Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 21 August 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 21st August 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

good evening and welcome to the August meeting of the Planning applications Committee, good to see Councillor Govindia is alive and well, OK.
recovered
it's a pleasure we can listen to you enraptured as ever.
OK.
I'd take no notice, of course, but that's a.
good evening,
Monday, as Tony Belton, I'm the Chair of the applications Committee and accounts for Battersea Park ward in Battersea, I going to ask the people on the front table here Trojan introduce themselves starting on my left good evening, I'm Nick Coulter and the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth
good evening, my name's Duncan was on the external legal advisor.
good evening, Calman and Democratic Services.
thank you, I will ask Councillors to introduce themselves when they want to make contributions, as indeed officers, for those who are watching to understand the people immediately in front of me, the councillors are not to my right and that officers.
OK.
or have we got any apologies for this evening, I think we have haven't way yes, thank you, Chair apologies had been received from Councillors, apps, Coakley and Owens.
right,
at this time of the year, that's hardly surprising my I've seen the minutes, Councillor Humphreys the seen the minute my asylum as a correct record that agreed greed wherever the last pages as because I'd love to flow.
I sign them afterwards, okay.
members, members of the public wouldn't understand that most of these papers are being carefully read the fact there's a 100 odd pages doesn't mean to say, we're ignoring it, we've read them all in advance and we will go through in rather more rapidly than people might expect, but that's not because we haven't read them because we have
one loss, one other question, has anyone got any financial or other interests in any of the applications please declare no one has any particular interest, apart from the fact that of course we're all interested so turned to the applications paper itself paper 2004 2 1 5,
and the first application is for and
intermediate treatment unit in St George's Hospital seems reasonably straightforward to me.
I ask Richards, Mr Granger, I beg your pardon, might get my boundaries in Tooting mildly confused by Mr Grainger, any comments.
non insofar as that the proposal is recommended for approval as a part two and part three storey intensive therapy unit located to the south-west of the Atkinson Morley wing, I did send round more of a detailed or didn't survey plan to try and help you out because I realised the scale was a little bit excessive on the
the published agenda.
but the proposal
after negotiations on a few matters relating to urban greening factor in sustainability has been found to lie within acceptable premises, and it's.
recommended for approval, subject to a Section 1, Essex planning, obligation and conditions, just wonder, Minister grandeur, could you say something about what happens, the appearance of it when the development is completed, because there's another one duty CAMHS?
that's correct Chair, so.
this multiple building would, to all intents and purposes, obviously, without prejudging the outcome of the recently submitted and validated new renal facility. The most prominent elevation that you would see from Black, Shore, Road and within the estate would, to all intents and purposes, be masked by a building if that were to be approved. So this building is very much seen as as part of the Atkinson Morley wing and continuing the functions of the Atkinson Morley wing in terms of providing these intensive therapy treatment rooms. And that's why the proximity of this this building is, is so close to the Act, some more leeway
personally, I don't mind the simple functionality of the building, but in any event is going to be hidden from general view before too long if another application is approved later, OK, any comments, Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair, could you move on Councillor Guy Humphreys Councillor for South builds in Putney opposition speak wrong? This committee,
following of what you were just saying, which the claims were about the the Harriet sits in relation to the other buildings. It's the some mentioned in the report of a master plan for the wider estate, and I was wondering Chair if it might be helpful, if there's anything at some point to see you, however, Vaganova overview. It is just because it's quite helpful for us as a Committee to put the Building in context of the wider patient. It's fine to hear about this new renal unit, external rest of it, but just to have a better understanding of the whole estate. It has got anything. That's anything, and it's benefits enough for us to be able to see that would be helped to have eyes on that at some point, if it's possible
yeah, I can I can arrange that there were some slides in the design and access statement, but they weren't as detailed as some of the information that we subsequently got, so we can share that with the problem is that it's a little bit Higglety, Pigglety sometimes to just look at the being piecemeal when it's actually part of a bigger thing. As far as the design and stuff and things like that, it's quite difficult to make a judgement call on it when it's just in isolation or anything else that might be around it in the future. It's a bit like you know when we're doing BPI's or something like that, we at least have an idea of the bigger picture, so we can put it in some kind of context would be would be helpful, collect carry on Cherry something else formula on a role to play, something else about something else, Polamalu, on a role. Indeed, I'd just reflecting on what you said
st George's, of course, is a small city on its own right, you help me do the whole thing every, but I take your point, it would be useful to have another view of it.
yes, it's what else where you only going onto.
I just wanted to say that we have.
quite it seems frequently things from from George's on the on the on the slate in front of us, and it's always I understand its functional and and all the rest of it, but I have to say it is it is disappointing that they haven't hit things like the BREEAM and stuff like that you know there are things that we'd expect them to be exemplars of this kind of thing, particularly with the health of the country and all the rest of it, so it's just a note that we do not I'm expecting an allowance when it, but it's disappointing that they haven't hit all the various targets that they they should hear when it's such a big
player in the game, as it were, and we hope in looking to the future for any other applications that are coming forward, that things can be done early enough to make sure we do hit things like the the outstanding instead of just their excellent sounds good, but it should be outstanding. So it's annoying to us as a Committee when we've asked for things to be at a certain standard, and they're not done to that when there's yeah. It should be done at an early enough stage. Be able to make that happen, couldn't agree with you more. The
the Health Authority but other large corporate organisations, including ourselves, the council not very good at prior notice and pre application, discussions and hope planners will try and keep them to the mark, because it's not good enough, I agree with you, Councillor Govinda, thanked Councillor given their councillor for East Putney ward to two points in just following on from the very utilitarian.
building that is being proposed here is whether any thought had been given to greening the building, because if it was elsewhere, we might have been talking about green walls or something else that might make it less
in your face, but more importantly, I have a question about the one that's ICS planning obligations, and it won't surprise, Mr Granger, that this is about the employment contribution of 56,718. I noted on on a formula, but this is one bit of public purse, seeking money from another bit of public purse. On the basis that there's improved facility will not lead to a net increase in jobs bodied might it might lead to a net increase in better meant of people who might go to work and might return to work. I mean, I just think this is quite a bizarre way. Are one bit of public purse taking money out of another bit of public purse, both of which are under strain for some really mythical formula. I know that in the past, who I have raised this before, in case of one maintained school, we did not charge employment contribution case of a private school. We did. The explanation I was given was that in the case of the maintain school, there was a net increase in staff numbers in cases the private school. It was just a better facility, is the argument here that this is just a better facility, and there'd be no new jobs, so therefore we need to
innocence shake the try and get some money act for them from them.
I think your party sorry, this is not, this has meant to be a historical point and not a party political point, I think your party can take credit or blame, but either way you like for Cost Centre Management being just part of life Britain in Britain nowadays if you're asking for a reform of the whole of Local of how government works and how expenditure that's a pretty big order for us particular.
