Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 12 November 2024, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 12th November 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
  1. Webcast Finished

Michael Jabb, Chair of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
I will now call names of members of the committee.
Please switch your microphone on to confirm your attendance.
And once you have done so, can you remember to switch your microphone off?
Councillor Belton.
Good evening.
Councillor Osborne.
Good evening, Councillor Owens.
Good evening.
Roger Armstrong, Clapham Society.
Good evening everyone.
Francis Radcliffe, Friends of Battersea Park.
I don't see here.
Andrew Catto from Putney Society.
Good evening, yes I'm here.
I don't see Chris Rice from the River Thames Society. Edward Potter from the
RIBA. Good evening. Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society. Good
evening. And Peter Farrow from the Wandsworth Society. Good evening. And I
believe we have one apology for absence, is that right? Yes thanks chair, we've
received apologies from Mark Dodgson. Did I hear you call Libby Lawson from Tooting?
How did I do that? I am so sorry Libby and I think I've done that before. I'm so sorry.
The following officers are also present. Lauren Way.
Good evening Chair. Everyone.
and Barry Sellers.
Evening chair, Barry Sellers here.
And the Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham.
Good evening everybody.
More prelims.
Please ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking to avoid background
noise interference and so on.
Declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations?

1 Declarations of Interest

If you do have any, can you declare them now, quoting the item and paper number?
No.
Right.
Thank you.

2 Minutes - 10th September 2024

So the first substantive item is minutes of the meeting on the 10th of September.
Are they a correct record?
No changes?
Thank you.
I shall sign them after the meeting.
Any matters arising?
Could I please just take this opportunity to thank the Committee for their kind remarks
about our scheme for the PN Street, which now has planning provisions.
Thank you.
Right.
Let me just go through page by page.
Page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6.
No other matters arising. Good.
So, we're on to applications.

