Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 10 September 2024, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 10th September 2024 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

good evening, members.
I will open the first item on this agenda, which hopefully will be quite straightforward
which is for the appointment of Chair and Vice Chair of the committee, an amendment to the terms of reference with regards to paper number 2 4 2 2 1, does the committee agree to recommendations 1, which is setting the term limit for Chair and Vice Chair to a period of four years with re-election at the first meeting of the municipal year following the Borough Council elections which will next be in May 2026 and to appointing Dr job as Chair of the Committee
agreed.
fantastic at which point I will hand over to the Chair.
it's not working.
OK.
welcome to this meeting of the constipation and heritage Advisory Committee, my name is Michael jobs and I am Chair of this, this committee.
are there any nominations for Vice Chair of of this Committee just to to complete the the business set out in in the first paper?
me.
I put my name forward and I'm happy to serve if there is no other contender.
is that agreed?
OK, let's let's move on then.
members of the Committee are now call your names, please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance and once you've done, that, can you remember to switch off your microphone?
and I'll call your names in order Councillor Osborne.
Good evening, everybody.
Councillor Owens, Good evening, everybody.
Mark Dodson I don't see Roger Armstrong.
the evening on here.
france's Radcliffe, we have had apologies.
from Andrew Catto and recover from the funding society here, for nearly all of the meeting.
Chris rice, we've had apologies from.
Edward Potter is indisposed, I gather.
Pamela Greenwood, present, good evening and Peter Farrow present good evening okay, and could Mr Vernon give the apologies, please, of open those I've mentioned, thank you, Chair, I think in which case it's just Councillor Belsen because you mentioned Edward Potts' Francis Radcliffe and Kris Rice.
I know and I'm here to three choosing his tribute, and I missed you are, I'm so sorry.
OK, The following officers are also present.
I'm afraid.
that Lauren way is is unavoidably absent, but we do have.
Barry sellers.
for a cheery, Barcelona's print web design also present David Andrews yeah, scarring and of Victoria, sorry, I've forgotten your surname, it's an Brock's up by senior consultation and urban design officer good evening.
OK.
OK.
can I remind you to ensure that your microphone is turned off, unless you're speaking, and can I also advise you to do something to your phone to stop it embarrassing here during the meeting.

2 Declarations of Interest

okay, declarations of interest are there any declarations of interest yesterday, I need to declare an interest in the fifth, I to move the applications and the Napier Street and that I am the architect for the scheme, so I will sit out for that one.
OK.
and I think we will take that item as first on on on the on the agenda when we come to first on the list when we come to that item on on the agenda, but just before we we get there.
can we deal with the?

3 Minutes - 23rd July 2024

4 Applications (Paper No. 24-222)

3 Minutes - 23rd July 2024

the minutes of the of the meeting on the 23rd of of July.
first of all, are they a correct record and therefore can I sign them
yes, thank you.
our second are there any matters arising, and I'm I will go through the the minutes page by page, the first page is headed page 5.
in your pack.
anything there, I don't think there should be.
Page 6
application largely covers the glass Mill.
I don't think there was any update on that, it hasn't.
gone that application hasn't gone to Planning applications Committee, yet I don't think.
Page 7 Clapham the the flower stall.
and I think there is a matter that we, we owe just to note leased here that.
rather surprisingly, to me at least the
the officers submitted a report to PAC at its August meeting, recommending acceptance or approval of the of the appeal application.
basically, on the grounds that it was temporary or when it was surprising to me, because the previous application for a new flower store, they had roundly recommended refusal before that application was with withdrawn.
and it seemed to me exceedingly odd.
and the officers are, I think, in that.
the paper that they submitted to PAC recognised acknowledge that it was odd, then, to recommend approval of the part of the application to retain the existing.
flour flour storm.
in the end, the PAC agreed to
retention of the of the flour store for a two year period rather than a five-year period.
and my understanding from things that were said at PAC is that that was related to progress on Phase 1 of the Clapham Junction master plan.
which I understand, although it has not been.
actually reported other than in orally, in the in the PAC meeting, it's not been announced anywhere else that I've been able to find that.
phase 1, which was considerably delayed.
has now been completed with three options for improvements, changes to Clapham Junction station.
I don't know what those options are, but somehow they are related to.
the officers recommendation for approval of the flower stall retention for a for a temporary period when temporary is five years, I think it it is exceedingly odd in in in the circumstances I was also slightly.
surprised, to put it mildly, to find that there was no mention in the in the paper.
that the the conservation planners had not.
approved of her or had not recommended approval of the application, and I think that is that is remiss, in my view.
indeed, there are legal cases where planning approval was had been overturned, precisely because the objections of
conservation planners have not been explicitly included in the report to the
what we have as a planning or what we call the Planning applications Committee, so I think on several grounds.
there are reasons for.
our concern for about what happened in the lead up to the Planning applications Committee.
I think the that it was the the approval is for a two year period is perhaps a partial when, but I think it I I were, I would like to make clear that and I made my unhappiness clear to Councillor Owens.
that I am very unhappy about the way that this had been handled by the officers, and I have said that also.
to both to two officers beyond the conservation planners.
I don't know if anyone else has has anything to say on this matter, I know that Peter Farrow express concern after the after the event.
forgive me assigned does everything you said there.
I think it was.
difficult to understand how the recommendation from officers could have been to approve, and obviously I am disappointed that the Committee sought to approve it.
I would like to ask if it's known
how many temporary approvals have been given for the flower stall and if there is a limit on the number of times you can apply for a temporary approval, I don't know if that's something could be answered now, but if not, I'll be pleased if it could be noted possibly for an answer at our next meeting, thank you John I can make it out of that and to report back.
OK, thank you, but I I.
I would be grateful if you would agree that our concern about how this application was handed could be expressed in the minutes of this meeting.
can I just jumping up very quickly Chair I, I Klopp's them that particular PSC and I'm I'm very confident that checks.
objection was in the papers because I remember reading it, but I thought you said earlier that it wasn't in the papers, or did I miss no, I did I, I said that the the conservation planning officers
concern about this proposal that the proposal was not explicitly recorded.
in the in the officers report, yes, I acknowledge that the the check objection was.
was explicitly mentioned.