7 people on a Wednesday evening, I think it is a bit complicated, but I'm interested we here, sorry, I'm interested deer, I am interested in and you may be what I stuck, my at least finish Councillor, give India we always get better at least finish.
but I am interested in hearing what Ms Granger has to say about it, before Mr Grainger says I mean I'm actually seeking an understanding from a stranger, just as you are, I am not inviting you to give me a lesson in political history or whatever I really don't need that from you, thank you very much.
what I'm not sure that the evidence suggests that's true, because I think it is very much about it but go on Mr D Granger.
things are say, the employment and enterprise contribution this, it is fully like your correct seat, he would have been aware of that when this was brought in through the supplementary planning, guidance documents, but the the way the monies is apportioned and spent in order to get people into employment and then generates enterprise, so it's not actually going to pay for them it's to enable,
a number of individuals to be able to be placed at the construction phase and then post construction during the actual operation of the facility, so there's no.
that that attracts a fee in terms of the administration and how to deliver that, and it's it's not really it's not the case. I heard something on the radio about a statistic that that the number of people actually employed in medical actual doctors and medical facilities is is is nowhere near what we actually think because of the amount of administration cleaning staff, all sorts you know, it's it's it's proportionate, so there are a number of opportunities for individuals
within the Barrett who engaged within the construction phase and post construction phase on that sum of money goes to the administration in terms of of enabling that
Mr Graham, to deal with the certainty mountain Council given nearest point about greening and the ecological, because that is the the green wall points, and and it's largely being dealt with through the through the urban greening factor which has been increased, but because of the proximity of this building. Close to the Atkinson Morley wing and other Building control matters and the fact that there is a possibility of a policy compliant scheme being very close to that scheme, the success of any green walls was deemed to be highly unlikely in terms of gathering maturity and survival. So it was, it was just not room
as as a feasible thing.
OK, the recommendation to approve is that agreed.
good thank you move on to the second item, which is the flower stall, I'm sure we all know very well outside of Clapham Junction station, on St John's Hill.
I'm not sure that you wish to say much about it, Mr Grainger pathologies if you do, but it's all in the paper, isn't it very much say?
o I will draw the attention of the Committee to the late items paper, where we have received an electronic and paper petition amounting to.
Surrey role page 1,078 signatories all indicating their support of the proposal.
red
any comments.
silence council well, Councillor Councillor, is Fine air from East Putney ward, thank you.
I love the flower stall, but it's in the wrong place, it really is in the wrong place, I agree with all the objections that are laid out in the report here and I understand why people love it so much, so do I, but it's extremely inconvenient if you're trying to meet somebody who doesn't know where they are, where do they stand because the flower stalls in the way?
or in the road dead, yes, sir, so over and I think there must be a better solution, I can't see it myself, but there must be a better solution and I suggest that we don't extended for five years, which is what they asked for but expect or hope that,
solutions to the problem will arise in the next three years, and I think if we make it three years they'll have to concentrate.
Mr grandchildren, you remind me how many times we've given permission on a five-year basis.
once so, that was one 2017 but officers actually recommended that for refusal at the time, but the Committee gave it a five-year temporary permission, I'm inclined to think like I think, Councillor S, that five years is so long that the applicant's won't actually do anything seriously about it, sorry if I'm offending someone but won't until it's much nearer and then,
so I think.
the suggestion of three years is very sensible, perhaps just keep ticking over, rather than as facing this application every five years, also Councillor Humphreys.
often press the button. Thank you Chair, yes, I, I agree with what Councillor as an end in itself as it on that. I think I'll just what it's all a technical point on it. I realised that it's the current temporary permanent ran out on the 20th on the Second of May 22, so what we're approving tonight is that backdated to them, something that you know exactly, what it does. It start windows, they'd start whatever period of time we're talking about granting them
it would start from from the day that permissions granted, so if I have turned tomorrow, if this was to succeed either, five or three would be from tomorrow, but councillors was slightly before it, Councillor, as was slightly more generous and myself when I was mulling over this when I was saying give them two years, could I just think it's ridiculous that this has dragged on so long and it's just infuriation. It comes back rule sympathetic to local businesses and all the rest of it, but surely I think we should make it clear, whatever time group decided to put on it, that the that time is to be used by the applicant to try and find somewhere else, we wouldn't want them to disappear completely but find an alternative location or something else in the vicinity
to make them carry on because one and make it very clear that if they were minded to come back again and said, Can we have another few years, we just say no Councillor Justin?
yeah man, Justin Nine Elms.
mention is made in the notes of the current dimensions of the cabin as it's called, but there's also mentioned that it would appear to have grown in size from some aerial photograph. In actual fact, the previous size of the store was 5 metres by 1.8 because that is an official market traders, dimensions of a store, so in these somehow in these intervening years it's doubled in size, so are we talking about renewing for whatever period the original size of the store which was more, which was, I would say, a stool or the size of the porta cabin that is now become
what you see at the existing structure is what they are seeking to receive a further five-year temporary permission for so they're asking permission for what you describe, not unjustly perhaps, but as a Porter cabin, OK, Councillor window.
purpose question of Mr Granger, which is that, given that the current or not current, but previous approval expired in 22.
did the Department not take enforcement action, which is what would have normally been the case elsewhere, and if so, why not?
it's a good job that my valued colleague, Mr Raybould from the Planning Enforcement Team is here because we talked about this earlier safe Chief Minister about.
Good evening, Mr Raybould enforcement yeah, this one has been enforcement case on and off for a while, I think initially we were going to recommend issue of an enforcement notice way back in 2016 2017, when it was enlarged and councillors at the time were a little bit resistance that the same way and preferred an application to come in before Committee for it to be fully discussed and, as explained by Mr Granger, the officer recommendation was refused, but on the night members
approved the application enforcement has again prompted submission of this fresh application before it tonight
OK, obviously, officer, Councillor White.
yeah, I mean abuse that flower stall in the past.
I don't think is an obstruction and it's been there for such a long time. The fees Clapham Junction is a really really busy stations, so you know I mean unless you have a massive Boulevard, outside is anything there is going to be an obstruction, and I think that if you had, if we're asking it to find another place, well is in a fantastic place, so you know, obviously they'd want to stay in that place and it's convenient for people coming out of the station and going home and whatever. So I feel that
I think I think it works quite well, and I see no reason why we shouldn't go four to five years.
interesting, I mean, it's obviously quite an attractive thing to have around, and indeed I've used it to and no doubt all sorts of other people who have.
I'm sorry, I'm not an expert on, but it's been said no doubt alleged, I have no idea if you want to back this up, there was very expensive, I think that's not quite for us.
the Planning officers make quite clear the planning arguments against it on a different level, I think it very it obstructs the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights there, so there are a number of problems with it.
Councillor White Scotland interesting position which is welcome to have on which I must admit I have had sympathy within the past we have a.
we have a recommendation that it's five years, we have an amendment that for three years I think.
amendment well, yeah.
I took Councillor AAS's actually moving as three I didn't, and I know you're suggesting to Councillor Humphreys, but I'm not sure that I'm a and moving it or not.