3 Applications (Paper No. 24-318)

And application 2024 -3041, the Northcote Public House.
Who's going to lead on this?
Thank you, officers, for sending the slides in advance.
Just before you start, can I welcome Frances Ratcliffe to the meeting.
Thank you, Chair. So first item on the applications agenda is the Northcote Public House at 2024
forward slash 3041. So the Northcote Public House is situated within Clapham Junction
conservation area, which you see here in yellow. So it's right on the edge of the conservation
area at the junction with Battersea Rise, St. John's Road and Northcote Road. The
building itself is also locally listed, as well as other buildings within the vicinity.
So you see here they're outlined in a pink colour and have a hatching over them, so those
are all the locally listed buildings. This is the building itself, so late 19th century
a public house, purpose built public house, three story building at that junction. Originally
had a corner entrance which has been blocked off and now the main entrance is towards the
Battersea Rise elevation. It sits at the little plateau at the bottom of Battersea Rise, so
it rises up towards the north and then down and then rises back up towards St Mark's
It's rather more utilitarian towards the rear of the building, which can be accessed
by the coach entrance down the side on the Northcote Road elevation.
So what's distinctive about the building is it doesn't seem to assert itself greatly
within the street scene, unlike some other public houses from this period.
Its parapet line, which is quite distinctive and strong, continues along Northcote Road
up Battersea Rise, so it sits quite nicely within the street scene. Also importantly
is this view which is identified within the conservation area, Appraisal is an important
view down Battersea Rise, which you see the North coat at the bottom and then the land
rises up behind it with St. Mark's Church behind. So the image on the left is an historic
image taken from the Heritage Statement within the application submission and as is, although
obviously in winter it's slightly different. So just some aerial views of the building
to show that in its context, as you can see here, its height is generally consistent with
the rest of the buildings, either side of it, and it has quite a large area of flat
roof that is the subject of this application and a chimney right in that corner point,
which isn't actually shown in some of the existing plans, but is there as you will see.
There you see at the rear you've got quite a more utilitarian type of structure with
two kind of sloping roofed elements towards the rear as well.
So site plan, as you see here. So the main element of the proposals that they're seeking
permission for is a roof extension, which includes retractable roof and glazed panels
that recede as well, as well as the two -storey extension towards the rear that will house
a staircase. So proposed ground floor level. Another element of the proposals is you see
here they're re -establishing the corner entrance here that has been blocked up, and
As part of that, they're then introducing a new staircase.
So internal alterations, they're proposing
as part of the works, but to maintain it as a public house.
And then going straight to the roof plans
to show those existing and as proposed.
So they're taking in the vast majority
of that flat roof extension to introduce
a Mansard style roof extension,
which you see here has got retractable louvered roof
in this area and this area and this area and this area,
and these are sliding glazed panels.
This is probably very difficult to see from this point,
but I just added in for those who were able to see
the presentation before when it was sent out as a PDF,
just to give an idea of what the actual extension will be.
So a large majority of the roof of the Mansard
will be retractable to allow for it to have flexibility for open air space.
So one of the main premises behind the application is to allow more outside seating area
because they're quite limited in terms of just the areas around the building on the street.
So this is one of the reasons why they're seeking the application with these retractable elements,
but the sort of man -side walls will be solid in a metal cladding.
So existing upper floors, just to show, give an example of the existing arrangements. And
then as proposed, there's quite a lot of internal changes, so not something that we
necessarily need to consider as part of the committee. But the main element is external
extension to the second floor level, which allows that staircase up into the roof extension,
which is shown in outline in red. This is showing those elevational drawings as existing
above and as proposed below. So the Mansard extension is set back from the parapet and
around in front of the Mansard extension will be a sedum roof, a grass roof. This is showing
it in its context within the street scene on Battersea Rise and Northcote Road to show
that that parapet line will be maintained, but with the roof extension above. And you'll
see here this is the section through, so you can see the extension that they're proposing
towards the rear here, which is the extension of the staircase towards the rear that allow
access up to the upper floors. And some of these sort of cat slide roof elements of the
of the building will then be made flat with the extension built over the top.
So there will be some changes at roof level in addition to just the man's side itself.
And then you can see here the changes here at this point in particular,
where you've got that extension towards the back, which is serving that staircase.
So most importantly is the CGI's or the visuals to give you an idea
an impression of what it will look like in the street season.
These are the two main focal street
seasons of the immediate environment,
looking from Battersea Rise and from Northcote Road.
So number one, Northcote Road, number two, Battersea Rise,
looking towards the extension.
Further views towards the site.
So we've got slightly longer range views
from St John's Road and up Battersea Rise,
but importantly, some views from further up Battersea Rise
to allow an appreciation of what impact it will have
on that longer view where you see St. Mark's Church
in the background.
So when the original application was submitted,
we did ask for some more of the views
which have since been provided,
which are included in here.
So this goes above is as existing and as proposed below
to show different viewpoints from Battery Rise,
looking down towards the site with St. Mark's Church
in the background.
They are, hopefully, when you saw the presentation,
when it came through in PDF,
you were able to have a look at it
in a little bit more detail.
They're not, it's difficult to focus in on them,
but you can see the, and get an understanding
of what impact that might have.
And again, further views, just on the other side
of Battersea Rise, on the other side of the pavement,
just to give an idea of what that impact would have
on that reef extension.
And finally, just a couple more images just to give you an idea of what the actual materiality
will be. You see here that it's stated in the application that the mansard will be clad
with a metal material in a copper, a kind of bronze copper colour with standing seams,
as you can see here with examples shown at the top.
And then you have Seaton Roofs surrounding it
and on the flat roof of the extension.
And CGI is showing some of the images,
further images of the building,
just a helpful slide just to end on.
So it'd be really helpful to get
committee's views on the proposals.
Thank you.
Thank you. First of all, are there any points of clarification, questions that people would
find helpful before moving on to comments? Mr. Farrow.
Thank you. I couldn't understand what the purpose or the use of the roof level is to
be is it proposed to be outdoor seating area for the pub I think that's what
you indicated but I couldn't understand it from the plan so to make it very
clear because I've I've got it written down exactly what they've requested
within the application so there's a new bar server a dining and drinking area
with retractable roofs with capacity for up to 103 people so I think the main
premise of it is for sitting seating and dining there will be other elements
within it it gives them that flexibility to have outside space with
the retractable waves thank you that's helpful
any any other questions okay comments about this proposal it it's a very
prominent building on the corner of Northcote Road and Battersea Rise.
You see it from several different locations and it's quite a significant change to the
