Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 19 September 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 19th September 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

gosh, but started again, I beg your pardon good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the September meeting of the Planning applications Committee. My name's Tony Belsen, I am a Councillor for Battersea Park ward in Battersea, and the Chair of this Committee. I will ask Members to introduce themselves as they wish to speak, but I will introduce the people on the top table, otherwise it might seem extremely strange. So on my left is good evening, councillors could, even in everyone amnesic cauldron, the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth
good evening, my name is Duncan was on the external legal adviser.
I'm Wraith writes in from Democratic Services, and I'm clocking the meeting.
thank you.
people should be aware that these apparently very thick agendas we have all gone through them before in some detail, and if there's not much discussion, that's just because we've there's nothing to disagree about were in agreement in general, so having said that, can I ask whether it's OK to sign the minutes as a correct record account Samphrey as you've seen them?
procured that may just sign doesn't seem to be a last page.
so page something's gone wrong with the printing, but the last pages OK so.
sounds as though I haven't seen them, but I've seen them in a different digital format.
thank you.
but first of all, can I ask if there are any declarations of interests, that's interests of a pecuniary or personal beneficial nature that applies on any of the agenda items, any declarations of interest I see how Councillor White
from a member of the community renewable energy Wandsworth,
by drill, no bikini or financial interest from being a member
OK any other note, no other interests, I say we've got to be to missing Councillors missing at the moment, any apologies.
yes, Chair apologies for Councillor, give India is given that he was ill last time is OK as he is fine, thank you, but it is just a way wow you know what I met, OK and Councillor Boswell, we haven't had any about no OK, I'll give apologies for Councillor post-swim apologies and Councillor buzzer right.
I would normally take applications in the order that the public gallery are interested in, but on this occasion I'm not for a very particular reason, and that's to do is.
one of the members of staff who wants needs to get away early, so can we go straight to Wimbledon Park Road, the first application number 2 0 2 4 stroke 8 6 9 which is about a
rather interesting extension on for Wimbledon Park Road if you're going to him to say about it, researchers.
not particularly.
the page 8 of the report shows the innovation that you would see from Wimbledon Park Road, the property is in a conservation area and will replace a flat roofed garage, there are gonna be other enhancements to the main house as well, which is a benefit.
and weighs in favour, I think there was quite a lot of concern about trees that's to the west, but there's a condition that's been attached, no condition 11, that requires further details of the route, the digging and so on for the extension so that the root system isn't damaged.
to protect those trees because they are beautiful, and yet the recommendation is to approve were happy with it, thank you.
any members got any particular co-counsel Humphries, thank you to Costco Humphreys, Councillor for Southfield, importantly and opposition as Speaker of this committee.
it's it's a funny site as well as Niccolò, although it technical brilliance, correct with the description, is a rear extension sort of really reasons the side extension because the front doors on that side and the original front doors are blocked off on what would have been the front of the house. Although it's technically a rear extension is slightly misleading because it reads as being the front of the house collapsed by the front door. It says it's perhaps give it more prominence than it might if it was an ordinary, rear extension is not so visible Luke, even though it's on the especially being on the corner, like it is just a couple of queries. The you mentioned about the trees and in the roots of the trees, and I gather that, as I say as a condition on that one, but it was in the comments from enable. There was that there was a knock, another comment about them, saying that they wouldn't prune those trees because he's not on this land, it's on the council land next door and and there needs to be provision made for dealing with that by the, and is that all sorted, because it sounded quite
like it might be an impediment to the development.
groups we, we received, the planning officer, went back to artery officer just to make sure that we were happy with it, what the Tree Officer explained was that.
because the applicants need to be aware that they are extending for living purposes, if you like, underneath the tree which could potentially cause problems to rooflights, and you know when they drop their leaves and whatever else comes from a tree, and the Council of made it quite clear that they wouldn't want to see those pruned at all just if in future there's any complaints about that he would have to be done very carefully.
so that's what that reference was about really that, but we can't impose anything on it, we've had reassurance from the applicants there that they will not damage the tree, they will protect as much as possible, it's a sycamore, so it's a nice,
species example, thank you, thank you are that's that's helpful, I am wondering if, on our it sounds a little matter, but it could be something with quiet thinking We've if the particularly the if the building changes, hands or whatever and the New pupil and wherever it is something that we could perhaps put an informative on.
can not a condition, but as an informative so that anybody in the feedback we ought to read that to know that that's the condition that it wouldn't be just trying to future-proof it a little bit something, along the lines of the view that both the kind of wording but just as an informative that any future on or whatever because I understand it might be aware of it because you wouldn't necessarily think about something like that, would you think that might be might be helpful?
happy with that restrictions, okay, but an informative on aren't any harm Councillor is kept, then Councillor White.
from the air from.
East Putney.
talking a future proofing.
the that side rear extension looks ideal for separating as a completely independent unit.
and I did, what can we do anything about this, do we want it to be an independent unit, do we not want it to be an independent unit, but it seems to me there is a bit of fast footwork going on with the Planning there they're not actually wanting to do what they appear to be wanting today.
any comments on that.
thank you. Condition, 7 has been recommended to preclude future use of it as a separate dwelling, so if they were found to be using it as a separate to lay an order, fitness, you know was registered as such and that would be in breach of the permission. Thank you, but it is also the case if they'd decided to do that but they could put in a planning application to change it. No doubt yeah, so that we do see upset at the time. Well if it was to apply Council-wide
yeah, just a couple of the comments, one question, it's nice to see you pee VC windows replaced with timber hope there from a sustainable source, but very unusual and good, and also talking about of trees as well, and that none of them are gonna get chopped down although it's just arose.
it's amazing what you can do, they know you to do that.
okay, fine trees are safe, Barney gas Wu was that one hand up, Councillor Humphreys, or you just moving your glasses.