22. It's even more pointed that we shouldn't give a meditator time. I don't feel over inclined to be generous on that front. Unfortunately, this is this is like. Can I say this without offending Councillor, given day usually gets offended robbery in party politics. This is getting like a Liberal, Democratic convention where he a swab
very unusual, but let.
but let's
now the last amendment moved, and I think that's the right way of doing it.
was for two years and that was seconded, or is it it was seconded, those in favour of permission being granted for a two year period.
those against.
well that wins for votes to two, that it's a two year period, now that will sorry, I should have said a bit me, the majority may forgive me for this, all may not forgive me for this, but can I just check out there is a an overall plan, one reason why I picked three years is that there is a plan,
which has that type of timescale is that relevant, Mr. Greg, perhaps you could just remind us.
certainly the service part of the adoption of the Local Plan, we have the Clapham Junction, urban heart master plan, that's currently going through development, I mean it's called through stage 1, it's no at stage 2, but the there's easily another year of work to complete stage 2 in south of three phases.
because of the complexities of hopefully people were trying to all the the the stakeholders involved were trying to find one solution to actually traverse the a new elements to reverse this station, that they ended up with three options so they have been worked up, but that's going to actually start a year-long Gate. The work on the master plan to get at stage 2 and A I'd adoption was was thought to be in spring 2026, but that's going to be projected forward. Why possibly three years would make more sense to dovetail with that, but there is obviously a matter for members to to debate.
I mean, hard liners on my left are telling me, is already been decided, where flexible here.
the the fort, do you want to stick with two years, OK, so we've start with two years, in fact is 2 years, and so it's a two year period, OK, thank you.
move to Item 3, which is the rival side business Centre and is.
what will the technical words details following on from a major application, any comments?
Alan stretches, sorry all.
thank you, my name's Alan Richardson, the Team Leader for the West team, it's a Section 73 application to vary the original parent permission for the redevelopment of the site for 433 residential units and commercial units this focuses.
mainly on the central just on the residential blocks, really the central block and the one on the riverside, the changes are all linked to changes in the Fire eggs and building regs requirements, so two of the blocks blocks Iquique, which ones are they D and G have to have additional staircase to meet with those regulations and there's various changes to the layout and access points routes through and so on associated with,
flood and building regs and fire again,
yeah, that's the main thrust of it.
the recommendation is to approve, I think it makes it quite clear on page 63, but the applicant has advised that these changes are required due to updated far regulations, in my view, well as far regulations or not, they are in any event and improvements, so I
I am personally quite in favour of the application, but any other comments Councillor, given the just go to one request and one question really when patient 91 in part of 15 point for it says, whilst the units would not strictly comply with new standards set out in LP 26 about external amenity space,
how many units don't comply, or is it all units, don't comply? I couldn't get an understanding of that and the second point deserve he request for some information at the top of pay 25 talks about 25,000 contribution to facilitate improved visitor access to the river from King George's Park. So when that is drawn up, could that be shared with me? Please cetaceans, I missed, which which where are you referencing what was the second point? Where did you see that in the report, at the top of page 20, when 91 91 he said 25,000 pound contribution or improvements to improvements from the park to the river
I just wanted details when they are ready.
that's fine.
as he prepared so, sorry, there are two bits, so the one is about how many units don't comply yeah.
so all the flats have private amenity space, either through terraces or balconies.
except for three studio flats, so there little studio flats in block F.
and these are, as were approved previously yeah, and this communal space as well, yeah, the vast majority are OK, yes, at vast majority, okay or any other Councillor White.
yeah, we've got, I.
a plan that actually removes basement, sorry, Councillor White for Tooting Bec, will she removes basements Allemagne, this is this is a major monument for May.
I know I know so that the the improvements around sustainability much welcomed as well, but
all our own plan is is 50% affordable homes, isn't it?
it is indeed yeah, sorry just to confirm oppo, thus emerging policy does not emerge policy and also are a formal split 70 30.
and this doesn't meet any either of those, and I know it meets the the jellies standard as far as that's concerned, but is disappointed they can go a little bit further.
with our with changing the plan to to actually, at least at least with the affordable, because I think it would only be 21 so added social homes, because that's what we need said that's a little bit disappointing, but, as I say, the rest of it is is quite positive in in my in my estimation you and are in total agreement on the essence of this matter, but the application has already been approved at the principal level and went to sort them out variations of detail so,
OK, Councillor hubris, thank you Chair.
just on the affordable haven't, I must say I was very pleased to see the increase in the extra 5 4 bed unit, which is something we do particularly needs. So that was something that was very worthwhile changing and something that is a real need. So we are well done on that point. It was very good and their source heat pumps into the dashboard is, I mean it, definitely improvement on this kind of one. I had a slight query on the active frontages because obviously losing the basements and getting the bin stores, and all that on the ground floor now and to slightly concerned that the the frontages aren't going to be as active as they were with all the staircase and I know Councillor as always, like to see doors on those on the streets and we're going to shove them all in the corridor in the courtyard on this one, and so are we happy that the the frontages will be fine on this one, because it's
a in the main, there are still going to be openings on the outside if you like, but most of them have got steps so they had to be alternative, main entrances provided within the courtyard to to meet with accessibility standards. But you still view the building from the outside as having an access point. Yeah take them as well as well as Minister, yet thank you. That's that's much clearer and one other thing about my chair. There was a comment in the objections about the construction traffic I've wanted to check on the sea MP. Apparently, people saying the construct is currently and they were worried about it, going on into the future of the build out are using Haldane place instead of bending Valley for the construction traffic. I just wanted to see if there's any detail on the sea MP to specify which ones should be using just to make sure they're doing what they should be doing, because obviously that is something we were concerned that existing residents already, let alone before it's finished, sat Mr Richards, almost untidily
I was just going to say that there is there is a condition on here that we've approved C M P and it requires them to be in a coup in compliance with that, so I guess this is something for our enforcement to.
monitor to monitor yeah in terms and and if they consider that there to be a problem there, but I can hand over to Mr tiddly if he is aware of any issues that have been reported there is she's gagging to get in sitting behind you.
good evening Councillors, David Titley, we had a transport strategy and obviously this paper is dealing with changes, and so the construction management arrangements are not changed as a result of this and so consequently that's wave one sticking with, I think it was only the single objections I wouldn't want to overstate that given his quite a significant amount of development going on, there was one objection, but we will investigate and ensure compliance.
okay, it's the application approved.
agreed thank.
