But I think here it's it works and it's on a scale which is appropriate and is appropriate to its immediate neighborhood. The terrace, as it is now, and the local pub and it's
a great way of actually, perhaps ensuring the the viability and the future of that little pocket amongst all that's changing that's packed exciting in that area. But yes, obviously we need to work, that the bathroom roof makes it viable. Sorry bud and also, but there was talk to in the planning application about making the setback of the addition, make the whole thing work more acceptable, which is great, and that does bring the side door forward, but also to enhancing, perhaps repairing, restoring some of the original features so that the windows might be replaced on number 6 and possibly number 8, I think, is that part of the
of what has been considered today as that, like the addition to number 6, not part of this application, because that needs to be done well.
you referring to the extension, the windows of number 6, there were some conversation about those perhaps being made, I've got their hand, we can secure the the windows, replacements with timber sashes right to the application and I as a benefit right well that would be most welcome.
I'm slightly conflicted about the scheme, I think it's a really nicely put together application.
I like the proposed new building, but I regret the loss of the garden on which it sits.
slightly hesitant.
because what I wanted to suggest was whether the applicant has considered alternatives, it's clear that they on number 6.
I wondered whether it was potential to put a single storey building on the site, possibly to take part of the back end of the garden two number 6, we call this 6 A, as it were, and I suppose so that the effect on the tee on the two buildings would be reduced.
have have has the applicant proposed alternative schemes for the site.
no, so we had a pre-application engagement, which was largely similar to what is presented here, intensive introducing, built form, next to number, say, OK what, as I say.
I I, I liked the application a lot in terms of hits thoughtful this in many ways, but I regret the loss of the garden.
and indeed the the blocking of the
the two storey, a single storey building, would have less of a and intrusive effect on the building.
you ask the question about the windows, our colleague who is not here, Roger Armstrong, has submitted a comment, and I believe that they are proposing to replace the windows on number 6, which are presently BBC with timber sashes his observation was that they show a central on two up two down he thinks they should be more divisions in glazing, I can't get exercised about that myself.
but I think the windows are to be replaced with timber sashes.
as to what view the Committee should take, I don't know, I wish I met more clear.
could it could I make a, I think we have to be careful?
that we are responding to an application as submitted, I don't think that we can suggests complete redesigns.
of of a proposal, I don't think that's our remit, but Mr Dodson, thank you, I think we need to remember this is an intensely urban area, it's very, very hard surfaces everywhere the blocks of flats that have come up drawn on the left. There is very little greenery in that part of that area and I think if we're going to value this locally listed building, surely have to value it in its in a context that's appropriate to it, and yet I wanted. I do agree that actually maybe another circumstances that that the additional building actually is quite well thought through. I do think that the price we're paying for that is the loss of space and an opportunity to have a garden and greenery in an area where, I suspect
I suspect this places probably tenanted you know in the sense that it's yeah, I don't imagine people will leave therefore great length of time, I imagine a lot of comings and goings, I might be wrong, but I think we want to encourage people to want to stay there and not always be moving on and I think it be quite a shame to lose that that sort of extra opportunities for the to be or a little garden next to it.
OK, so what time, Ms Lawson and in Israel have you in your plans, the footprint of the garden of number 6, because it's far bigger than the garden of number 8, and if you have a 2 bedroom cottage with a large garden?
it it doesn't just deprive each property of a garden, it makes three viable places with gardens and a neighborhood.
so I think that we're we're not quite clear about that, this at the moment let me so I'll try and summarise where I think we're at.
that we think this is, on the one hand, a well thought through proposal which has lots of of merit, but there are real concerns about the loss of the garden.
and I'm not sure how we resolve that.
an application for 4 dwellings are supposed to have at least 40 square metres of garden compulsory almost.
it's the reduction in garden rather than a loss of a garden.
I agree in principle I completely agree with was trying to save gardens, but actually to make this enviable this this, I'm sure this application is more sensitive because it's coming to a Committee like this because it's happens to be locally listed which lots of things in choosing in Somers Town Ellesmere don't come to this committee this is a
you know, this is a good proposal that perhaps extends the realistic the viability of that, because it's not protected in any other way it could just be,
yeah and there's a good proposal.
so all we are we saying that the the quality of the proposal to the over comes the the concern or override the concern over the loss of.
the loss of some part of the garden.
that what we're saying
OK have you?
have you got
so we are not objecting to this application were recognising that it is an application of high quality.
where for quality and the impact on the viability of the of the locally listed building overrides any other concerns, sorry, I haven't got it right, no young, thank you Chair, I agree, but also just in the absence of Roger Armstrong his letter and if we could use this approve this non objection approval.
to ensure that the Ms scholarly finish to the windows of number 6 to offsets that change.
I think that's pretty much what I was going to say, can we please ask that there is a condition ensuring that the enhancement works to number 6?
happen before anybody can occupy the new house,
I wish I had noticed the absence of a bathroom in the original building, and I just wanted to say that I was going to make a comment about the glass Mills application, the plans that Mr Sellers presented were obviously fairly thumbnail, as it were from this distance anyway, but one of the things it was evident from the the plan that showed the residential that the the social housing
had accommodation, which included a kitchen living room, two bedrooms and a bathroom was opening directly of the living room, I mean, I don't know how they got, as I said, the cheek to put the application in.
I think in planning terms that is highly objectionable.