Councillor Lamb, for its thank you judge it just as just another thing while we're on.
it says in the late items about the boundary being pulled away from the boundary.
the building line from the boundary of everyone being 2.1 8 metres away from the seeing as it is slightly curious, isn't it, because the biggest impact as far as the naval concern is is 1 1 12 1 12, and I understand I haven't put an objection in on this one, but it is going to be quite close to it and that's not far as at 2.00.8 1 metres but again just a bit of reassurance, perhaps that that's going to be fine, it's not gonna be seen as too overwhelming for the people next door because he again led the current people might not like it future people might not think it's too, one of them you if you on as they say on PJ, there's a sectional drawing that's been included, and you can see so on that image. The lower element, if you like, that's already existing and what you're seeing, whether little man is that's the sunken terrace area to the back
and then to the left of that image you can just see the elevation of the neighbouring property at 1.00 1 2, and there are no windows directly at that level, and then, when you consider the roof form and the distance away from the nearest window, then again we're comfortable that that still gives you a nice outlook and wouldn't be too imposing from within that room.
OK, thank you very one final thing about Mary sorry, and we would like at it's just in the comments that were a few concerns from neighbours and suchlike. It would set some precedent for building an extension, and they were talking about with some historic once we have quite a long way back. I just wanted again for their benefit rather than mine. Perhaps some reassurance that if any other applications were to come forward in the area, they will be judged on their own merits, as I always do, and and so on, so it's not necessarily setting a precedent for anything else in the area, just just to reassure them on, we understand that, but they don't necessarily
and I think it's just important to remember. There is a garage structure already here, which currently comes right up to the boundary with 1 1 2, so this has been designed to be pulled away, even though it's bigger it's just and it's nicely designed as well to suit the house so yeah, we're happy, it's a very specific probe at property could hardly be a precedent for anything that I mean it's just very unusual. Okay, is that application agreed greed, that applications agreed move and Mr J's go home go to bed or something and recover whatever it is
will be thinking about you, application number 2.
garage and parking spaces west of 57 57 to 84 Gidon Road, and this is for
a building with.
5 flats. Mr Grainger, do you want to send him out at
thank you Chair, yes, on Nigel Granger and on the East Area Team Manager.
yes, certainly this is a a proposal for the demolition of the existing vehicle garages and the erection of a 3 storey storey building to to accommodate five new self contained dwellings, this continues on from an approved live in 2016 when.
another similar councils own application came forward, but this has remodelled the built envelope to to maximise the site and delivering additional units, so in that context I'm sure that elected members are have all spotted and are queuing up to point out the inaccuracies in table 29, so let me quickly get that in as soon as possible and apologies for the typo but you'll see in late items
this table has been corrected, for you say those those numbers and the unit mixes is correct and clear of note is that out of the five units proposed, there's one 3 bedroom unit and one 4 bedroom unit, which is considered to provide a real crossbred of of mixed with larger units there are a number of other items in the
areas of further assessments in the late items correcting or setting out an alternative strategy to the energy plan for this there's there are no.
photovoltaic there were no solar panels.
proposed and the the energy rating that's been reported can be achieved solely through the use of air source heat pumps, which requires the deletion of of paragragh of condition 7, which related to PV panels and also of note.
the the West Side elevation, it was initially recommended to have all of the windows within the elevation to be obscure glazed, but upon further exploration of of precisely what those windows do and what they overlook. We're now down to a situation where three of those windows would need to be high. Level. Windows would need to be obscure glazed in order to preserve the privacy and the amenity of the adjacent occupiers, while the remainder of the windows could be clear glazed, and they would also provide some passive surveillance to the pathway that tracks around the sites. So that's all set out there. There's an additional condition from historic England for you as well, in a couple of changes to the triggers from
from pre-commencement conditions to to works, commencement above above ground floor, so that should be it for the late items for this particular scheme, and thank you very, very much.
thank you, Councillor lapse.
yeah thanks very much for that introduction, it's noted that this schemes or is yes, introduces 0 sorry, of course, Sarah apps, I'm Councillor in Shaftesbury in Queenstown ward, which this development is within, so I've been following this closely for a number of years now, in fact it predates me being a Councillor, however, the big differences now that it's all for social rent and also that the scheme has been modified.
so that there are some larger units so
I believe that the units are accessible for people with disabilities and perhaps it will provide homes for some of the many families who are waiting for more accessible room, so if you could confirm that that would be good, I noted this concerns about the sort of corridor the alleyway so,
how do you think the design copes with that, and do you think we need to think about lighting or any other issues around the sort of narrow passage way that will be there, thank you.
Q
yes, the 40% of visa, there's two units, basically would the ground-floor units would be would be constructed to them for three standards which is fully accessible, which is the highest standard. You know, it's actually all the adaptations are actually in place, which is a very positive thing, with the remainder round for 2, so some building regulation code, but that's what we work to in terms of the the pathway for the length of the part where there is nothing we can do about how wide it is, because it's obviously the red line of sight to the site. Curtilage is fixed, and that's what we have to work with, but the amount of the
the development that tracks with the adjacent development there would only be a certain small amount that would actually have the effect of to two buildings, not creating what excuse me a wall either side, so with the additional passive surveillance we don't think that where we think it's acceptable in design terms people it's it's not impacting on how that pathway has been its physical layout, everybody knows that they know where it is there would be a new building adjacent to it.
but, irrespective of that, we still think that it can function without any modification or anything that would have to spring of this application in order to maintain that.
Councillor S, get all full house here and Councillor is Councillor currently Councillor wide Councillor Humphreys, you are the two keeping quiet right councillor as.
I know that I have had this discussion with Nigel Granger before, but the problem of that Syed Ali could be, in my view.
completely sold by having the entrances to those flats which are currently offer corridor, which is parallel to that alleyway, if you had the reflects the front doors there so that your animating that alleyway, I mean the doors would have to be recessed, the access of thought would have to be angled and so the width of that alleyway would the increased in little ways.
pretty much more pleasant place to be, in my view, I know you'd be current redesign it and I will vote in favour of this scheme, but it just just defeats me every time to see the avoidance of front doors on the street you know this is by.
what's the word king, Charles is Head.
while we're quite used over centuries to having front doors at the front of the house on the street and say I understand your point, absolutely thank you, Councillor Coakley, I think I said most thank you, Chair, Councillor Jamie, cookery for St Mary's ward, I wanted to ask about the provision of car spaces because provided in 12 car spaces for 5 residential units to seem to be a bit on the excessive size, especially because the parking units there before one being used anyway, so if it was like a slightly missed opportunities to have got some more got some more green space in there, for instance by just,
there have been one or two of those parking units instead have a flower bed or anything like that, so is there any wheat reason why it's so many so many car spaces just for five properties, Mr Dudley?
thank you, David tiddly, the Head of Transport Strategy, my understanding accounts, and Mr Grainger's can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the 12 spaces of actually existing and they serve the wider community, so this is a net increase in residential units, but there's only a net increase in parking space of one.
for the five.
on the the parking units and they technically sort of inside the developer or like in part of the
no, they state they serve.
the other housing in and around the area, so that's why they have obtained for that for that purpose, they're not really for this development tool.
it's also truism that, Mr sadly, I mean I know the area pretty well.