OK those in favour of the application 1 2 3 4 5 those against.
can write move on to sorry for public interest that was five boats to one well, if you like, I've been sorry but I said five to one because I didn't vote I chose not to vote but is 5 2 1 I didn't choose not to vote resume against the Dorothy like that I just thought I'd leave it to the Committee.
moving on to application number 4, Oxford Road and I'm not sure that all Members will be aware that we've had a letter from the Ward Councillors.
and perhaps Mr grandeur just cover that letter in
for instance by historic miscarriages, but I do beg your pardon miscarriages might wish to cover that letter in talking about Oxford Road, thank you, and the letter came in quite late in the day. It was essentially a reiteration of the objections that were first submitted by Councillor Jeffreys on behalf of residents. There were a lot of objections initially if Members have looked at what was originally proposed, it was a huge roof addition across both properties completely unacceptable. it's taken a while to actually get to the stage where there are just two dormer windows proposed at the rear, so that's the nub of the what's actually been proposed, in the end they removed all the other elements so.
the objection really was relating water what was previously proposed and they're not currently is before you
so we now have an abrogation for what some might consider a fairly modest extension.
any comments I was just agreed.
agreed.
sorry, who's commenting on Councillor Humphreys.
and Councillor window, thank you Chair sorry for the confusion yeah, I think the
one of the things that Councillor Jeffreys was was saying in his letter and apologies if colleagues have all seen, it was that he had some concerns about the consultation and the re-consultation afterwards, I think that was one of the main thrust and just just a bit of clarity on that because the first time round I think there were 12 objections and the second time around the only for Richard says is it's changed quite significantly from what was first,
proposed, but I think there was a little bit of confusion about people, not knowing how much it had changed and might have said more, they'd known, but just to be clear about how much we consulted the second time round, the smaller consultation and it was the first time round because apparently according to Councillor Jeffreys quite a lot the residents that they didn't know about. Second consultation
as you've been doing this long enough, you know perfectly well that people always complain that they didn't know, or they didn't through that piece of paper, away to them in the bin before they read it, etc. I take your point that Ms Jeffery's
on page 118 109, you conceive, first of all, at the top of the page, shows you what actually is now proposed, so it's just the dormer windows of the main roof and a consultation, you'll see that there were 22 letters sent out and we had 12 responses the first time and then also a petition so people felt very strongly quite understandably as well as to what was initially proposed.
following a lot of revisions as set out here as well, because we did get three in the end so we finally went to the last we only consulted on the final one again, 22 letters were sent out but this time only for people still responded, so there was a question really here a often rule of thumb is if you're reducing something in terms of scale as a question as to whether or not you need to re-consult because you've already consulted on the the larger scheme possible if you like, but because there was so much concern and Councillor Jeffreys was involved, we considered it pertinent to consult directly by letter again.
and that's it really, I mean we, we, we've done, that we have had responses, I think, is quite evident that has happened. The the letter would have set out what the revisions were, so I don't think anybody's and aware of the proposal now got. Can I say that sounds like a perfectly good explanation, but I wouldn't be happy if you didn't re-consult, if you said there was a question just because it has got smaller and therefore that doesn't discount would comments first time round, it might mean the same number is still object or it might mean that fewer object, but wouldn't don't think you can ignore the consultation, so I'll just not be OK, so when you said you said there was a question about whether we should reconciled it, haven't got smaller. If I ever came up as a question here, I would definitely be in favour of re-consulted. That's all I wanted to make me, sorry, can I just come back at slowly on that, because not every time, this is more of a general point, not every time will re-consult if something's reduced in size, because,
it's as the costs involved in consultation. This is 22 44 4 letters, that's almost just 44 pounds per 234 pounds fee for an application. Every time we reconsulted we send out 60 or 70,000 letters a year from my Department, I can't we can't reconcile every time often we will do and things like this. There is a significant change and it's a very much reduction on, and I think that's absolutely right that we reconsulted, but if they're small changes and small reductions, we weren't so I take your point, but it's not a one size fits all. Mr Gordon and I are going to have an argument
I take your point that if the change is massive and it depends on the on the level of the Joan jaggery, Councillor of India, I think I think that Mr Colders comment ended saying.
there will be obviously room for horses for courses, and I think this on this occasion perhaps', given the extent of correspondence in the first time round, it might have been prudent to re-consult, I think it's ultimately about creating a system of confidence in the planning process not every time you need to, but I think they're so long as you leave it is possible to do it on some occasions.
fine, OK, is it agreed applications agreed, thank you move on to.
the car parking space and Swayfield Road, interesting and again we have had some correspondence on that,
right.
stretches got any comment on at all.
yes, so this is an application.
for 9 units on what is currently a car parking space on Swaffield Road, you'll have received the Late items paper, which sets out a little bit of activity on this one.
and we've received 13 additional objections to this, largely from residents of as Elsfield House who currently have within their leasehold the right to park in the car park.
where this development will take place
and I think that's a private issue, though, just to clarify because.
there were only 11 spaces proposed, I believe, at the minute there are 20 permits,
issued for or available for all Sheffield House residents, so clearly the the the number of car parking spaces available for those residents will reduce as a result of this, however, we have received further correspondence with the applicants who have confirmed, as we have set out in the report, that this is a civil matter, it's not a matter for planning to consider in terms of whether or not
those car parking spaces are are retained for Elsfield house or for the for the residents of the new development, but it is an undertaking that they have agreed to, and that's why it's subject to the section 1 06 agreement, the that forms part of of of the permission thank you.
Councillor be removed, thanks yeah, I've got a few questions, first of but the other thing, because I just need to understand some of the details, I swore the in the arboricultural roles report in the report section, but what it doesn't cover is the impact on the trees on okro Road given that there is going to be a full site basement,
box the trees on offshore Road are very mature plane trees and I don't know the impact is there and whether they are in any way protected under the conditions in year I couldn't see any reference to them.
and whether a Tree, particularly a tree on all-clear Road, is so close to what might be the three houses or possibly the deck car, lift whether that is in any way protected. Compromise us on to the report is silent on it and I just want to know a little more about that. The second thing sorry to interrupt. They're pretty mature trees, that means they are in a very mature trees. India,
in the in the second point I want to get some clarification is what's the window to window distance between the proposed townhouses and the proposed flats, and I would rather it was kind of balcony to balcony distance rather than window to window.
I mean, it might be adequate, but it is suggested that it might not be in the correspondence, and the third question of clarification is about the path where there's some correspondence again about its adequacy in terms of wheelchair accessibility, and whether it's lift and so on now the previous pathway actually existed.
which didn't go through this land, it actually went through the land that Higgins of currently developing for the Council, so I think the report is slightly inaccurate about the pathway previously existed, it didn't exist through this land, it exist another land and whether the pathway proposed is only on this land or does it straddle the old boundaries and new boundaries.
but when you look, if I, when you look at the CJI I on page 121 yeah, you're talking about the distance between the flats of the houses on the left and the flats on the right that what you mean, yes, yes, yes, OK, do we know that researchers,
on Page 1 3 3
under paragraph 9.5, it refers to the distances as being between 14 and 18 metres, okay.
OK.
in respect of the routes through.
on page 1 to 9.
paragraph 2 point for its acknowledging that this will where there is a route being re-provided, but it does acknowledge that this was lost as a result of the adjacent development so that it was the route through that was sitting in the Higgins development so as part of this they've offered it really as a as a means of linking Oakenshaw and Sophie, so this is a welcome public benefit as far as we're concerned because it separates the two sites quite nicely.
and it gives us back that access with light lighting, and so on.