OK, can we can we move on?
than the can I say something about the next application that we, we consider, the power station, where I was able to report that I knew that some new drawings had been submitted, and so the the Committee, quite quite rightly, he decided that it shouldn't reach a view on on the application until the the new drawings had been finally sudden submitted, they have now been submitted.
and I have to say that, on the basis of the revised drawings, the Battersea society has actually decided not to to comment further on that that application.
in response to the earlier drawings we had submitted.
one objection.
but we have no, we have not actually withdrawn the the objection because of the objection was on the basis of the rise as they stood at that point, they have now been substantially amended and we are happy with that.
unless the the officers thing for there is anything further for for this committee to to discuss, I will be happy to let this this issue HRA lie.
we haven't looked at the scheme and report back next cognitive meeting, OK, thank you.
sorry for the length of that page 8, any any issues there.
Page 9
have you will have noted from the decisions paper later on the agenda that?
the Planning applications Committee refused this application that we had, we had supported, and indeed the officers s supported, that is, of course, PAC prerogative to do so.
Somers Town Summerstown.
I don't think there's anything more that we can say at this stage wait and see what happens, I think.
chair, the it's now up to the applicants to challenge sit round is vital refusal which strike me as slightly odd in that.
although it might be protected for some purpose, it is currently resident for guardedness.
yes, well, we are, we wait and say I think.
could I just raise
I sort of hardy perennial.
on the on our agenda on page 10, which is first-down launch.
is there are relieving Chair, yes, we will we've got some good news re, we've had a e-mail from the property Services and they say now that the
agreement release contains a certain milestones and it's been completed, and there are things they the the lessees must do the primary one being that they have until 22 of November brief, it is to get in a planning application, no, I'd hope they might do a pre application before that because giving us a listed building they may need.
you know whether it would probably dispute and said anyway, but I would hope that we might do at pre-application beforehand, but but that seems a bit tight timescale, but nevertheless is 12 weeks state to the November date, when they should get a planning application invoice, so I think that's just after the next chap I'm not sure I'm not sure
I think the one of the key concerns expressed at previous meetings have been about the the security of the building, and you know it's.
whether or whether it is actually undergoing sort of severe deterioration because of its current state. I mean, I have there been any developments on that by around 2 years, it's actually went into the building and visitor with historic England at the time because we were considering whether that should go on to the register of does risk, and they said no, so at that time, because it was very good quality insight in terms of where it's been maintained. I haven't been since then we've been getting reports from property services, we can get another report between now and next committee just to make sure of the executive government the darker evenings. I'm not sure whether there's any illumination going Karen number now, but we need to check that. Thank you, Mr Armstrong, yeah. It looks like they're gonna put in for planning permission just in time for Bonfire night
I am seriously concerned building empty sitting, isolated on the common and for this length, of course.
okay.
Mr Wilson sit for since it was raised that, can we see it was boarded at more securely, and I think that there may have been some Guardian, some property Angels in, certainly the whole first name is watching out for it and I am very keen to see what is proposed in the near future.
thank you.
one piece of good news.
next para, under any any other businesses, St Mark's School.
which is as well as being removed from the Heritage at Risk register it.
is being opened up on Open House, weak weekend is couple of weekends, think the 21st 121 St Saturday, the 21st is open.
now been converted to the officers of a firm of architects who are proud to show it off
so it comes off our concerns
yes,
though there is still work to be done on the landscaping front.
I'm sure that will get gone.
the local listening consultation it was, I mean, it's been delayed several times last meeting we had September. Do we have a precise date, we've got a precise date, yet Jabbett, but were liaising with commonplace, and the main thing is to get things onto the website and once it's onto the website, will be able to stand round an e-mail to society. Saying Look, this is this is the website, and here's have I, I've actually had looked at with Lauren but a week ago, and I was quite impressed with it. Is it's probably better than what we had before we met one in 2017 2018, you'll be able to upload
our information and photographs to that particular site when you click on to a building, so I was quite impressed with that, so let's how it goes and were given update shortly.
OK thank, thank you.
are there any, I don't think there should be any Hofer matters, matters arising.

4 Applications (Paper No. 24-222)

okay, so can we move on to the paper 24 2 2 2 and I'm going to change the order.
in which we we look at these, and I'm I'd suggest that we start with the we pronounce it and nipping out or Napoleon.
I think you are right and just so that anyone.
tuning into this realises that Mr Kato, who is the architect in this, at
this application has withdrawn from the from the room while we discuss it
who is going to lead on the presentation Victoria, thank you.
thank you, Chair and good evening committee.
and
Naveen house, it's an unlisted property within the Westmead conservation area, it's a modern property dating from 19 80s and was built on land formerly part of the gardens of 17 Rodway to the south.
it's a two storey dwelling with double integrated garage and some distinctive sweeping roof, it's not of any particular architectural interest in its own right, the conservation area appraisal refers to its but says that it does not make a positive contribution to the conservation area.
but.
when you look at it in views along the streets, particularly in that photo to the left, it is fairly visually recessive compared to the adjacent Edwardian properties.
proposals seek to introduce just an additional storey of accommodation, with rear single storey extension and convert the garage to habitable space.
so we've got the existing plans at the top and proposed at the bottom, you can see this at the size of the rear extension to the rear.
that's the existing front and rear elevations those are the proposed.
and then again side elevations and proposed elevations.
so I will may pay, maybe leave us on that page handover.
OK thank, thank you.
are there any factual questions that Members want to put to the officers?
if not, I am looking for for views on.
on this application and its implications for for conservation area.
who's going to lead on this?
happy to say a few words.
so it would have lost.
I agree with the assessment of the building doesn't make a particularly positive contribution to the conservation area as it stands, in fact I think it's very distinctly an anomaly, and my view is that the proposed front elevation is a distinct improvement on what is there presently.
obviously, there is an issue with the increase in the height which I believe is caused an objection from the neighbour to the south.
but I think.
generally I
I think it's an improvement on what is there.
thank you any any other comments.
Roger
I think be affected is fairly neutral.
sir Robert.
increase the bulk of the house.
it's more in line with the adjacent Edwardian dropped, so I think it got the site can stand the increased.
site at the moment, and I don't really have any particular objection to.
Joe Marler,
does anyone have any negative comments? Mr Dodson, I'm really actually have a question, and I'm sorry, I was processing information, presumably been all the materials will be sort of equivalent to those that are already being used in the existing property. It is not is not being made over to look like an Edwardian house, it's just in that you know, when you looked at like that, you could almost think go nuts Edwardes, but is not
no
right, thank you.
OK, I'm getting the sense that we have no objections to this.
Ms Lawson.
I agree it's sort of a neutral, both ways, but actually is probably better that it's not been razed to the ground and something new pace, so you should be grateful okay.
OK.
I think we, we have enough here to say that we support this up application that the increase in the
the resulting from the additional storey is in keeping with the
the neighbouring buildings,
and therefore we have no objection to it.
OK.
yes.