I don't think it's probably an issue for the conservation.
and heritage Committee, but yes.
right, I'm
can we move on to papered?
24 2 0 6, which is the
the report on
applications that we've already can considered
and their fate, as it were, as to whether they have been approved or not.
I will just take them one by one down Sheffield and Aughton activities centre.
has been approved.
Clapham Common North Side has been refused, I cannot date you.
again, local knowledge.
the building has been sold on and a new planning application will be forthcoming.
which I think is probably good news.
but let's wait and see.
probably heavily underscored.
had Drake Field Road we objected to and was refused.
and Ibstock Place school we supported and was approved.
any any comments may I just.
congratulate the planning department, demonstrating that speed is possible in respect of down Sheffield nine weeks, from application to approval by the Planning applications Committee 0, if only all the stuff in the rest of the queue could be anything like that tie at quick.
outed is there, I think, on all I can all I can say said her that.
is there any other business?
after a long meeting, Ms Lawson, sorry, can I just ask at the beginning we we would you an update on 1st down Lodge, thank you, I should have raised that on the matters arising.
so I have an update, which is that the legal documentation is almost agreed and that's hoping to be concluded in the next couple of weeks.
that's all I can say on that point, unfortunately, okay.
any other other business.
Chair, I could give an update on the Arctic application, the Wimbledon Lawn. Tennis, yes, please, that would be helpful. It was actually referred to in the roof loft PSC. Actually you know there's a a report attached to that as an appendix which is worth looking at, certainly basically it's with the Mayor at the moment, having both borrowers made their decisions referred onwards to Mayor for decision, and they've had changes that the there may changes to the application. Those changes have been subject to a public consultation, which I think just about ended now, I think just about, and then there will be a hearing, possibly in September, and I don't know whether either local societies here of May or making representations, I think there's still time to do so if you want to do that
but the the the changes that have been made, which was subject of consultations, were to open up part of the northern site where you've got the entrance to the car park and everything else, and yet as additional public space
that was amounting to about 1.7 hectares, but
one has to look very carefully at the quality of that space, because about 40% of that space is hardstanding, also the there's a ticked, there's some trees being taken out, as well as part of that additional hardstanding, going in as well for pathways so,
there are issues associated with that OK. There's a there's a as a benefit additional benefit, both the quality of that benefit that there has been looked at and so on, and the decision really that we've made as a borough and that's in part of that report is, is that it doesn't really change the circumstances. That fact is that that there's a substantial harm to the metropolitan open land, and we also said previously that that the substantial harm in terms of conservation, sorry Park and Garden Grade II star so those
objections raise still hold.
and really that that it's up to the major decide, Minister Susan invited me to approve or to reject in that not hearing so that's really harm the update released in questions done.
thank thank you, thank you for that.
obviously the the Putney society is.
is in the lead on this.
if I can
if I could just add that I entirely share your view that this pretty minor modification does not address the the core reaction that was made by this borrowers PAC.
can I say well, I will just support that, and I find it interesting that the minor revision seems to be trying to take any building, as per se out of Wandsworth borough, leaving the rest of the scheme in Merton. Is this what perhaps going on Joe does rather sound like that from your description? I do hope that's not what they are trying to get away with, and I would also just like to note that, having gone through one of the wettest Wimbledon fortnight on record, I believe they still managed to complete on time with a mere 18 courts. How come they need me more when the practice tournament can still carry on in Roehampton, as it does now
I just covered a lot of money has been spent by the All England Club on on publicising the proposed.
yes, Councillor Ryan, and obviously I was parcel rates, this decision as the Planning applications Committee, and they still building capsular embassies that have been e-mailing me wanting to do questionnaires and that sort of thing is ongoing.
and of course, the men just to be pernickety, it won't be the Mayor who decide on this.
application he has recused himself hasn't
okay, is there any any more other business?
I see one down the fire.
just two points District raise.
positive points,
so it's been confirmed by historic England. Now that St Mark's former St Mark's School has now officially been removed from the Heritage at Risk, register that has now taken place, made reference to it in the last Committee meeting that we recommended it. That's now had taken place, which is good news. Unfortunately, Councillor Bolton not here, but we can relay that information back to him because of the pre-election period that that the snap election in terms of the local listing public consultation, obviously the previously it was supposed to take place roundabout now, but because they had to stop all of those public consultations during that pre-election period. We have that's caused a slight delay, but that is due to take place in September, so I'm hoping that it should be in the process of at least being live by the time we were at the next Committee meeting, so I can give an update on how it how it's were, how it works and it should be live. So apologies for that delay its out of out of our hands with the situation, but it's not that it's just been part completely, it's just delayed slightly due to that can have,
period where we could help to shut down consultations completely
the on that I think it would be helpful if, once the
once you have gone public, you could notify members of this committee
that's right, So what we do is we've notified all of the local society, so all that we have in the database ward councillors, so that everyone will be informed of that anyone that's signed up to next door, there'll be a quip or push publicly on social media as well, just to really try to get as many people interested as possible, you'll be reading for a slightly longer period than a normal consultation as well, so it won't be just sort of a six to eight week period will read it for quite a few months is to generate interest and give people the opportunity to to nominate their buildings and sites
so, or do I presume, in that case the your colleague worries crannies will be as public in, as planning engagement had will be involved in this, that's right, yes, you have a level of involvement in it.
OK, I'm assuming there is no other other of our.
business, and so I declare the meeting closed and I'm sorry for the same.