I think it it again.
the the route through will be between 1.8 and 3 metres width, so it's quite a decent amount as well for.
when Mr Richard knew there was a 1.5 figure quoted in the report and then at 1.00.6 figure quoted in the report of the narrowest now you're saying it's one point aid, what is it at the narrowest forgive me I I mean I was taken it from what I can remember reading the report myself.
at the point in the report, so paragraph 2 point for obeys 1.1 2 9 says 1.6 out at its narrowest and on 1 1 9, then he goes on to say 3 metres at its widest, yes, and then on 1 1 9 it says 1.5 to 3 metres so in a sense what I'm asking is at its narrowest is at 1.00.5 was at 1.00.6 and is it basically adequate for a disabled person?
in a wheelchair, I mean that's the more important consideration I'm looking for, I I believe it would be wide enough along the route for wheelchair users or buggy users.
because I think most stores door width would be 1 point matchless yeah in internal doors for for weekday obsessively can help with a double buggy measure that he over often uses.
Mr tiddly might help with the double buggy measure that we allow for pavements draft, so wishes to just say.
whatever the figure is 1.5 1.6 these.
to translate for people who are not afraid, widow in 5 6 foot is big enough for any double buggy, the on I've ever seen six foot.
sort six foot yeah, I said five or six foot big enough for any double buggy out at errors in.
frankly, the other question is about the building line with number 85 Swaffield Road, the plans show that the the block of flats will be proud of the building line for 85 Sofia Road, and it's pretty unusual that you would have a neighbouring property proud of of an established building line I don't know what's the justification there.
I presume you're talking about the rear building line which does project beyond.
sorry on the street.
paid, I don't have a plan specifically off the streets to hand to look at that and to verify, but I would imagine it's to do with the care for the movement of the buildings.
along the street, so it it's.
the building is in between a terrace and another building being built, and so sometimes there is a variation in terms of with building lines as a consequence
sorry, sorry, there's also my my recollection as it is in line with the corner development and then at steps back and then steps back further and to the terrace on page one to two, you can see that as the building lines.
thank you, I walk along this virtually 10 times a day a week.
I know a day it was hoped the Egley Road extremely well, the Higgins development is right on the building on on the property line, the leaves Shyam place, buildings are set back with a front garden, and this is more in line with England Splott then with the SHA place Gardens I just think it's not right that the front of the building should be are not respecting an established residential building line.
I think you can, I think it looks quite a good development actually myself and those people concerned about the the pathway, for instance the pathway very close to where I live, which runs into Northcote Road, similar scales, no no Krim crime problems associated with it I don't think it's.
sorry,
are you suggesting that slow-food rose is not a nice place, because speakers, I would absorb gas quite a reasonable place, indeed local residents think not.
OK.
are there any other comments or finally, my comment about the the parking, well, actually the assessment box, there's also to be fair, your comment about the trees, I think yes, yeah.
and with regard to the trees, there aren't any specific conditions and for protection of trees, I am aware of the tree that you're referring to and Oakenshaw, but I believe that's far enough away from this particular site, it's outside of this red line certainly, and it's along I think it's along the road on Oakenshaw,
I don't know whether or not it would be reasonable to impose a condition requiring protection of that tree, bearing in mind the site itself is some distance away, albeit that there might be that might be captured in the C. M. P. But it depends on what the root of the construction traffic would be and so on, so I'm not sure whether it would be reasonable perhaps we could ask.
our legal adviser, but I don't know if it's a the tree that you're concerned about is,
insufficient distance within the site boundary to warrant condition that would require protection. Chair I mean, Oxford Road has been sorry orchestra Road has been a cul-de-sac for a very, very long time and therefore the pavement at that end is quite narrow and the trees on the pavement. What I am really concerned about is when the basement is Doug relatively close to the basement out to the tree root structure. What measures are we going to take to protect a tree which is part of a series of trees, roughly all of the same age?
and whether we are prepared to see it compromise, and I would hope that we're not.
and I would hope that the paper would have covered the the risk to the tree, given that the route to the car lift is going to require them traversing the pavement that Councillor loans.
certainly does suggest to me that you have a campaign on your hands to get to get all the trees in that Road, which are all mature and fairly large, to get them all seen by our tree experts and made TPOs or not, as the case may be.
but I don't think most Richards houses the answers specifically on that you've made the point.
I'm sure if we proceed that the condition of the tree would certainly be raised biomass Richards, but I I guess it will be all right, but that's not good enough, guessing iceberg has gone researchers.
I thought you and meaningful to say something you are as wrong, any other comments cancer, why to Councillor Humphreys here, obvious comment about a plot device were going in.
for car park geese
and you know, and it is obviously not linked, well, it's not linked directly to it to the new development and the fact that there's no affordable housing, handily we've just got nine houses again.
but.
I mean, are all the other leases legally.
are they legally enforceable such that if a car parking space wasn't provided because of this new development would would, I think you were going to be fairly clear here, Councillor White, the leasehold rearrangement with the property owner.
are what they are missing, I'm sure m searches hasn't considered that part of her job to look at it or to give advice on it, that's a private, as she said, a private matter between leaseholders and the property owner.
don't think we have a view about that.
are you wait, variances, isolating, but now a third thing, it's just frustration us.
coming forthwith, but anyway.
OK, Councillor freeze.
thank you Chair. I mean there obviously are issues with parking, and that does need to be resolved, because we all know the series we can draw planning permission for something doesn't mean it's gonna necessarily rebuilt, falls out the other legal issues, but it does seem odd, and the explanation in the late papers seems to make it even more confusing about who has and who hasn't got writes to those spaces and the applicant says this and the residents say somebody else, I'm I'm I'm not totally happy, I know we're being told it's not a matter for this committee to decide, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that anybody knows what they're doing to to bottom is out properly and that undermined by confidence in the rest of the scheme. I have to agree with with Councillor have given to you about the building line at the front because, yes,
how likely it was this, this committee that approved making the site next door bigger, but the context between that and the terraced houses further down, and I think this transition doesn't necessarily work very well, but it's a shame, as Mr Paul has said, it does step back, it's a shame he doesn't step back enough to line up with the building line of the houses.
the traditional houses further up the street, and that would've maybe perhaps made it blend in better at it seems very much looking at their looking at the plan on page one through to this is obviously very much whether the developer is is maximising the benefit for the
residents of his own developed, which is fair enough, but at the expense of anybody else on the outside, because everything's pushed writes the boundaries to extend the space into gardens and amenity space in the middle for the residents of this development, but that means it does have an impact on the residents next door and all the rest of it, which is which is unfortunate. There are still issues that rather not with the parking arrangements, because there's this thing about this parking space outside on the street, so could we have a little bit of clarity on how that's going to work to understand the development next door has rights to park in front of awareness access is going to be, in fact, I'm not sure we're in that seizure on Phase 1 2 1. Is that car not exactly where we were talking about there being an issue with developments, and how factory is that going to work? Because we get some clarity on that? Please
if I may say so, chatting Humphreys in the friendliest possible way.
when you are doing this job,
couple of years ago, a few have faced with similar situation, someone who owns a site somewhere else and that they have whatever they provide somewhere else you wouldn't have considered, it is as relevant to a planning application on another site.