Gibson Road is lost quite a few parking spaces in the recent past development, those council flats further down in the estate, so it's lost quite a few parking spaces are not right over the last few years that that is correct, yes, so I think there are special circumstances perhaps.
Councillor White.
yeah just like to echo Councillor apps.
comments around the 100% social rent and it is something that we really needed in the Borough.
and also it's quite interesting about the reductions of energy use as well, but I don't know whether there is any way that we can access to show how much energy is likely to be used in in a technical format and also how much therefore CEO to who's been saved Ohio to being used should I say and how much,
how much it would cost to you know to to an average use of the property in comparison to maybe one of the other properties on the estate.
it is not passive houses at this, this one.
Mr granddad, can you cope with this?
it's not technically passive house, but it it's the amounts of carbon that it's saving is is getting very, very close to those principles and taking your last point on costs to be, we would never be able to the that's work, this in reverse so for major applications,
the sustainability strategies. Part of that, the Mayoral hierarchy, there's been an additional category placed under the three, the three strands of the Mayoral high hierarchy for energy saving, which is be seen so be seen monitoring is is it is captured through Section 1 0 6 Planning obligations and Section 1 0 6 planning obligations are basically there to capture affordable housing contributions for major developments so that only applies to major developments. So we do that when we can put in in all the strategy because it's in-depth how you calculate all of the BCF monitoring so we can look at this hour.
section 1 0 6 moderating team would get reports than they would have that data, so as these schemes with this has been, I would probably say well since 2021, the schemes that have got the be seen obligations attached to one of his sixes, then that are managed team will begin to get that data from finished schemes. They're going to begin to come online, so I could yeah, you can make contact with our our monitoring team and see what data that they've got, but for this proposal because it's not a major scheme, we can't impose that be seen element to it.
OK, Councillor Humphreys.
sorry, I forgot you had me on the list, I'm glad to say this is quite a good scheme because it started offering often where we did. Administrations are finished, hits evolved well and it's kept up well with the with the time. So again generally, if I have a few things, so I do agree with some of the concerns about the alleyway kind of thing, because earlier Mr Grainger's said to his earlier, it's the same as it was before. It's it's kind of not the same as it was before, because it was an open aspect on one side before looking down, so it was much more the anyway, it wasn't in any way it was the raised walkway which is much more visible, so therefore safer. I would suggest one or an alleyway which is now with the building right beside it, so I would have thought I'm surprised there. Isn't a
request in there for some extra lighting or something like that to aware as Councillor said, yes' or front door talking to running makes it much more because I do think that would become a little bit of a blind dark corner in the winter and suchlike, so I'm slightly concerned about that from a safety aspect.
let's say my other points while I'm at it and then we can do them all years ago, yeah, I just wanted a little bit of detail about that little leg of land going to the South going up the hills, up the slope towards the The Lavender Hill, there's sort of a little dog leg bit of land and that's staying Islam, but presumably being re-landscaped, but I didn't I know the details to combat into any details of what was actually going to happen to that. I think there's going to be like re landscape, but pretty much as it is with the controls and such as it is was a
a second question and my third question, final question,
obviously the one of the bigger impacts is on building to the south, so I think it's.
number 100 Lavender Hill, the White flat face modern building that faces directly onto that, and it's very close, isn't it to that corner, and I understand that's why that's chamfered of that corner on the slope, to try and keep the lights that balcony or recessed window there. That is there any way, but I just again are we are we comfortable with that deals with are adequately because it is very, very close to to those people who are already there
and chums to grown too comfortable, otherwise there'd be recommended gates to say yes but go on to go into it.
so thank you and the landscaping or me.
the opportunity say the relating that to the biodiversity net gain calculation said the the opportunity to actually improve those areas has been afforded by being able to improve, to improve the scheme to deal with the the net gain over the entire parcel of land has been afforded by. You may be able to improve that the landscaping adjacent to it, so we've got new trees, we've got more intensive planting so that gets us to the, I think is at 10.00.3 or something like that, BMG, which is what what we need, so that's all wrapped that up. So yes, it's notes obviously condition, so we will get to get full details of it and we get to monitor it as well, because that's the way BMG works, which is interesting
and the the amenity to the property to the south, mean that you are quite right, and you've picked up the way that you know that that Bourne element does shameful away. The reason why it does that obviously, is to reduce any impacts on outlook, so not presenting a of vertical solid entity before those flats, and also it has an impact in improving the received daylight to that so
there is obviously the report outlines what the vertical Sky components in the direct daylight is, but we think that this all those within acceptable parameters, it's also a fairly extreme gradient, isn't it that bit, it's an interesting plot yeah, and there are challenges here.
I'm not unhappy with the anyway, sorry, or is there that the final point was about the alleyway again the security of the alleyway?
Yano mean, I could say what I have said again, I mean it, is it's whether the if, if it's not unreasonable, I don't think if it if it was the will of the Committee to discuss whether an additional condition to be imposed on any lighting would have to be fixed to the building and within the control of that building if that's something that wants to be explored, perhaps I don't know if Mr cold is not looking to energised by the prospect, Mr Gordon, are your energised?
well, I just don't think not allowed she, I know what you want in terms of it would be better to have lighting on on the alleyway it wouldn't it, rather than what we're speaking about here is the potential on the buildings would be like floodlighting down to it, but I don't think that would achieve what you want, but we we could go for a condition to explore. I was thinking more bulkhead lighting, basically it's just fixed points of of low, so it doesn't look like a dark low lungs. Both had
subject to agreement on lighting in the alleyway that what we're saying as a condition, I'm sure those on the right words, but I'm sure Mr
stranger knows what the right words yet.