OK, let us move on to.
applications. There are two applications, as you'll have noted, 2 3 2 6 and 2 3 6 to.
100 Tooting Bec Road
which the the longest serving members of this Committee will recognise having come come to this Committee a number of times over many years.
who's going to lead on this,
this is me.
yeah, as you say, this is an old friend, it's come back again.
I think the the principle
thing to keep in mind is that we have already 12 years ago consented a scheme for reuse and for new buildings on this site in 2012 we gave permission for.
if you sit on if we can go back just one yeah, that's it so looking at the lodge, their where there used to be, when this building was in use as a nursery, whether used to be the longer of the greenhouses stretching.
along V, the North West, of that that view.
there is now and was then consented a long low.
single storey structure, with another low range of buildings at the rear of the site.
adjacent to the gardens of the houses in Bromberg Road wishes to these are the North and the South West of that photograph, their with an extension to the lodge itself now in the previous consent in 2012, the extension to the large proposed the demolition of the modern extension a little box extension that you see and at the rear.
and a two storey extension to the lodge itself
in this application, if we could move forward, although the site plans, so you can see that there they do, the the African is doing pretty much the same sort of thing in terms of covering.
previously developed areas of the site with buildings in this application as in 2012, and is also proposing a rear extension to the lodge in the same position as the earlier consent.
so we've got the existing and proposed Ground floor plans here, so you can see that the single storey rear addition which doesn't do the building, any failures will be demolished. I think we're all quite happy to see that and I don't think there are any objections to that part of it. In 2012 it's replacement with a get well this time. It's a single, storey. Rear extension, which on plan is quite considerable but, as you'll see in a minute, is only single storey, it's great to come down at a story from the previous consent and then you have this sort of all shaped range which is being developed. The applicant has the interest of an undertaking undertake his from to use the lodge itself as an office
at a place where you'd go to meet with the funeral directors, and also a garage to prepare and store the the vehicles for the funeral services, different parts of the building of teaching about road would be used as a café and there was a café use in 2012, so there is a public use here as well. Sorry,
and that's the existing proposed first floor plans to conceive, principally that the
there is no.
upper storey of the of the the rear extension now these elevations of the existing building will remain untouched, restored needs the building needs again after being empty for welfare, since its last restoration needs still needs better work.
if we can go back, one actually can see that the the building on the right of the north elevation, the apex of the roof, is still, it's quite high, but it's still well below the the level of the existing building.
and this is the garage parking from the 2012 consent.
this the equivalent range of buildings here, we're pitched they had a pitched roof Meza lower and just buried standard box form with.
garage doors,
and here again, you can see the proposed single storey rear addition to the large, so it's.
sits lower, it's wider than what was consented, but it's it's a single storey,
and do we have any more administrations of this site they again, this is just a section of the garage.
and you've seen the plans, so roughly speaking, there will be no more development on the site than there was when there was there, when the nursery use was there and we will be achieving if we approve this, the restoration of the site and the improvement in the the removal of all the the hoardings and fences and all the rubble from the site.
so yeah, really, is this what you think of this scheme, bearing in mind that we have already approved that the consent in 2012 this does, it's a little bit different?
that I will leave it up to you to assess whether the impact on the listed building is more acceptable or less than and whether it's acceptable in its own right, thank thank you very much.
the questions, first factual questions for anything that's not clear, Mr Dodson, could you clarify what the material is on the side of the Café de who looks white here is a
I'm not you've caught me there, I'm not actually sure, obviously all materials will be conditioned, so it's this is indicative at the moment I mean there is, if there is a that I think it is stated in the in the application it does appear to be a render but we can change that.
right okay, but that year all materials will be conditioned, I think they're proposing slate for the the roof of the cafe building, thank you and and to use the cafe whereby cafe we mean a public yes, Cafe, yes, publicly I'm just at a cafe for for the use of people travelling to and from Tooting Bec Common,
right to not really sort of de it's based of almost independent of the undertakers, yes, independent business, yeah yeah, although sharing the same site right, I see thank you.
OK any other questions, factual questions.
in which case I'll go to this loss, otherwise I was just going to ask about it in the same way than you would you be able to specify the treatment of wall and the restoration of the remaining railings and presumably getting more detail on what those gates which were part of the listing and long since gone what they might look like and how that entrance might work for a café and the entrance to the undertakers that there's not much detail in the drawings and what they look like and how those entrances worth and that's yeah I mean again this is what we've this is where we've been presented with, we wanted to obviously bring this to the Committee for comments
the again
details and materials will be conditions, I did you've actually reminded me what they have propose to do is to raise those railings up on a fairly high wall.
to afford a little bit more privacy for the site, but also to mount them in something more substantial than is there at the moment, because some of them have gone missing.
said, the amount of just in a a low stone up standard part, concrete part stone upstand at the moment.
concrete yeah.
so there might be a stain detail on that wall, the beginnings giving Sean yeah weaker than we can specify that further down the radio.
OK comments, Ms Lawson, well, we have commented on the the planning for some about this and actually I was hoping that might be a bit more detail to Nazism extra illustrations in the planning pack.
but as we commented and and similarly here, there's quite a lot, not known is lots that we can discuss and you've rightly said that we're aware that we've there are numb, you know, we're mindful of the fact that things have been approved in the past and not acted on and so when we read in the application that the the building is in good order generally inside and out and that there's a there's a desperate need to get this resolved to maintain its,
you need to give it a future, we'd be very much agree with that, but we're a bit doubtful about about the whole application, but that there are elements of it that.
we certainly can comments on an in principle, the the removal of be the rear extension and the proposal of what's to replace it we feel is better than preferable to losing that back window of the first floor and that construction is one that keeps the symmetry, and that is the the views from.
the the common as you as you go towards Trinity Road and from Bromberg Road are less interfered with, and that's all good, and actually below the the flat roof pitch of the vehicular storage, is perhaps preferable to the pitches of the previously consented scheme, but again, the that depends on just how they're made the banding might be quite appropriate, but may be really over the top, you can't tell from those drawings and there's no real knowing about the
while the hardstanding is suggested to be tarmac, which previously it was to be a gravel which would be much more in keeping with the history of the site and much more to the possible, I think I have suggest, and the rain runoff in a Andrew perhaps as a potential for green roofs and better planting to keep a connection with the historic links to the past but said for the Lodge in principle we the treatment of that building we feel is is generally quite positive.
the raised railings,
is a sensible solution, but we'd be very concerned about just how those are completed, whether that be is a significant difference to the La Rue existing ones or what?
and again on the wrong bed roadside that wall we feel is is not really historic wall and that better rebuilt would perhaps salvage bricks and then again what that Gateway looks like is is not known, and that's rather important on the views of the Lodge.
our greatest concern me is the café and, and it was as it as you approach, that from from the common towards Trinity raped, not so specifically on that view, but there are other.
illustrations in the pack, where the big the logic becomes a very much separate thing to that, and really we're looking at a lodge, the last remaining bit of land around that launched from a former estates and so that current collection of buildings has to work as One and we've got some concerns as to the split use and how that can possibly be catered for and but one and we want to be a viable future for these buildings.
but the entrance to the cafe has to be.
separate, but the buildings must work together and we feel that the the the slate and then whatever render it will be.
sort of competes with a Lodge, as you can views as you go down, was Trinity Road and that perhaps if the that cafe building were lower and lower, pitch or and certainly set back, so that it's in line with or behind the building line of the Lodge I know that historically there was a
there were conservatory buildings, green greenhouses and so on, but that was, then that works there will lower pitch, this is to damage.
so we've got concerns about that to.