what was or wasn't happening on the previous site. I just don't think it's part of our role as a planning committee to give a view on that. It may be in the rather than maybe it certainly our view to give a role, to give a view on the role of the parking situation in the area in general and felt that I could happily turn to Mr lucidly and say what is the parking situation there if we had application for new housing, but we don't we've got an application for what the person wants to put their, and it's not our role to defend the rights somewhere else. Is it
as a new interpretation of planning law, if it is not the torture, I completely disagree. I think the fact is that is pertinent to this application that what the applicant is trying to do is is hidebound by the circumstances around them. Let's remember, was at last month we had a discussion about the loading bay in full can Road with a stop, there were no sorry, it wasn't that one, it was the one on
Richmond Road, where the majestic wine warehouses, where there's a loading bay on the Red route and was that adequate for the services to the businesses and the new residential properties that they extra car placements car free and I think it's somewhat the same situation here, it's whether that parking space on the street which is already there in planning terms is going to impinge on what they are proposing to do if it's not possible to do it and I think that's perfectly relevant
couldn't make sense of that, to be honest, I really do mean I didn't, but perhaps I am asked to colder about his view about.
our attitude on one site, given the erroneous.
commitments on another site, but I was going to hand over to Mr Moore's just to go through what we can legally look at was part of this application and what's outside the requirements? If that's OK there was no no, it isn't, it isn't a care until no that's fine kind of lost. The thread of what Councillor Humphreys was were saying, I'm afraid it maybe I should make it clearer that and you can keep it simple, so let's not let's not over confuse things
there are several issues on this site which had been raised in objections, and they're in the report about access to the car parking lift, for example, at the back there is issues with the parking space that is already given permission for the site next door, which over lays the entrance to this.
alleyway in the side between the two developments, and is that going to be an issue for access and those things together? I think a fairly pertinent questions to ask as far as how it impacts on the protect, the possibility of the development and a genuine concerns have been raised by residents in their objections, and we will be missing at failing in our duty if we didn't address those concerned, I was sorry it goes to. I agree with you absolutely, but I thought you were referring to
I thought you were referring to the parking rights, if that's the right word of people in you, weren't, I do beg your pardon in that case.
so the issues are about access to the car lift.
that's a parking space at the front which is going to cover over the alleyway, I think, is mentioned in the report and O'Connor apologies, I won't ask Mr Marsden, but I think I'm glad either is able to elicit that clarification Chairman I think Miss Roach's does have danced, I just wanted to say that this was something that we as officers had picked up on that the entrance to the lift.
and if you can go back to the Higgins scheme, you can see that there are parking spaces proposed in that location currently for I think to do with the Health Centre now again this is a similar situation as with the provision of 11 car parking spaces being only being offered because they are legally required to do so because of the
clauses of the leasehold.
how that works and how it it arrives at that point is outside of the planning.
regime. You know, but we are assessing it, for what is are the 11 units? Sorry, 11 space is acceptable in the basement, is the development, above-ground acceptable and so on, and movement and and in consultation with our colleagues. Similarly, because those car parking spaces have been approved as part of the Higgins again, this would be a negotiation between this landowner and with the the neighbouring landowner to see whether or not there can be any rearrangement of those parking spaces. I've looked at that back area and there is probably
Mo, you know space to maneuver there in terms of where those parking spaces need to go, so I don't see that there has to be a hold-up of this if permission was granted just based on on on what has previously been approved at next door, I think there are ways of of negotiating between the two landowners and that's as much as we can comment on it.
OK, Councillor, given doing.
J I'm my concern really is about wider than this, but to let me let me try and Elsfield has, has got 20 leaseholders and 20 people are parking rights in this car park.
it seems that 11 of them will have their parking rights respected and the remaining will lose their parking rights and therefore they will add to parking pressure on the adjoining roads, 9 properties that are being proposed here will either not have parking in the basement or they will have to turf out what those 11 and so they will also be added to the parking pressure in the area the new Dr surgery is inevitably going to have its own.
parking pressure for visitors because it's already the case that Suffield Road is parked up relatively frequently with patients visiting the Dr, because parking along Gareth Lane is now impossible because there is a cycle lane in front of doctors surgery. The new housing proposal in the neighborhood is relatively modest car provision, car parking provision which inevitably at that time said there would be parking pressure and this paper does not address the parking pressure that might be dissolved as a result of this development in the wider area. What it doesn't also address, in my view, is that the basement box will be a, I know what he does to the rainwater circuit that they're currently happens in the car parking. What does the ring that the the the basement box do? But the impact of the basement box and access to it from all sorts of places is also not adequately, in my view, are addressed in this paper, and therefore I I would suggest we differed as to allow for some real clarity as to how you get into that car park. Will that mature tree be compromised? Will there be permissions granted by the council that owns Oxhill Road pavements and on all of those matters, and then actually a genuinely assessment of what the parking pressure, how the parking pressures in the area might be better managed? If this development were to go ahead, I just don't think it's sufficiently here. I accept the whole legal argument between leaseholders and freeholders, and all of that, that's a matter that they must resolve, but what we have to resolve for the neighbourhood is that we are not adding to what is already not an easy place to park, particularly if you're Brocklebank practice patient, you can't really parked nearby
and Sophia road is as close you can get to.
Mr delightedly, what what have you got to say about?
not all the details of it, not the normal lift and the access to, but about parking.
the situation in that corner of Garrett line software Road area.
thank you, thank you, Chair, I think may be the starting point is huge to look at the London Plan and look at the Council's policy, this site is located in an area of Pete out 5 and it could you could argue that corners it, it's not far from Peter all four but in no circumstances the expectation is development would be car fleet and effectively there would be no parking provided with development.
and also that because the development in these cases and nine units, it wouldn't be excluded from the controlled parking zone.
and so consequently, it's up and say it's irrelevant that there may be parking pressures caused as a result of development in the round, but those parking pressures would be addressed by the views of the controlled Parking Zone, the hours, the eligibility criteria, the price of permits and potentially a future Local Plan that lowered the threshold at which developments were excluded from the KPI Z from 10 units to say 5 units or something like that, but it wouldn't be something that we would.
so what I'm talking in the round and not really this individual applications, this needs to be considered on its own particular merits, as as here.
so, Mr tiddly, in principle, the owner of this particular site of land.
actually doesn't need to provide any parking, he could just put in a development for two very expensive large townhouses, and I'll just get rid of all a bargain, there's nothing we could do about that, I mean he's not, but there's nothing we can do about it in plan. In policy terms, there would be no objection for me for that whether there was a wider objection
so that's position on the parking, whether that's
whether people like it or not, there is a presumed parking Councillor is.
we spent a lot of time talking about cars, I'd like you to start thinking about the people, have a look at the top left-hand corner on page one to two and look at that wretched little, how squeezed into the corner there now, I think that although one might be grateful for that if one was homeless,
it's a sign that is actually a greedy development to have something which is so cramped in its living area and the external spaces going to be like a sort of a corridor Green corridors.
overall, I liked the design of the
the elevations.
and I think it has a lot to commend it, but that is a dreadful little health and I am surprised that any of us would overlook the fact.
well.
you're talking on page one to two, that's just to we're talking about the house immediately under the words proposed, yes, yes, that house in the corner.
have we got only can you say anything Mezrich's about that particular house scale, our the the, the the opens the garden anything like that?
meets with standards.