OK, Councillor Coakley.
so just to confirm at the moment, the only light in is the those stripes on the floor, though.
the the striped floor light and and and that's the only light and at the moment it.
and so it was suggested and having more light on the size of the burden, because could we not also make those strips maybe wide except them on, they're quite thin, so we could also make them potentially wider like when you have just a square light instead of the thin strip and then I would also provide more night in.
hi 3 I think with the additional I think we're at the risk of we don't want to go back, pool dewy, I think we were, I think, with additional bulkhead lighting, I think we've got to consider the amenity of existing occupiers as well, so I think with the additional conditions I think that the additional condition near Cindy
I must say, from my point of view, I've always thought that good in Road estate, without a friendly and Councillor apps, too much, it's always been a bit of a hotchpotch, and I think that the developments made in the last few years of extra blocks,
by the previous Council, I have to say, as well as this Council have actually improved it, and I hope this one does too.
it was agreed agreed OK, move on to do do do move on to the
the right horizons Battersea day, nursery 18, Latchmere Road, page 55, demolition of current nursery and replacement with flats and and replacement nursery against a grandeur.
thank you Chair, so this would result in the demolition of the existing building, which is good or very low, shallow pitched roof, it's about one and a half storeys in height that stretches across the the length of the curtilage of the site and the reprovision of of a residential component and a nursery components containing 9 residential units and about 440 for 150 square metres of replacement.
nursery space again, I think it's so important.
to point out a couple of items for you within the Late paper.
if we look at the first statement that we put into the report, we were of the impression that the facility is shut for nursery shut in April 2020, but we've been informed that it was actually August 2022, so it's more in in modern history than we initially thought and the amenity the terraces have been recalculated in some instances where we've got marginal uplift in the overall floor areas that you can see in the table because the scheme is proposed to be phased so there are three phases for Phase One would be the demolition of the existing building phase to the residential component and phase 3 would be the nursery development
we've had to modify in order to recognise that facing we've had to adjust conditions in order to be able to separate out the residential phase.
phase 2 from the nursery development from phase three, they're quite repetitive and what we've what we've how we've laid these out because it has to has to do so for each phase and they've been those conditions have been laid out for you and corrected for the remainder of the late item and that is pretty much all I wanted to cover but the proposals recommended for approval subject to conditions,
it is in the late items, but can I just point out in case anyone hadn't noticed at the failure of cutting and pasting on page 87, which clearly don't mean Clapham South, but that was just to one of those clerical mistakes.
I should also say I was very naughty on off on holiday and so we missed out on some of the information, but I do understand that this document here further community objection has been considered by the officers in terms of their report and they've responded to to the various comments in the way they choose to respond to it that's correct as it must to danger. Yes, it is the I checked earlier, we have that paper that that representation and it's all our websites okay right, Councillor Coakley,
thank you Chair, I think if, if this application was just the nursery, I don't think I would have had any problems with it whatsoever, the the nursery seems fine.
in decent and by mental improvements, and it's a quite nice-looking build in, so I didn't find it may issue is more the residential side it feels like all of the areas of non-compliance in this paper are due to the developer, trying to cram as many units as they can in such a small space. Sorry, I guess first question I want to ask is
in the discussions with the developer, was there ever a point where say seven or eight units were considered because there's a lot of areas of non-compliance and they could have it could have all been avoided by just having one less unit and then spread in that space equally and then potentially slightly lower in the ridgeline of the of the development, so whether was that in discussions at all?
we did have pre-application engagement with the developer run on this proposal, I think perhaps scheme was was 8 units, but as any scheme does the evolve after they've got our initial comments and and through modelling and rationalisation of the spaces from the initial conception they've managed to get.
a policy compliant scheme in terms of the floor area of the flats to 9 units, and we regard that as acceptable not only in meeting the nationally described standards, but also in in the way that they actually would would be laid out and operate, so we don't be they recognise that as a negative of the proposal.
OK.
any other comments, any questions, Councillor Humphreys count, OK Councillor Letts Councillor because you've been quiet so far, thank you, Councillor Belsey and Councillor earns at Northcott ward, and I realise this may not be a planning consideration and just following up a bit on from Councillor Coakley's point about about the flats.
and I sit on the children's Committee and we recently to close two schools. I understand that last year there was only one primary school in the entirety of once, but that further its reception class and there's a nursery is obviously being closed Bishop for a couple of years, and we're not looking at doubling the size of the nursery nurse, who's gonna be about the same size but obviously the rest of the site for flats, and I was just wondering it's not a planning consideration, but is there actually a proven need and is really just about and the flats and they actually units as cut cockney has pointed out, thank you, sorry, I didn't is a need for a number of I. I'm just curious, because we we've spent a lot of time and in children's committee closing schools and showing that we haven't filled any other reception classes bar one across Wandsworth and obviously we're not increasing the size of the nursery here, the nursery it will be staying the same size and the site we used for flats, and is it more about perhaps the the flats and the nursery? Thank you,
right Mr. Grandeur.
in terms of need, it's it is a a consideration, I think you don't have to think it's not a material planning consideration, because obviously there has to be in terms of the way the policy works in at LP 17.
there there is a there are a number of criteria that we have to look at and be satisfied of in replacements can we call for the purposes of this, because there are a lot of different uses that come under Community infrastructure, then we we formulated a policy that that teases out that that exactly to meet this is a
the the developer.
that does have an established business model over the UK.
and Roy, bright horizons of operate many nurseries, so it's it's part of of their DNA, so to speak, in terms of what they actually do as as an organisation, and they they are confident that with a wry struck with the remodelled and re rationalised, modern facility that that they can operate it and take up would be would would be successful as a commercial concern. There are two things. There's the Satio sort of associate elements of it in terms of as a as a council. We have a policy that seeks to not
not allow or developments to result in a net loss of floor area for community infrastructure buildings, so and then in the same breath and we've got a developer that that commercially operates these units, that has a track record that that successful so Mary those two together and I think that that demonstrates the case that that need is there and that there is a on paper there is a high degree and opportunities for success.