I think probably said I, I know that there are many concerned residents and there are various issues not related to the historic and architectural significance of the building our concerns are.
are mostly about how that building.
to how the historic and the architectural integrity of the building and the site is maintained.
and some, I think, of the issues raised locally and not necessarily.
valid in that had written to the undertake, and I'd hope that they could condition some some of the residents' concerns as to be opening hours and what goes on.
I think I've said I think that's not.
thank you,
of or other comments Mr Dodson, and then Mr. Armstrong, thank you so join me to have my name, but should I say if someone is watching what community sorry, it's my fault, I sat in a different place, thank you.
yes, I've got a few comments, I think my first general comment is, I feel that it is a very attractive building the Lodge and it does deserve to have very high quality materials used in the oldies ancillary buildings because there's an awful lot of difference between let's face it what you know what might have been sort of 19 70s flat roofed garages which look awful after about 15 or 20 years or or flat roof building, built with care and an intention to all the materials so they don't necessarily need to be the same as the materials in the Lodge but they just thought to be high quality.
my second query is really just well, not query, but concern is a little bit the railings, because we don't obscure the view if the wall there's going to have the railings on top of it is going to be quite high, I hope that won't obscure views of the building.
and I agree totally with the comments made by Libby on the height of the café, and I am not quite clear, I can't remember from what you've sent us in the last few days is that is it a 2 storey building on one storey, building the café,
it's a single storey, but it is quite a high rate, so there's a lot of empty space in that pitch roofs at year, it's not strictly really necessary, it's not housing anything so that just seems a bit unnecessary, I realised they're trying to make it probably different to that to the large and make its distinctive so that no one confuses this as being some sort of phone a 19th century building but I think attending that's needed if it's if it's not going to house anything.
and yes, I agree with the work lots of objections, but some of them rejections, included objections on noise from an undertakers which struck me ended the parties and things that I don't think so.
but I on, but I think it's a very difficult one, because I think we need to ensure this building is retained and restored and kept, and they're not going to be a lot of uses. In my view, that would be appropriate because people often feel very vulnerable in a in a building like that that stands out. If it was residential lofts. People do feel quite vulnerable because it different to all the other buildings around it, so I think it has to be some sort of quite a commercial or public use in that sense, and there are not many people, not many, that have come forward so far, so I I in a way I support the idea of it. I I I just I think I'm mainly object to the café
thank you, Mr Armstrong,
often large itself.
there's something not quite right about the outer sash on the yes centres.
on the main dot
the story window, it means.
ordering to proper Georgian principles.
so that needs, it would be nice to see that restored.
as part of this scheme, that's my only comment.
OK.
Mr Farage.
o tenant.
yeah, this is a sort of an encouraging one, slightly disappointing application, I think, is very encouraging to see something.
happening which seems very largely positive and
I think that much more detail is required before a considered view can be taken of it.
in principle, a lot of what is there, it seems very good, and I share Mr Armstrong is concerned about the window on the first floor, it looks weird, and in fact the fact that that window is come forward in the application lead you to worry about the attention to detail that will be applied for the development of a scheme.
they really need to take care, and there are lots of things about the presentation of the application that I think is slightly concerning.
although, in principle, as was said in the presentation, the removal of the rear extension, I think, is a good move and what's proposed as an extension to the launch is also very welcome.
the café, which is referred to on some of the drawings as a gym.
which I think it was in a previous iteration again, indication of the fact that this is.
probably not ready for presentation Navin as to the cafe, I'm
well, how long is just another point they put on a pitched roof on this building?
and on the right hand side looking at that may well have a gutter, the length of the building, exactly on the boundary, I mean, it's a practical nonsense.
it's this will do an indication of the fact that the building hasn't been considered construction only, or indeed I think, visually related to the the launch, it's crying out for my money for a flat roof on on on the extension, which I think we have to agree is probably going to go forward in as much as there was previous development there but,
I think it needs a considerable rethink.
and there's something very bizarre about the relationship of the roof and the front wall, the front wall of the
café seems to align with the line of the launch, but the roof seems to align with the road.
and yet you could call it quirky, I think it's silly
and
I think they should be asked to go back and seriously reconsider the design of that building.
sorry, MeeGo, OK, thanks, thank you, let me try to summarise where where we are.
seems to me that we are happy with the proposals relating to the lodge itself.
and the revised rear extension being yeah, a good thing compared with bought an improvement are on what's what's there at the moment, all well and good.
there are real concerns about the for café.
all of which I I share, it seems to me that the the pitch roof is just bizarre.
the
the positioning of the of the café is also a big can concern.
to to me, I, and so I endorse everything that that's been been said about that.
there are real concerns about materials.
here and we don't have, and I've I was looking at the application last night and it seems to me there is very little information about about materials, I'm in this context they are critical.
the I think there is less concern about the the single storey garages at the at the back
particularly because I got a flat roof rather than a pitch roof.
the real problem is the
is the the the cafe building?
subsidiary points, but not not insignificant.
the the railings, on top of the the rebuilt wall.
seemed to me and I'm I'm picking up things that have been said or a bit problematic and probably need to be rethought, and particularly the the the boundary treatment on the the eastern flat, sorry, I forget the name of the road.
yeah
and there's a there's an issue about landscaping as well, that needs to be sorted out, including what kind of grounding you have in the in the parking space offering, I agreed, tarmac would be totally inappropriate in this kind of kind of setting is.
is there anything that I've said that's wrong or any anything key that I've missed, you didn't mention the even mentioned the window for finance clothing, sorry, yes, the that the the first floor window, yes, it bizarre.
and just needs to be looked at again, Mr Kato, I think the one thing we might be positive about is that they've managed to find one of the few uses that doesn't, that gives you an excuse for keeping the stuff at the back away from the building and low and then that should be welcomed yet because there can't be many other uses potentially in that area and there would do that everybody else wants ability, yes, well put
OK, is there any more that we want to say about this, have you got enough message, could you say?
we could win.
details.
yeah yeah, well it's to the is to do with the the lack of information about.
not just materials, but the detailing of the
of the PRA proposal was they seem sketchy.
at the moment.
as as with your your point about the of a pitch roof and the gutter.
probably extending over the over the neighbouring property
yeah yeah.