Peter sorry, it's been assessed in terms of what the layout has been presented to us. The layouts reflect the the parcel of land shape, and also we have to consider what it would look like on the outside when you look at the elevations as well, but I will, if I can come come back from that, I mean that that House is inclining me to agree with the proposal over there to delay this and get them to do, try a bit harder with some of the aspects of the parking and that house
so what have we got here, we've got a proposal to differs that right, yes, I'd support this, and that's seconded okay.
sorry, can I just confirm which house house three that on the total amount paid, you want to to top left-hand corner immediately below the word proposed and and your concern about what that's a 77 square metre unit?
you can't just thinking numbers when you're thinking your homes.
there's a horrid space.
it would be very difficult to authorise the furniture.
I dread to think what happens upstairs, I.
is it certainly smaller and more crap than the ones immediately alongside it?
that's undoubtedly the case or nature, the let's be shape of the site, but it is by no means particularly small compared with all sorts of places where it is not particularly small, it's just poorly designed.
it's not.
I do think I'm not, that is that that is a really filthy tactic, the outset, Cavendish, which we'll discuss later elsewhere, the I agree with that being said that again.
I'm not sure this is the reason even legally to refuse this, but to delay it as they try harder, I think that is the reason for it.
can I sorry I just want to say that the entire scheme would have to be redesigned now, which is obviously one that I don't really below the fact that this is responding to the site and its form, it's gone through a number of of iterations and revisions through pre-app and everything else to find out how that Brook at the best layout but iterations I'm struggling to understand what grounds to defer would be.
right, we've got them moving, and seconding now on what grounds to Rineke ground.
yesterday for so it was a different all that to allow for engagement with the applicant to fully understand the parking implications now I can't agree to that the power it really, as Mr Chidley said, if it was just some application for housing on its own we would say is there's no parking in a in a Peto in this area that's just kind of I mean I can't accept that.
it's about, you can accept the I'm saying icon that's my what I'm saying is I'm seeking clarity about the parking situation, yes, both in terms of parking currently available on this site and in future, will be available from the site for the current users and future users of the site. The paper is not clear enough about it. I'm not talking about rights is about the adequacy, and the second point is a bad weather in design terms. The prepare, the the proposed house number 3 is the best that can be done in that eyes and whether a review of that has to improve its aspect and design would be would be to the advantage of the site
is that seconded?
any other comments.
while I make it come at this.
I think on the whole, it's quite nicely designed the whole thing we're talking about a number of housing houses in an area that has a housing deficit, I think you need to be very careful and consideration of that in terms of what alternatives we might get, so I would certainly oppose that but then we've got off.
Mr most.
so, just to hopefully give some clarity to Members on the at the proposal to defer in relation to the parking element, I've got a concern about deferring deliberation of this application on a matter that is not a material planning consideration in the future and existing users of this particular car park Members been can very clearly advised, both in the paper and this evening, that the private arrangement between between the freeholder and the leaseholders is not a material planning consideration if, if Members want further clarity in relation to park, and we have to be very specific and I think it's relates to accumulative impacts of the development in the area on the available parking now, bearing in mind what they've got
Mr tiddler, he's been advising members, we don't have the policy backing for this, so I'm not entirely sure what further information members seeking this regard that will benefit their decision when the matter comes back before them and secondly, in terms of the design element,
can we be very clear on what it is that members find objectionable about the design, because it clearly can't be anything to do with the size of a unit it meets all of the National and Local space requirements, in fact, I think if you look at the the table that is on forgive me on Page 1 3 3 and if that unit in the corners unit 3 it's actually for square metres larger.
then the two properties.
of which it forms a terrorist, so what is it that Members of very unhappy with about the design, and I think that will give both officers and the applicant some clarity as to what it is, but they need to look at?
Councillor has.
sorry, I'm beginning to understand that deferring it due to the parking is not sound.
so I'd be reluctant to fail the whole.
designed because of that or on the house, so I would withdraw my support for De later this, however, it demonstrates that to use square meter reads, as a measure of design is just so limited.
I mean, that's all YouTube about square metre, its size of, and not aspects, views, convenience, aesthetic issues or even comfortable issued, but that's OK, that's just my opinion, and I understand sadly that we can't do anything.
sorry anything about rubbish designed like that. This is an unfortunate situation to get into where essentially there is reservation. Run the members about lots of little things and maybe you know the whole panoply of the planning law and and rules is marshalled to stop what is essentially a modest kind of stop check your pick, your drawings and come back and try harder attempt. This is not trying to stop a development, but the whole forces on that side are marshalled against a reasonable, hopefully a positive outcome both for the neighborhood and this particular group of people agreed at the moment, and I just think it makes the whole process looks like rubber stamp. We might as well go home because officers have written the report, they've got all of policy justification for what they have written in their and therefore they will inevitably give advice that you can't change what we have written and save yourself time. Go
that's what's happening, I think I probably made that kind of argument about officers recommendations for many on many occasions when perhaps there was someone else sitting where I'm sitting the fact that, but you've made it fairly clear what the officers advises give.
we've all accepted now that there are no planning grounds, the others items are is set at grounds which, like it or not, is not part of our emit, except, to be fair, the tree.
and the tree
I think I understood from from Mr Richards, the tree was sufficiently far away to not likely be affected.
is that correct researchers the key that you're referring to is across the way to the south by some distance from the site itself and also, as I recall, although I haven't looked at this, but I'm pretty sure that tree is very well protected under the asphalt deemed scheme, so there's already protection afforded to that tree in terms of just in terms of construction, work and vehicle movements around the site. It's not clear advice as it is some distance away. If I remember correctly, it is protected, and that's the sorry Councillor, I am looking at an aerial photograph as I'm explaining that because I wanted to make sure myself where that tree was located, as I'm giving you advice
you could have said that about almost anything and people wouldn't necessarily know the answer, but it is what you raise very good, not you're still moving, Councillor Humphreys, or do we have to we give you got somebody to add?
something slightly different, if I may Chair,
find trying to be reasonable. That is, I think we are all agreed that there is some merit to the scheme as the scheme in here. I just think what we've had to the debate so far. There's some debate about all sorts of details and to me it you could sum it up by saying it's almost like a degree of overdevelopment. They're trying to pack too much in Councillor airs point would be addressed if we had two units at the back instead of three, and you could make better use of that space. We often say, don't we in small sites? You have to work quite hard to make it work. We've already had as concerns about how it's put forward to the max on the boundary at the front and not not respecting the building line of the rest of the street
I think it's also indicative of a general feeling of unease nothing, perhaps, as this was we've had big enough to warrant a refusal at this stage, but I think there's stuff to look at their which is too much disquiet from all sorts raised rather than one particular thing and I think we could have something better scheme there that we could happily approve.
there's there's a movement to defer this, the second areas was drawn, is there another second, those in favour of deferment.
those against.
two to four, I think, two votes to four.
and one abstention is.
so we get to the substantive which is to approve the application, those in favour.
for those against to one abstention.
OK, we move on to.