Councillor Humphreys.
thank you Chair if I understand all that I have some sympathy with Councillor culture point of view because in effect what we've taken is a long, low building and converted into a three storey building to provide the same equivalents in a sense and then we're getting a big block of flats alongside it, so I think for the the folk in the street behind, of course we understand that they've been fortunate up-to-date, they've had only had that no building in front of the by a quirk of history of the way it's worked out, but even looking at the the CCG eyes on page 60, which presumably generated to encourages to see how a wonderful the development is going to be from the viewpoints of those people living behind it looks pretty jolly imposing to me.
in very in your face and the modern style of the urban vernacular of that building, and I think it doesn't necessarily any favours, and if we didn't have so many units as Councillor coaxed, you said we might be able to get a slightly less bulky and in your face to excuse the colloquialism building, particularly from the rear, there may be a bit less heart and stepping back a bit more. I understand from auditors has tried to do their best to to accommodate the minimising with the setting back where we've we've set it back at the front on the residential side of this development onto the main road, rather than setting it back at the rear, which seems contrary to me, to make even more of an impact on the residents. So I just think, when your starting from a blank page of the site, it seems that they've done everything they can to maximise their potential of the site and quite good for them. That's their job after all, but are taking absolutely no interest in the impact on the residents behind them, so I'm I'm not, I'm not thrilled, with this wonderful to say,
none, of course, that it makes any difference to today's situation, but I assume.
afterwards near Clapham Junction that I assume that's a bombsite effectively and Latchmere Road were carried on at the level it is, which is two storeys, with a high Victorian pitch roof more or less the same height as certainly the flats and the case was true and Atherden Street as well, so it's very.
where it's pretty typical in a sense and a Townscape sense of what it traditionally was, which is generally I'm just making that comment spy, hear what you say, any other comments Councillor apps, Gansa airs again but accounts lapse first yeah I wanted to ask him as Councillor Coakley pointed out, there's a number of areas of non-compliance and those are obviously balanced in reports that we weigh up the factors and obviously one of the factors that we'd want to weigh up is the sort of socio-economic
benefits and how they weigh up in comparison I was very interested in Councillor Owen's comments on that, have there been?
has there been an assessment of the need for more child care in the area? Has there been, you know, have they collected evidence, have we received any representations from say, children's department, about this? You know what we are at a point where the birthrate is declining in London, you know, so are we confident I hear what you say about the business model, so obviously the business thinks there is, but do we have any evidence that we have this need?
we don't have any evidence from what we would produce in order to provide an evidence base supporting a policy, for instance for a local for a local plan or anything like that we go out there, we would do something called a local housing needs assessment where we identify for instance unit mix and how many how many homes we need and what 10 years and you know whether it's social intermediate or private sound things like that so we don't have they don't they didn't.
they haven't done that, they haven't supplied that, and the policy specifically doesn't require them to do that because of this, this interlink the dovetailing of the fact that they have to reprovide the the the floor space because of it being social infrastructure floorspace, so,
the evolution of the policy to get to that policy and and, and it's being a no net loss policy in order to evidence and no less net loss policy, we've had to demonstrate that we don't want to lose any of that because we need it so there is one sort of almost one a bit of research done that we need those spaces because they could could be occupied for social and community infrastructure if you see what I mean.
and then you will see you marry that with the with the commercial aspect to that I've talked about, which arrives, it gives us enough confidence to think that that disc in policy terms would succeed, Councillor hours.
I wanted to call comments just architecturally about at the I think that your point would be easier to comprehend if we bid, if you'd asked where a cross section, through the building showing.
that the high back would be oppressive to the neighbours at the back.
so I think the CCGs, they could good case for the front elevation, maybe the side elevation, I very much like the way that the Housing lines up with the existing housing and the setting back the second story is.
a very relaxed and successful way of keeping it in scale and the nursery building is clearly a sort of a civic building, it has a public function, it's not domestic anymore, so although it's slightly too muscular, we're might think for a nursery, it's still a very good building and it can easily be softened round the edges so overall I'm impressed with this.
the work that the architects of done, despite the fact that there are a few single aspect flats.
and we could have had more front doors on the street, but we've got some here, we've got some front doors on the street here, so I'm I'm in favour of the scheme, thank you.
Councillor White, then Humphreys again.
high
yeah, I'm always perplexed by demolition, because the amount of adverse CO2 lost in demolition is not going to be made up by the savings in in a new building also.
the basement excavation, as well, in a high flood risk area which suffers from floods, and this will obviously have an impact on soakaway.
opportunities.
and also you know it, you standard, attain again, you know, so we don't have to provide any affordable housing, and it's interesting, bearing in mind when we talk about the so the the significant social economic benefits which is quoted in their that's you know certainly not Associa economic benefit budgets and with one less space available than previously, I just wonder what are the social apart from providing another?
nursery. What is the significant social economic benefits I mean, are there places reserved for to ensure there is a a fair mix of the local residents? I mean, that would be a significant social economic benefit, possibly well, of course, many of where most of the community members, perhaps all committee members, would prefer more affordable equation, but within terms of planning policy somewhere in here, I'm not sure I put my finger on it straight away, but we know London Plan as a whole relies very much on small developments in small units and will increasingly need to and the
the demand for many, many more houses or flats in London, I was, I thought, was pretty clear.
but, Mr grounds, you're going to do it.
let nature made, but apart from one thing that this doesn't we talk about excuse me, we talk about say about public benefits in the context of of of balancing harming conservation areas.
and we do that in line with the the main three principles of the NP BF, but they don't actually technically have to do that in here, but in terms of of benefits obviously contributes to the
the borrowers housing target says, as the Chair has already talked about, and bringing forwards of which small sites has been prioritised because small sites have been identified within the policy strata has been very important in in delivering housing housing need, but there is no method.
for us, or a policy backing to to monitor from what social strands the future.
occupied while the future, what would you can I call them students, but that's where to Hitler's the Catholic children being looked after, and there's there's there's no grounds for us to do that.
in any, in any strand of policy direction.
thank you.
Councillor Humphreys, and if Councillor Godfrey wants to come back again, he'd welcome to both Councillor Humphreys, thank you Chair.
yeah
dragging us back to the mundane planning things that we can control as there's been referred to look at.