OK.
OK.
another another listed building next to double 5 8 64 Clapham Common North Side.
in a way, it seems to me a slightly happier story, certainly compared with bought way.
so in a previous proposal, but who's going to lead on this Victoria?
thank you.
so, yes, members may recall that this property came to the Committee in March earlier this year under a previous owner who was proposing to demolish and redevelop the building and that application was refused.
just to recap the property from 31 here last time, it's on the north side of Clapham Common, it's an unlisted building in the the conservation area.
it's an unusually modest building, quite distinctive a dwelling of two storeys, and then as a two storey range to the rear, with also as a modern single storey extension to the side, it's got clear visibility from across the common and then also from the side that image to the left you can see the rear elevation is quite prominent from the surrounding conservation area as well and the other side street.
and then you've got some aerial photos there, so just to recap, new owners have taken on the property and they have engaged with pre-application advice with the with us.
they have undertaken a lot of research and further our understanding of the building quite substantially,
somehow making the complex history even more complex than we thought previously, so we, I think I'd previously in the Survey of London, identified it as a gardener's cottage, which was incorporated into the Villa known as North side next next door, which was then redeveloped with the terrorist that we see today and it was understood that the remaining building was the 18th century Gardeners Cottage.
the applicant discover that after being incorporated into north side, the building was substantially remodelled and extended as well, and it appears to be the case that what remains now is part of that later extension, so it's it is later than previously thought, but it's it's still very, very interesting survival on the common.
so proposals seek to refurbish the building which we are very pleased to see.
and create a family home, introducing a further bedroom.
and also kitchen rear extension and also a first floor side extension above the existing side extension to create an en-suite bathroom
I'll just go through the proposal, so this is the the front elevation.
so you'll note that it's a slightly non traditional roof form, it retains the hip to the front, is increasing the ridge, the reform itself is modern inside you can see it splits machines timbers of the roof, so it's it has been altered quite a lot but yes it if they're going through this sort of non traditional roof form here.
and then that's the view from the rear.
Mrs A cross section, showing the existing reforms and you can sort of see the main building and then that separate range to the rear.
then that's what is being proposed.
these are the the the the for existing floor pounds, you've got two reception rooms to the ground floor and then a small kitchen to the rear and then three bedrooms upstairs, and they are proposing to introduce the additional bedroom into the roof, along with a family bathroom and a study in in that attic storey.
and then those other brief plans and you can get another idea of the of the reform, but they're going for.
and they've provided some CJI eyes as well.
and I believe that's that one yes say yes.
okay, again, any any questions of fact.
before we get onto a fuller discussion.
no, in that case, I'm gonna start with Mr Armstrong.
okay, yeah, this is a very tiny booting.
when you
she now been inside it.
and the interior is almost devoid of.
any period features because it was.
the subject of a redevelopment in 1995.
when they more or less tore out the anything that was original.
and amend of staircases is dates from 18 95 and then that since that that's been altered,
it's got it does have an interesting suspended stone flagged floor in Hawaii, which that I think the
that may re remain, and it's got some very interesting features on the side elevation, the very unusual ogee front.
entrance arch and and the original doorframe.
probably dating from the 18 30 2030, because it was part of a
building large Villa called north side, which was in a robust Swiss style of architecture, was that there was a brief flourishing of of Swiss Cottage type architecture in the 18 30s and the then owner.
it made it into a sort of Swiss Cottage, so it's got all some rather unusual external features which I think the present owners are quite appreciate and want to retain.
Sir, that I mean previous schemes that we see have been incredibly destructive.
and we would have lost the appearance of of the cottage frontage.
and I've been quite pleased to see
the way they've sought to retain the two storey frontage as much as possible.
but they are wanting to acknowledge the property to make it into a family house and
that's as involved, obviously going into the roof space and and redeveloping the rear part of the building, but on the home.
on
relieved to see a scheme that actually retains as much of the building as as this scheme does retain stone.
yeah
camps. Thank you, Victoria sorry to I've just realised I did forget, mentioned one particular element of the proposals, and there's also a glazed side extension at ground floor, which you can see just to the right of the image to the right, so just forgot to mention that,
thank you.
other comments.
Mr Cahill have a bit of a problem with that roof, I think everybody does to problems with that roof, the first obvious one is the very prominent box on the side.
it makes no real attempt to hide.
the second visit, the whatever else may survive from the history, does include that very shallow pitch roof, which is very much of its original period.
and now proposing, in order to get supplied, to put something on that's going to be steeper than anybody else around, I suspect, even steeper than the Victorian stuff on the left, and it just doesn't fit on that house.
other other comments, Mr Dodson.
I agree into, for me, the big issue is is the roof, the pitch of it is.
I mean, the the property already is fairly simple and, as you know, it's characteristics can be summarised quite easily in one of those characteristics is the pitch of the roof, and it just looks a bit strange to me to have now the chimney pots, I'm gonna, be lower than the height of the of the roof I didn't mean at Woodham House have ever been built like that in that way, with Tim the smoke going into, you know just it just doesn't look right, and you know, I'm pleased that somebody wants to renovate it and so on, but I just think they're going a little bit too far
OK.
Mr Farrell, yes indeed, I agree, yes, a little too far if you look at the second floor proposed Plan.
it seems to be a slight mistake in the way they have drawing the roof.
the
it actually the roof plan, I think he's probably accurate, but there's it slightly onto the way they've drawn that hip.
on on the front slope, if I've got that right and.
Will she came to say 0 yes?
this business about it being a little too, yes, the roof is the problem they indicated, I think it's a Home Office.
immediately to the front, I can't read my drawing too well and I think they could have made the roof, albeit a little higher, I might have been able to replicate the form of the roof and little better if they had been prepared to accept returning the the the signed a pitched roof a little further back which would have reduced the
the bulk of the extension they put on the back, I think.
considerably and made the made the plan a lot more acceptable,
is that middle room and bathroom the family bathroom?
yeah, that's correct yeah, I think they could have lost a little headroom in their by taking the roof.
down to a lower eaves, I obviously I'm very sympathetic to the fact that we want to get as much as they can who wouldn't.
but I think this is a significant, perhaps not a significant building, because it's quite small but hit today it's a building which its merit, is it its uniqueness in the area, and I think that the roof, as others have said, it is a major concern and I think if they could be encouraged to,
reduce the scope of the extensions they wish to make, we'd have a much much better and more acceptable scheme, thank you OK, other other points that people want to make.