I didn't don't heart pronounces, but let's assume, Getzler Road is not my neck of the woods, I must confess the application of Jepson, the Road Research, has anything to say about it or just as it stands as it stands, I think so too is that agreed.
no hesitation whose whose putting a hand up to say something Councillor Humphreys Councillor as.
I think the elevations of this are quite good and I commend a bit of artwork on the front that's a nice change to see the tunnel of terra cotta work, but I'm afraid now I get very hostile to this scheme, the internal planning of this is really a joke now Ms Nicola has comforted me by saying that the building inspectors will sort it out on site.
well good, I'm glad they will because.
but it's a very, it is a very bad plan and I'll tell you for why first of all you shouldn't have internal bathrooms, unless you really have to you, should try and of bathrooms that have windows and that Tory ventilation, that's one, the ground-floor, has no natural storage, no utility room, but it's completely open plan everybody now used as if you cause an open plan, kitchen dining living room, you have to have a utility room,
the
it's the same arguments, is is the last one.
obviously I, as far as I'm concerned, we accept this plan will approve it, I do approve it, but I don't understand why internal planning is so poor, almost every scheme we look at the internal planning is really naive and some and sometimes just plain daft, so I don't know why we can't upgrade the kind of internal planning we have not just a question of square metres and meriting size and and work all this I mean anybody so that's all I had to say but I will vote for it.
can I ask Mr colder?
I'm I imagine this is very shorthand but plantings involved in usage appearance scale height also density is also things, actually we don't expect what to expect in planning law, apart from things share things like size.
do we, I mean, it's a matter of taste, what people doing internally, isn't it, I mean this Councillor, as may be absolutely right, and I may agree with all the designs I may not, but there are limits on what we can say about internal design. Surely indeed we we, we do look at room sizes, we we look at overall layout, but with it within a development you want just
say it's an open plan, kitchen diner, therefore they're going to have separate other rooms on that floor, it's more about the room, sizes and how they operate, he said building control, they all reach the key. You see that Building control were unsure that those means of enclosure and fire safety issues and ventilation mechanical ventilation if you've got an internally located bathroom
obviously, ideally he would have a window to it, but it's not a requirement, and it's not something we could refuse on on the basis of a planning application, so we have to look at what we can control and we can't control all the internal layouts can I come back certainly in my it's not a matter of opinion,
whether a bathroom should be have an external wall and natural ventilation, if we're trying to pursue green policies, we should have always external bathrooms and not have to rely on Nasti noisy extract fans, I mean, that is not opinion, that's fact, it's not taste either. It's also not a matter of opinion whether you need storage on the ground floor it, but it's not a matter of law. Unfortunately, we
what I'm trying to glean from this I mean it may be, it is or maybe it should be, but we don't actually have any powers to control. Is that's basically what you're saying, yeah, there's internal layouts is guidance as the jailer Guidance's our own local guidance, but it doesn't say that you have to have these things, but many of them are covered in. This is best practice. Years and years ago we used to do things like look at the delays between flats, to make sure all the kitchens were on top of each other staff and then there's
is the ideal when we were more increasingly trying to maximise space, you will have situations where these don't all line up, I understand that I understand that completely, but that's not the case that these rather big houses
I think you've made your point eloquently as ever and I don't mean that in tall, patronisingly bijou, occasionally accused me of, but I don't mean that cancer given to thank you Chair, can I firstly say that I've had done quite a significant amount of correspondence on this site from local neighbours in the area.
if you read the report correctly, there have been several applications and several PD changes that have been made to this property are particularly the conversion from hip to gable was done under PD, which has made the roof of significantly larger and created in that very tight corner if we look at the map on page 1 4 8 quite a tight corner with several properties with tiny gardens backing on to this property with its own tiny garden,
the concern that has been expressed locally is particularly about a pair of Juliet balconies on the third level of the of the proposed building, so the roofs being expanded and converted into a kind of.
dormer and there were two dormer windows in the front and is Juliet, so the back and they tower over the tiny gardens in in in that area, and the concern is about privacy and outlook from from people over there. I suspect the argument might be weaker if those two Juliet balconies did not exist and normal windows exist it, and I think that's the concern. So that's the point. I'd like committed to note that this is an overdevelopment of the site what
where the steps that had been taken are being taken, I am sure perfectly legally, and I am sure I'll be giving chapter and verse on what was done and has been done.
and no doubt I'm legal advice on on it too, but what I am saying is that, from the local opinion in the area, the that the the roof rooms, with the Juliet sort of area is, is the bit that goals them and is the over development and for that reason I'd moved at the speed refused on the grounds of overdevelopment.
Councillor and for us.
sorry.
thank you, Chair yeah, I, I agree with the what Councillor beginning was just saying, in a sense of the title we always told on me, to to every site we get judged on its own merits and we look at the plan is a really really tight.
site there, and I think the thing that I am particularly concerned about the distances are small, it says on page,
1 5 5 3 3 window to window from housing road to this one, it's 8.5 metres at its very closest window to window, that's not that's very, very tight, so I think any implications are very we're looking at such like obviously bounced be.
magnified even more by those really small, tight, close distance, isn't it, it's unfortunate, isn't it, because, as referred the the history, we've gone through various iterations of what's been under permitted development and all the rest of it, which is
nibbled away and would enable the up the scale of the building as it is already, and now we're being asked specifically for the details to that the the roof at the back, and I think in my view is it's it's a step too far, it's making it that much bigger even more on such a tight, and I think the sense of overbearing and overlooking on those neighbours on all the neighbours all the way around on on on both sides and at the back of the other road as well housing round. It's just as too much, and for me I think they're just trying to get too much out of this
once very, very tight site.
how big a house it decisions Junior?
how big is the House?
one of the 160 square metres originally.
yeah, on page 1 5 2
he said that the existing house was one 60 to each.
sorry catching on the spot, but Regional dir page 1 5 2 at the bottom.
so how does that can release good sorry it was just to in that paragraph?
subdivision of the existing house which says it was 160 square metres as originally constructed, but bearing in mind that there have been extensions built to the House subsequently under P. D. As we've just found out,
so the two, the two resulting properties, will be 119 square metres in total and well within policy.
well, William Booth, OK, right that the applicant, The Blue the recommendation is to approve those in favour.
what is really?
5, those against to thank you, remove on to the next items, which are the enforcement, on page 163, this is an interesting one, I think, but you've got anything to say about it, and stray ballroom, does it just as it stands,
pretty much as it stands, I mean, in a nutshell single family dwelling converted into four flats through the flats, pretty much meets our policies to a little bit small, one doesn't have outdoor space per were located directly opposite Battersea Park says good access to high quality green open space, the only issue really is the basement flat within flood zone and 3 A and we have a strong in principle policy and self-contained.
a restaurant units at basement level in flood zones, for obvious reasons, so we're taking a proportionate response and just looking to enforce the basement flat is that agreed
good thank you, and then moving on the there's a tree preservation order which was agreed no doubt greed.
thank you add a decisions paper for inflammation closure of investigation files for information and closed appeals for information, any comments, any questions about any of those, no, thank you and goodnight.