4.16 this is an indicator, perhaps of how, as has been alluded to, perhaps the developers bring a little bit greedy with the amount of units the tried to put in some for 16 on page 86,
so we've got Flat, 7 0 sorry, you know, it's for point one for Surrey as it, whereas the annual revision of lastly no soccer now have gone up for 11.
that's it. So we've got a flat 7, which two bed flat single aspect units, and even though it's single aspect won't be obscure glazed most of the windows at the back in the bedrooms, I mean that's pretty poor, isn't the outlook for somebody living and again because we get which remember? Last month we had a development in small-field Street and Councillor S was worth pointing out that because of the tight nature of the site, again, they were trying to be a little bit greedy and squeezing that extra funny-shaped unit on the end, and I think there's somewhat guilty of the same thing here I quite accept Mr Grainger's points that we need to do what we can only small sites to get anywhere near the targets we've currently got for housing, but
I just think we could have had one less here, which would have reduced the bulk somewhat and we could have had a better scheme that would have worked a for the developer and be not to impinge so much on the residents at the back, and I just think they're being overly greedy on this one.
one pretty poor units. The amenity spaces aren't up to standard either. We've got a couple of policy grounds already where it's not compliant and again going back to my first point about the nursery, the reason they've had to make it 3 storeys is because they need extra split play space which they've lost on the footplate of the building because of the original nursery play spaces at the back and I haven't they've lost half the site, that's do or a place based on the upper storey which is going to impinge for noise and again impinge on the neighbours. So it's the neighbours were getting the the Bundy a lot excuse my French little way round here, aren't they on this kind of one
around, and it's all for the benefit of the developer because they want to squeeze that many units into that one space and I just thought, with a more reasonable outlook on trying to keep everyone happy. We provide a much better scheme on this site, which we often do on small schemes when the develop of a little bit more consider to be as residents I I personally, will we be voting against this one and if I have any support from colleagues, I can find a few grounds to do that.
OK any other comments, scouts' cochlea, I'm in exactly the same Bowes, Councillor Humphreys again I think the nursery development is fine. If I was on his own, I poverty would have voted for it, but the fact that they're trying to cram in so many units and it's led less benefits for the people. They're gonna be occupying these properties as well as the residents of Atherton Street and the surrounding area, so I'd also
I'm also would like to move a motion for views or based on those no areas of non-compliance, and Ian just vote against the recommendations in order to move the motion, and I don't think.
Ms
sorry.
so.
I was a chatting on the front, Mr Grainger, and that any any final, I mean, what's your comment about.
the equivalence between a three storey flat, roofed, modern and two storey with pitched roof.
as in Latchmere Road and how they fit together and he comments about them.
well that wouldn't work, Chair sorry, that wouldn't work.
the way that the residential component has been designed is to be absolutely flush with the with the building line of the terrorist adjacent to it, it's a totally contemporary mirror of the established pattern of the of all the development to the north, it's just a contemporary continuation of that and largely the distances at the rear.
there is a lot of mirroring in terms of you know, there are rear projections of the existing buildings, so it's.
Councillor Humphreys, I put his finger on on on the the correct point earlier by by pointing out that residents have.
have being used to a low rise building and that is absolutely true, sometimes in planning assessments we talk about the site has been just recently cleared and there's been nothing happened to it for two or three years, but that would be that's in living memory if something replacement goes up that is of the same Bill and vehicle maybe even bigger that's that's one thing, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the residents.
to the rear of the site to to.
it's such a long time ago that that buildings being there that what you can't use that argument, that's why we've gone into such length in assessing the impacts of this proposal, because we want to make sure that the impacts lie within acceptable parameters and we do think that the separation distances achieve acceptable degrees of outlook acceptable.
privacy levels, with the exception of having to obscure glaze particularly unit, and the daylight sunlight impacts for a very tight urban area. There were only one or two failings that that you know of that. Then these aren't and materially harmful reductions in daylight in terms of VSC and vertical sky component and and Daylight distribution. So in that regard there are also additional controls that Councillor Humphreys was talking about the potential noise and disturbance from these amenity spaces for the nursery, but condition 15 is that
to ensure that the lives these areas don't get used outside of the commercial hours past seven o'clock and pass them 2 o'clock on Saturday say I think the controls expressed in the in the recommended conditions, along with the overall assessments and the overarching benefits that that this scheme brings forward, I think,
the proposal as a recommendation is still stands in officers view.
you bring up new matter, Brazil, just repeating the same again.
just going to pick up Mr Grainger's comments about the distances between the building and the existing burning one out of interest as well. Perhaps that is something new. I too, was interested whether it was a bombsite from before and looked it up. In my book words, as drawings of what was done, I can't remember, there was an incendiary of what it was, but it was that it was a bombsite in the war, but to your point Chair about how we view the original, if the original buildings were still there, the difference, I think, perhaps architecturally, between what we would have had then and what we have now, as Mr Graham you quite rightly said, they would have been outrageous sticking out to that distance from the original buildings on the back extension, not a solid wall, coming out the whole width of the building, and that's what makes that evening CC eyes look particularly dominating for the point of view of the residents the back. If there was more articulation day of going in and out, I think perhaps you might have got away with it, but the way it's done its it presents a pretty much sheer flank wall, which wouldn't have been what you'd have had originally in that side,
that's certainly true, okay, the officers recommendation is clear and there can I ask those in favour of supporting the officers' recommendation.
3 those against.
5, I think.
so that is refuse certain, no, no, no, no, sorry, no, it's not refused, sorry, sorry, we have to put, I've not yet I beg your pardon, we have to put forward reasons at this point. Yeah yeah, good at this point I'd just highlight one of the appeals in a closed appeals where there's been across Kosovo, Whorlton, you may recall 10 Oldbrook Road
when I was refused at Committee against officer recommendation.
that that was found to have a costs award against it and unreasonably behaviour by members, because we
the Inspector found that there wasn't a significant all.
and a good enough reason to refuse it. So anything you come up with now, it has to not just say, doesn't comply with Policy, because in that case they didn't have terraces, and that was the fundamental reason for refusal, so it needs more than that. So on this and this case we've got to identify what harm and the reasons for refusal him and why it's unacceptable. So let me leave that with you for the serious thoughts and you can see Councillor Keogh occupants come with respects. Mr Gordon, I mean that you are quite right and I should have asked for, but surely there are enough caveats here to creative case, which I'm sure Councillor Keogh pre will start off by one particular flat, etc yeah. I felt like free fatty obvious. Once one of the units having a non-compliant outlook, one of the units have an non-compliant amenity space and then the impact from VSC. Those are all areas among non-compliance so I feel like it's very different to that one that was appealed against successfully
Councillor Humphreys, you can add to the sanctuary I might Mark for me, the biggest thing is that they are all considerations, which is true, but the biggest thing that I think is the the the over domineering impact on the neighbours to the rear.
we're certainly over over dominating over development on the site.
and the like of standards, in particular, and one particular flat at any other reasons to those whose or pull remember, I supported the officer's recommendation, but those who didn't any other reasons you can put forward Mr Coleridge says towards letters more in the central, I think we've got from stronger arguments rather than lots of little ones, I think it would have more impact that's just my opinion.
what do you say that this is more or less is more when there is a strong case, I don't think the areas of just have a non-compliance, as I've just mentioned, is is is enough in itself.