I burden about the roof.
sorry, one, everything, the rear extension, a put one of these godawful for mansard, on the back I mean, have the courage of your convictions.
yes, stress, have it's a nonsense and?
I again I don't understand.
there's sliding, glazed doors on the ground floor and some sashes on the the two upper floors well.
we could put some more contemporary windows in there and making more coherent elevation change, the mansard, which is a nonsense as a as a roof form on an extension of this type, and again, you'd have a much better scheme, sorry, OK, thank you.
if I can sum up where I think we are were very sympathetic to the rest, to the the restoration work to be done in in the House, but we have real concerns.
about the increased height and pitch.
of of the roof.
Mr Kato mentioned the the box that you that you see.
against the that the hip,
and the I retaining the chimney is, in one sense, all to the good, but it it actually highlights the problem with the with the the height of the roof.
and secondly, we we have some concerns about the
but what's being turned a for mansard back, which I agree, doesn't doesn't make much sense and?
that might might help with the amount of space that you have.
in that in that second floor addition to to to the House so.
have I got it all?
OK, OK, let's move on.
7 blend Khan, who is doing this.
that's.
application 2 5 6 3 7 Blencarn Road,
7 Burlington Road is a locally listed building, it forms a pair with number 5 Blencarn Road.
Torreón probably 18 80, some of that order, and they make an immense contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
the it's actually in 2 flats at the moment and they want to re configure the flats by carrying out mainly.
demolition of part of the rear and single storey extension to the side and back and also.
in addition to front porch,
so looking at the
plans here, this is the front elevation of the front elevation and that's existing, I think yeah, and then the the proposed, you've got this addition of a front porch, now the there's no evidence that there was a front porch on the property the one to the north and the Fiver has got a porch extension I think that's fairly recent as well.
so there's no it, there is no evidence that there was one there, so and actually it's actually W windows on that front elevation, which they're putting windows in, I don't know whether there have always been dummy windows, not sure, but,
the there's there's no, no, no will evidence that that that.
well windows.
and then you got the lower ground floor excavation for the
basement, glazed, windows or doors in that elevation some extent hidden by the fact you've got the Frontières' Ringo back to the
side and rear the well why, usually out on the front, there's an existing front, they've got a garage on the right-hand side, I would think obviously garage is a non original element of the building.
so moving a garage is not not a great problem from our point of view, so but you know what you replace it with, this is another issue and from the side elevations are actually bringing it right to they're going higher and they're going right up to the the the front of the building again and normally when we have an extension to the side of the road and we push it back with yet to to give make or so its subsidiary to them the original building, so there's no element of enhancement of that. Have we come to that to the rear elevation? The substandard
the business quality elevation there were the Free French windows, you've got the to lobby dormers the top and this is well considered as a as a Victorian piece and was there hasn't been much change, but there's a substantial demolition to that elevation is being sued by and you know you've got the there's excavation at ground-floor is pushing out the side.
you know, it's well well, what do you make of that a minuscule to that's gonna asking the questions I mean, not over the the the the dormers, the roof, then why why why change them, you know perfectly good dormers there and no very piling and appropriate to read as the the the Victorian character building and I just putting in a double dormer which is this is,
unfortunate and then takes it back from in terms of the appearance, but this this rear extension, I mean.
I haven't looked at materials, but it certainly does leave, it looks like glass and non brick, but that.
so is there to what is there is that it is not well considered in my opinion.
and it's this substantial nature of it.
is not really befitting of that sort of building, and so what you're losing as well at same time, but yeah, so would you really to see what you make of that OK, first of all, as usual, any factual questions to Mr Sellers.
no, in which case I this is, this is obviously in Battersea in Northcott.
if I can pitch in to start with I'd, quite apart from the issues that.
Mr Mr Sellers has raised this, that the internal remodelling of of this building.
as proposed would.
really essentially amounts to it becoming a facade jobs.
all that would remain, albeit messed about with the porch.
would be the the the front front elevation.
I think on all kinds of grounds, this this proposal is, is objectionable it.
it is incredibly harmful.
to the streetscene and to a local listed building. I'm not going to say any more Councillor Lyons, as I say, at your patch, as well as my party as I live in the Wandsworth Common conservation areas are yeah I mean I do know that particular house and I know that obviously the houses
either side and they are, and they are, they do stand out, I mean they have.
you know there is quite a big plots within the gardens and very interesting and and all the rest I mean, it strikes me looking I mean, obviously I was going to mention what you said about the interior, but even looking at the back me so many of the houses,
I mean, I know obviously that backs on to dense rate doesn't a blank canvas on the dense and dense goes onto good and of course a lot of it hasn't aren't quite as big as that have, I wouldn't say similar, might not quite like that, but you know obviously that sort of people have done the back I mean some my children's friends back of the house are similarly, but I mean that is a very, very different house, is very much have written as a stand alone, house and again why change the front
it seems a bit strange and they are very started only one and they stand out.
thank you, Mr Armstrong, yeah, this is an important health.
by an important architect, your Robson series of thrillers quite substantial Bill assumption promised I want to make it.
Exe of the proposals are incredibly destructive, as has already been said, involve large into the demolition of the most of the structure.
and replaced by something some sheet glass monstrosity.
it beggars belief, really, I think you know it certainly were not wanted.
and would be highly damaging.
Mr Dodson, I agree with what's just been said, I just really, because the the treatment that's been given to the rear is more appropriate to terraced Victorian terraces raised, which are of not great architectural merit, but the this, as has been said, it is a of merit and so that treatment is just wholly inappropriate. They are destroying a very attractive rare, which maybe is not shared with a lot of other properties Victorian to late Vic, Torreón terraces and so on, but this is not that type of building. So yes, I agree
other any add I mean, does anyone want to defend this proposal in any way?
I don't want to defend it.
overly much, I think the
Mr Sellers's entirely right about the extension to the side should be, I think we would all agree, set back a little further to allow the building to stand independently or, as it was intended.
and with that proviso, I don't think that or when the opening up of the dummy windows it'd be interesting to know whether they were.
it's almost certainly were damaged windows, people don't go around bricking up windows, so I'm sure they would tell me windows and opening them up is yeah, I think, is going to adversely affect the front elevation.
those things apart, I don't think it's going that what is proposed is going to have a a particularly adverse effect on the streetscape and so in con in sort of conservation area terms, I think it's effect is if the things that we have just mentioned
are taken into account, its I'm likely to be overly offensive.
but as to the interior in the rear.