I think, with the impact on residential amenity to that to the rear.
we could probably argue with case, but that's fairly subjective one, I think we need more than just it's not a non-compliance, so I don't know if miscarriage has got any further thoughts on that, well in terms of the list, then the calling the unit that has,
some of it wouldn't, but it's been days, obscure glazed is as non-compliant that, given the material considerations in order to mitigate the
the impacts in privacy terms.
TD, the occupiers opposite in that is that that is a fact, but the overarching assessment behind that is that the they still have a terrace that has a return on it and there is an outlook that is clear glazed onto the terrorist, it's just the ones that go out, so I really don't think that that is a very strong argument.
at all the amenity space argument where we have flats, that Ms compliance by 2.2 metres when Mr Kohler has already told us that we lost an appeal for a unit of 5 unit scheme where only the ground-floor flat had amenity space and no flats above had any space at all we lost that appeal that was they were units with no flat, these are units, each flat has got its own amenity space, so that is something to really really.
think about in the context of what the Planning Inspectorate to think about those particular assessments, the impact on daylight sunlight.
there are reductions, we've given reasons why we think that's acceptable, the Committee could maybe talk about that and decide whether whether that is something that that they want to pursue, because the study does record levels that align with the point 8 times the former value so that is something but there is mitigation behind that in some instances and the direct distribution.
the Daylight distribution sometimes overcomes the B S C failures, the overbearing impact this building is 15 metres away. I just don't think that that this that this building would be so close to those occupiers that they would feel a sense of enclosure or oppressed by this building, I think that's tricky and subjective, but with respect Mr Grainger, it's 50 metres wide is point, it's 8 metres at the closest point.
does that not only more than three and users to 15 points out and reach out hungrily, could you please directors to the paragraph?
I must say I don't remember that.
well, we have an.
or are you all move, are you going to put together a combination of reasons best you can Councillor Humphreys, yes, Chair happy to do that, so I think I think we've got.
in a way of to listen to what Mr Grainger's said and sound advice, that the war is our respect, what you're saying, but we obviously don't always have to agree with our officers and I think the
in a way, it's almost in my mind towards overdevelopment, because if we had a slightly smaller development that would have less units to compromise with the nursery, then I think we've all said admitted that the scheme in there that could work well, but I think what we've tried to do so.
5 by nature of the scale of the development. We've got some units which don't meet policy terms and, as I say, it's a judgment call, isn't it, but I don't think window to window 8 metres away from one building to another. One is exactly a great difference. I think that definitely counts, in my mind, is overbearing when the distance, if you remember folks, that we normally consider acceptable. Is 18 metres 8 metres is very small indeed
to give you a moment's notice from farm where that isn't a document take a moment, you'd better find it because you're him excluding this rejection.
I think he is the is where it seemed like Paris 3.3 8 and dimensions expressed in in those paragraphs, but that that those distances talk about the separation to the boundary and then there would be a an additional distance to the to the to the ground floor elements of the
of the properties on African Street, the dimensional, the separation in ground-floor is totally different between first and second, first and second floor are the dimensions that you need to look at because there's a 2 metre plus high wall at ground that separates this proposal from Atherton Street and Addington Street will only at ground-floor. Look onto that boundary treatment that doesn't change so it doesn't matter really what the separation distances are at ground-floor level. It's the first first and then second, so 3.4 7 is 15 metres to 17.5 metres away.
in para 3.4 7 that's the rear second floor windows, so in that context it's I still am of the view that the separation distances more than adequate to ensure that that outlook and a oppressive sense of enclosure would not be created by this proposal.
there it isn't 3 47, now I've found it 15 page pledge.
83
3 47
remaining between 15.5 to 17.5 metres and 3.4 5 I think that's where the 8 8.3 to 15.7 is Councillor hub for it.
and that's that's pretty standard separate, that would not be unusual in Battersea, would it or Tooting.
the distance.
welcome Councillor Humphreys.
the people who voted the way they did, someone's gonna, put forward some reasons.
as you know, I supported the officer's recommendation, so I'm hardly in a position to do it myself, but let's put them on the table what other reasons.
well, I still think the over domineering aspect of the back four by nature of the design as well, with that solid flank wall, which we can see from the CBI, as it has no concession to to.
any kind of moderation towards the the residents at the rear, if you look at that one on page 60 last image on page 60 year and again, as we spoke earlier, was the third storey, the top storey, being pushed right to the back of the boundary of the building it emphasises the height and bulk of that overlooking the properties behind.
and as Councillor as referred to earlier, yes, it makes improvement on the streetscape at the front, but I think that makes the impact on the neighbours worse at the rear.
OK, so perhaps if we we take that on board as a as a a reason for refusal, and again I suggested that there was you know, due to the the technical breaches in in a small number of of the units, ground-floor units in terms of daylight and sunlight impact those to my mind the amenity space.
potential reason doesn't doesn't.
wouldn't work in my view, at appeal
given what what's been out there and what the Planning Inspectorate have already said on that, that issue and the the the small area of non-compliance for the future occupiers of a flat because of an obscure glazed window, I don't think is is defendable at appeal, so we we potentially could end up with impact on daylight and sunlight to the existing or occupiers' left-turn Road and and a loss of outlook due to a an overbearing sense of enclosure.
virtue of approx well by reason of the proximity of the block.
etc. Etc.
I'm much happier with that than excuse me. I'm much happier than that with going on the amenity spaces, as Mr Grainger's said, I think that's not gonna get as anywhere, so we need to have something as strong as we can. I think it is for me, it's the genuine reason I think it's the over dominant look at that at the back and if that, as I say, I don't want that again, compromised on the size of the nursery and made that lower and big and put less unit said we wouldn't have this issue to deal with quite happily support it, but I think they've just been too greedy in this case most again, just said those aspects, those technical aspects, I think are the best ones to go for we know you think they have been too greedy, but are we going to put this in terms of
so as over dominate domineering due to the proximity.
of
elements as neighbouring properties at the rear.
Will this all into into, obviously I, due to insufficient producing as sufficient grounds for refusal?
is up to the up to the Council's gross members.
if there are insufficient, Councillor Cohen, clear, Cassiel right, I still felt, like the the issues of the amenity space and the internally they they should still be part of the reason for Egypt visa because, as part of this bigger package that it's slight over development in that area and it is an area of non-compliance, I don't see why we cannot include it because it's an area of non-compliant but officers were held the view that,
were outweighed by the benefits, but the Committee feels like it doesn't outweigh the benefits, and so I feel like it's still worth having it as part of the package to to to join with Councillor coffee on that, but I think perhaps what we could do his reference those failings in the in the can make it non-compliant with policy in the fact that is being to
over dominating and big at the back they'd made it slightly smaller than we wouldn't have those issues that we've had to compromise with on the policy, so it's reference to those issues rather than using them as the fundamental reason for the refusal I don't think we can have as a reason it would be different if you've got sorry he wrote on his damaged yet so the reasons that we've had being overly dominant at the back and over imposing on the neighbours at the rear.
and the reason it is doing that is because of the way they designed it, and even with that, bulk still have non-compliance with other issues, we didn't need to go into that, though doing it, we don't normally, we just say it's overbearing or over dominant whatever the reasons may be, but you are saying bearing over dominant and I think,
counts the Coakley's wishing to add to that and with lack of insufficient amenity space.
and also that non-compliant getting one can I appeal to our legal adviser, thank you chairman just quickly and Councillor Bruce's point about whether that could be the points that Councillor totally made about non-compliance with the technical aspects, whether they can be waived in to the the the more, the stronger reason for refusal, I would caution against that because if it cited as a reason why the Council has refused the application, not necessary is its own standalone reason,
but within the main reason it's still something that the appellant will have to deal with and as part of the pill and the council will have to deal with as part of the appeal also you've heard from Mr Grainger that he doesn't think that they are strong enough reasons irrespective of whether or stand alone reason or whether they are intertwined into the the main reason so I would caution against that but it's for Members if you if Members are concerned and they think that they are sufficient enough ground to refuse this application then that's a matter for you.
so legally speak and having the amenity and the outlook referenced in it.
youth. You feel like that would weaken the application, even though it's still a reason, and there's a reason that we've identified as non-compliant, but usually stuffer like it would weaken the application just by being there, even though we've identified as a reason for non-compliance. I'm not sure what that. I entirely understand, chairman, that the the weakening of the application, what I was trying to explain, perhaps not very clearly apologies, is that Councillor Humphreys was trying to incorporate your concerns within the the the the stronger reason, which is the impact on the amenity of neighbours caused by the design and the proximity towards neighbouring properties. If those technical points about VSC and the absence of of the policy compliant amenity space per 1 or one of the units is included within that reason for refusal, it would still have to be met in terms of dealt with by the Council and the appellant at the appeal. I don't think we know I've and I think Councillor on fees may have said this, I don't think, and I caution against, the the use of other reasons as makeweights, because I think it can detract from the strength of of stronger arguments. So my my view and the view of Mr Grainger's that these technical breaches all that exist. I don't think warrant inclusion in the reason for refusal or a separate reason for refusal in their own right.
and I would add, I don't know what Mr more things about this, this is, in the context of positive contributions to what we want, like more housing, the number of housing units available or replacement of a
nursery and so there are compensating things benefits as well. Thank you, I agree with that I thought I'd just to add one more point in terms of general principles there will be a number of applications that you will consider that don't meet every one of the Council's policies and that's why you're here to you will hear to assess the compliance with our policies and to weigh up different planning matters in your judgement.
the issue is, does the application comply with the development plan as a whole, and the officers' view is that it does members have taken a different view that that's that's your, that's your, that's your right, I don't think I need to any more term.
think about speak up on behalf of those who have a similar point of view. I'm happy to take officer's advice on those things and I think the strength of the argument is the nature of the development itself, and I think officers always tell us that in the report quite rightly often it's unbalanced that, on balance, is that Mr Moore's exactly described very well. Thank you that balancing between where there are areas of non-compliance and where it is acceptable in the officers' view in the report, in this case it considered, it was acceptable. It seems, like the view of members of own balances, as it isn't acceptable for those reasons, and I think that's strong enough in itself and we should be able to defend that Prosser. I'm going to press at gas Humphreys, you're moving it. What are the reasons precisely
as as nothing strangled anything from what we said before, so I'm not not not, we have respect not including Councillor coalesce references to the nodi minor reference so that the over over impact overbearing impact on the amenity of the neighbours to the rear of the building is the crux of it. Isn't it yes to genuinely pursue the end of day lives yeah yeah and then what sorry the daylights and the impact that that failures in daylight sunlight with the VCS okay right, so that would be two very two reasons. So Councillor Humphreys is moving that this recommendation is rejected because of the overbearing impact
costumes
and the impact on light and yeah, so that's it OK, do you have a seconder Councillor Humphreys?
secondly, those in favour of Councillor Humphreys motion 5 those against three OK that is resolved, but that is resolved, that is defeated, I guess by five votes to three.
move on to the next items in the public gallery will no doubt have heard that, but you can stay for.
be very long and the next items, but on the
other items decisions papers from information is that agreed or Surrey, I do beg your pardon, was a tree preservation orders page 117 132 they are agreed greed and the application sorry, the decisions paper noted closure of investigation files noted.
the closed appeals, I'll
have I got the right one, I should point out, make it very clear that it is already been referenced, the item on page.
1 1 for yes, 1 1 5.
that?
I'm sure most members will remember it and it's the information about something that happened earlier this year, and I think people should take that into account and take note and read it carefully, but apart from that closed appears and noted.
that's sorry, the tree preservation order followed, I got the wrong order, but that concludes it, thank you very much.