I share the concerns that have been previously expressed, we, with one proviso, and that is that I do not think putting on a contemporary extension to an existing building is necessarily problematic, I just wish this extension wasn't quite so large.
Mr Katter, can I just pick out one more point you just mentioned the dummy windows at the front.
if what the drawings, as so often don't show, is very much information about the next house, the left, but if you go back to the Area reviews, that's at all possible.
so to extremely difficult that you've particularly able to that one and you will notice, next door is next door on the right, as we see it in this picture.
is essentially the same house, it still has dummy windows at the front and I suspect their original and the
taking those away is taking away one of the distinctive features of this pair or group of houses, I don't know how many there are the same, but certainly it's it's spoiling a streetscape, even if it's very difficult streetscape to see because it's very nicely travel plant at.
OK, I'm gonna, try and try and sum up.
we object to this proposal.
first of all, because of what is being done to the to the front extension with the the the porch and the under dummy windows have been removed.
a second we object to the the side extension, which should have been pushed back.
thirdly, we object to the the size and the the quality of the of the rear extension and particularly the removal of the existing dormers.
and finally, we object to the re the internal, remodelling which any effect destroys the basic structure of the house.
we qualify that, I thought I think we object altogether to the rear extension is not just in the size of it, I think it's the very fact that there is any form of extension that is destroying the rear of the building previously Hyde, understood comments, Chairman,
OK.
Peter sorry, just one little detail, every so often the mention is of the porch being altered, but I've only been a, I had to look this afternoon.
and then look again this evening, it doesn't seem to me as though they are altering that entrants.
am I wrong?
forgive me, it's the bay, but yes, they're, they're trying to copy the one next door, which I think was a later addition.
so what are the?
that's being added, yes.
and that's not original, I mean it's not replacing an original no, there is no justification that it was, I do beg your pardon, sorry, I thought we were talking about the front door now, well I could we call it a veranda.
OK.
OK, do you have enough, thank you.
and finally, we have to, for six, to which is 94 Bolingbroke Grove.
who is leading on this, this is may again.
David
so this is semi, detached house in the ones with common conservation area, just to the east of the common, quite unexposed corner here, it's been fairly ill treated, there's a rendered elevation there of the side extension.
but essentially, it's the main house is pretty much as it was.
and it is very noticeable corner, there have been some extensions to some of these corner houses.
but if you look at the picture and the bottom left busy looking at there is still retains largely retains its symmetry when you're standing right in front of it if we can move on.
again, you've got yeah, I mean what's what's there, the the extension that's there to the right of it is single storey, yes, it does cover in the cover over that buffer zone between the house itself and the wall pavement edge, but you do still read the House as a symmetrical composition.
going there, you can see the at the rear, you've got those two clauses wings, it has been some minor fiddling about with those, but they are still essentially, and this is what we're being presented with.
so it's gone from single storey side, extension to a three storey side extension.
the brick matching, or were proposing to match the side elevation of one up front elevation.
again, you know, when you've when you have this typical treatment of multiple uses of brick, that's quite difficult to do.
but huge extension in volume.
and that
feature at the roof roof level of the the extension.
he's gonna have quite a different appear pe, a different appearance when you see the also steps back to incorporate that clause at wing as well, and this is where engulf that in the in the extensions.
the closet wing, as extended over by a windows with from where it is at the moment.
and
yeah, I mean, do I really need to to say much more about this, it's a considerable extension, they're certainly, in that view, will have a pretty considerable effect on the the visibility of that building in the streetscene.
again, you've got the symmetry of those closet wings on the back symmetry from the front.
and yet the additions.
so yeah, I'll let those speak for themselves and invite comments.
both before comments any any factual questions that people want to to raise.
just need to cater yeah, just a brief one, I think I noticed when looking at the stuff earlier on they're moving the front door as well, so they will no longer be straight ahead of you up the stairs or am I right or wrong about that as well as sort of can that level can we go back yeah sorry, we're keeping your keeping you in suspense.
yes.
top drawing top.
one on their
back to the front elevation.
no, it's a, it's the plan that gives the game away the plan.
so ground-floor, so ground-floor plan.
look at that.
so that seeks to Guinness hosed owner they get the daughters, sorry, it's still in the same.
OK, sorry about, yes, OK, any other factual questions.
OK, I'm going to keep my council votes on my patch again, Councillor Owens.
thank you Ann.
yes, I do know the House gonna Burnley Road and I think that's right, I mean, is I mean looking at that as it's very different to some of the similar.
so side extensions that you see in the area and as one that's been done actually on the corner, I think it's enough counts, gotten, Bolingbroke grave, that's actually been very well done.
and I mean, I'd I'd I don't think I've seen one like that that is quite that size on on the side and obviously, as you say when you know you at your right on the common there, I mean when you're looking if you're looking down Burnley Road from the common you know you'd like that stands out quite a lot, I mean you know, it's not just people walking past and looking down the road, it would be anybody that's on the common and could see that, and it just seems very as out of kilter with anything I've seen on Bolingbroke Grove on the of those houses and quite a few have to you know. Obviously things are being done to them, but the the, as I say, I have not seen one like that before that seems quite large
and there's not only has to be said, there is not much to be said for the for the existing ones, no single storey side, so I'd extension, but I think this is clearly of a very different scope, Mr. Armstrong,
Kingstown villas, they are a series of.
villa's
nice rhythm alone, Bolingbroke Grove and interesting, brickwork, red, brick and good, brick, good brick, arches, red-brick facade.
this extension in non-matching brick is somewhat overdominant, particularly at the rear when you're going up Burnley Road.
a vast lock of it, and it takes away most of the back garden, mostly amenity space, and I feel that's why over development on on this building and would affect the appearance of the conservation area, not really.
enhance the building from it would detract from the
series of
of villas and their appearance from.
this far.
yeah
in the only coastal event, some I find exploitative development, so I'm a little offensive in principle.
but my first impression and looking at this was that I very much liked it and I fear, as though I might be a dissenting voice with my colleagues to the left and the right.
I, I think it's it's a very nicely considered extension to the existing building.
I, like the little glass, slopped down the side.
I think.
the the extension, wrapping round the back is possibly a little lounge, but I don't think that will have a particularly adverse effect on the the conservation area, and you know I like the way it's being put forward and I think it's a I think I said earlier nicely designed considered scheme.
reference has been made to the the brickwork being dissimilar to the existing, but I think if you look at the existing photo elevation at the rear of the side, elevation is done in what looks like a stock brick.
and I'm guessing that this is also a stock or a similar brick, and I think, from looking at the drawings, their intention is to rebuild the side.
of the House, so from the gutter down to the ground will all be in matching brickwork, I'll be happy to support the application.
other comments.
Mr Dodson.
I do agree that it's it's a carefully considered extension, but I don't think it's in the right place. I think if this were somewhere else a less prominent position, it's an interesting use with the stock brick going into curves going round the side, but I just think in this situation where you've got pairs of houses in such prominent location that would be for me that's for me the reason why I would object to it I I agree that it's it is carefully considered and interesting, but not in this particular position.
Mr Katter, I'm going to a second everything Mr Dodson has just said, basically it is actually quite well considered, but it is too big.
for where it is, and if I have one reservation into the glass box triangle at the non-US on the roof, taking the stairs up, but no, I mean it is it is.
well done, but too big.
OK.
make my own comeback comments on this because has said.
it in in Battersea.
I am in agreement with Mr Dodson, a Mr Catto I when I first saw this I thought that's interesting.
but I think it's the the wrong extension in the wrong place, particularly in in terms of of scale.
and and I I'm worried, not only about the it's appearance from this angle and from other angles on on Wandsworth Common, but also the wrap around at the back.
which is which is quite bulky and takes on a huge amount of space in the in the rear garden, and you have the rear gardens on these corners are a feature of the of the large buildings alongside.
Wandsworth Common on on on bullying, Bolingbroke Grove, so I think on those two grounds I would I would object to the to this proposal,
nicely thoughts through as.
as it may be
so I think it's an interesting try.
but I just don't think it works in this situation.
Mr Pharo, my Vice Chair, is going to disagree with me, but I disagree.
we've all the comments about its inappropriateness.
as I say, I think it would make a positive contribution, I, I wish it wasn't quite so being, but it's it, it's ministers, a tall house, it's effectively what three and a half storeys.
I think it can cope with what's being done to it and, as I say I would be, I'd be, I'd be happy to support it and in the event that a decision is going to be recorded, that we don't like it, I'd be glad if it could be minuted that there was a dissenting voice and thank you.
are there other people who want to join in Mr Feroze dissent?
OK, so do you have enough?
okay, I think that brings us to the end of the
of the app applications,

5 Decisions (Paper No. 24-223)

I am now going to turn to paper.
24 2 2 2 3
I'll go through it page by page, like I think we've already spoken about number 1, the the flour store.
Fruin road was we objected to it and
planning permission was refused, so they agreed with us.
6 to six summers town we have already.
spoken about.
are on page 17 number 4 1 1 9 8 200 Balham, Balham, High Road, this is slightly
Long longer ago, in the end, the application was withdrawn, this again we objected.
and number 5.
61 63 ones with High Street.
we supported and.
and it was with some reservations about the flank wall, yes, party or.
planning permission was approved.
and Emanuel school, we supported and PAC this went PSC and and they pay supported it.
any.
comments questions her about that.
if 0?
are there any other items of business that we haven't covered already?
no.
OK, Mr Catto.
I've got one other business item, just do one item to raise, because you otherwise, you've got the dates for us to agree or note.
talking about the White Lion in Putney, High Street new owners are in consultation with the council about trying to find a way of reducing this, but I understand they've been told that because they put property guardians in the council now regards the building as an HMO and doesn't want to allow it to change to a hotel use even though the building was built as a hotel in the late 19th century and indeed replaced previous hotel building, so fundamentally this is a use that goes back.
as far as records go, essentially, I just wondered what's going on and does the fact that that is a recent court ruling saying that putting guardians in your building does make it an HMO is going to be a stumbling block to finding a solution for a building that's desperately in need of a viable use it's been empty for way too long.
will will yeah, I don't know whether that's coming from.
but we will have to look into that and see who's saying that I do know that I may, I can't say much about it, because it's in pre-app at the moment, but the reason it's come back to us after we'd granted what we thought was rather a good scheme for reuse and restoration of some of the earlier features of the pub.
and sensitive conversion of the upper rooms or reuse as hotel rooms. It's come back because we felt that it's not viable as a hotel with that level of development, and so we're trying to find a solution but year what, quite where that, as has come from about the HMO use its, I'll have it wrong in the new owner who,
had come to see the Putney society a year or so ago about or the beginning of the year, about trying to find as to talk through solutions that he had in mind, and I spoke to him on the phone the other day, and this is what he told me so this is where it comes from and I just would like to ask
but even if you do technically regarded as now having become an HMO, please detach would not stop being flexible about use for a building that is our second longest running of to.
on the Buildings at Risk Register,
yeah, I mean, the it's never been, the use has never been changed.
so yeah, I don't know what legal way
but year will will investigate, and it isn't a person, be nothing that I'm aware of, has come for in case law and or recent planning bulletins to suggest that you know, if you have an accidental HMO, because you've put property guardians and it then becomes I I've not heard that yeah I don't know what what basis that hasn't OK well if, if you could report back to the customer I mean quite apart from this particular instance I can see this being you know a significant issue for anyone who wants to put in property guardians
my Vice Chair did some investigation when we had this and has come up with a fairly recent court case that does confirm
as some other Council saying.
this is what it happened has become an HMO needed licensing, and I just hope it's yeah, I don't mind if you saying it, but it's an HMO is lux main, flexible about fighting going to use that that makes a viable conversion over a really the most visibly significant building in Putney by the church across the road,
I mean, there are two. There are two points here. The locality of, and also the harm to significance of this building caused by its use as an HMO are in while it's empty or not being used for a hotel and pub use. Clearly we all want people in there so that it doesn't go up in flames one night but yeah I mean to use it as an HMO would harm its significance. It then that's purely inappropriate. So yeah, I mean. We would always argue that in any, if there were to be any future attempts to make this legal, we would always argue the significance of the building would be harmed and therefore should not be permitted so
OK, thank thank you, or if you could give us an.
an update on on what's going on, no, that would be helpful. Could I finally raised one on issue I I mentioned,
earlier on in the meeting, what I'd heard when listening in to
PAC a couple of weeks ago
about Phase One of the Clapham Junction master plan
process being being completed. It would be very helpful if we could get an early update on what the current position is in addition to the
the
the commonplace maps that are now on are on the website, seeking people's views on what's good, and what's less good about about the area covered by the master plan was asking that genuinely welcome back to you, thank you.
thank you.

6 Future Meeting Dates

any any any other business, in which case I
can we note the dates of meetings,
noted on the on the agenda,
and I declare the meeting closed.