appearance of the building and therefore to the appearance of the conservation area.
I'm not going to make any other comment at this stage.
I welcome them from others.
Good.
Sorry.
Yes.
Forgive me.
In the event that an application includes a plant on the roof of a building, air conditioning
and stuff like that, it's quite often that sound mitigation is required.
If this roof area is to be used for entertainment,
it's going to be an awful lot noisier
than an air conditioning plant,
and I wonder whether any discussions have taken place
with the applicant about the effects
of noise on the open area.
It's on upper levels, noise can carry a lot further
than it does as it were at street level,
and helpful to know whether or not
that's been under consideration.
Thank you.
I'd need to check that with the planning officer.
They are proposing additional plant
within that second floor level,
so most of that second level,
second floor level is taken in as plant
to allow for the use of the roof.
I do believe that will be something
that the planning officer will be considering
as part of her overall planning assessment
and it's likely that they would have needed to have submitted some sort of noise assessment,
but something that is more for the planning officer to consider rather than ourselves.
Really a conservation issue, I'm sorry about that, thank you.
Yeah, this building's always had an invisible roof, didn't realise it was completely flat.
But at one time, I believe, originally,
it was built in 1870 -71 by James Blackmore,
which is why it's somewhat less decorative than the pubs
like the Falcon, which are sort of, you know,
very end of the 1880s, more exuberant.
I think it at one time had a sort of parapet feature on that canted corner, if you look
in the old photograph, had a sort of cartouche in front of the corner chimney stack as it
turns the corner onto Bassy Rise.
My feelings about this is that the appearance of the roof extension is somewhat jarring
in the copper -coloured finish and were it to be extended it would be better in a sort
of gray material that would some most of the year blend
into the clouds.
I saw lots of notes at that point.
Is there agreement on that issue?
I think some of the CGIs are not quite clear about what the colour is.
Some of them look quite grey,
rather than the copper colour that was shown in the slides towards the end.
Is that right?
That's correct. We did seek some clarification
on the actual color of both the cladding of the mansard and also what color they will
be painting the actual public house because on some of the CGI's they're showing that
some of the stucco elements, so the architraves and the fascia is going to be painted in a
lighter brown color. But we haven't unfortunately got any confirmation back on that. Apologies
for not being able to give confirmation on that at this committee, but it's hopeful that
they'll give us some clarification. Painting can be done under permitted development rights, so
they are at liberty to be able to paint any colour they like, but obviously it is a consideration
when we're looking at the materiality of the extension, so we have sought clarification on that.
Okay, I think that in a building of such prominence, I think materiality is a key consideration.
And I think that we would encourage you to have some quite hard discussions with the
applicant about materiality.
But are there any other points?
Councilor Owens.
Thank you.
It's not in the Northcott Ward,
but it's in Lambda Ward,
but it used to be in the Northcott Ward,
and it's a pub I know quite well.
Many are christening Children's Party.
And in fact, meetings with officers
where we've discussed pedestrianization of Northcott Road
have been held in the room above the downstairs pub.
I suppose I just had a couple of questions.
One was to do with the church.
When I was looking at the St Mark's Church,
I was looking at the pictures.
I could see that as you walk down Battersea Rise,
obviously at times it would seem to be a bit obscured.
But obviously other times it's not obscured.
So obviously it depends on how far back you are, I guess,
as you walk down the road.
And it is obviously going to sort of, with the extra height,
will be what, four stories or three?
Because at the moment, I know it from the function room
above the pub.
But I'm not sure what's above it at the moment.
So it will be four stories in total with the Mansard.
Yeah.
But I don't really know if the current, the story that's above the one we use for the
function room is used much at the moment anyway, because it really stands as pub and the function
room.
No, I think that's why they've decided to utilize that for the plant.
Yeah, yeah.
Comments about the overall design.
Councillor Belton.
I won't do that exactly because it's up to you to give your views to the committee.
But on the comment about the outside seating and the noise, am I missing a trick?
I thought the Mansard was actually protecting the sitting area largely so that there would
be a sound buffer nearly all the way around.
That shouldn't be a problem.
We'll get more detail about that later on, I'm sure.
But surely that's where the seating and bar arrangement is meant to be isn't it behind the man side?
And I would presume obviously that if the retractable roof isn't retracted
The the sound should be largely held within within the the overall structure
largely held not totally obviously
But some waves do go in.
I mean they don't go around like light does.
Just to clarify on that point,
much of it is movable louvers,
so they're never going to be completely shut.
This is always presumably going to be the smoking area,
the outside area.
We'll have very little use in days like today.
But it's basically, it is outside space,
but you're right, it's walled in.
It's a walled garden, effectively.
I'm not hearing any comments at the moment
about the principle of effectively,
from a conservation area point of view,
adding an additional story to this building.
If I could put in that one, Michael,
I think the answer is looking at it, if anything,
it enhances the building to be a story higher.
I think it's good for the corner.
If you look on the other side of Battersea Rise,
the buildings opposite are three stories
plus prominent gables.
I think it's actually beneficial in that sense
if the color and detailing can be right.
I have a separate question, however,
to raise about the reopened door
and what goes on inside it.
Reopening the corner door,
because this is the kind of Victorian pub that used to have four or five separate doors
to separate classes of bar.
And so, like most of them, many of those doors have now become windows.
It's nice to see the corner one back in the back, except for the fact that they're then
going to put a staircase inside the big plate glass window facing Battersea Rise.
Several of the, all of the windows on the right hand side of the Battersea Rise elevation
will have a staircase inside them, which they do not now.
The second window from the top, from the right on the Northcote Road elevation top floor,
and if you can bring the elevations up if that would be at all possible, will be, is
shown on the plans with a wall coming up against it and blocked up.
but it's still shown on the elevations
as if it was a full -blown window.
So I think there's a bit of confusion going on here
about how much of the internal work
might or might not impact on how the building is actually
perceived from outside, which if we are talking
about a locally listed building, OK, probably locally listed
because it's licensed, because remember,
there's that element of the list on a prominent corner site, very prominent corner site, lots
and lots of us, everybody here has passed it on many occasions. It will, that corner
will not quite look the way I think the drawings are implying, shall I put it that way.
You want to comment on that?
Oddly enough, the roundhouse at the top of the road has a very prominent staircase just
behind the windows.
So you could say it's a feature of local pubs.
But I share your concern as to how it might affect the elevation.
You asked for a sort of, as it were, a general comment.
I share Roger Armstrong's concern about the color of the cladding of the mansard, and
I agree, I think it would be better were it to be gray, aluminium or lead.
But that's very largely because the existing building is fairly gray, and if they're considering
repainting it, that could have a difference.
As to the appearance of the extension, I share Andrew Catto's view that the building is probably enhanced by an additional story.
But I have an aversion to mansard roofs that aren't mansard roofs, and I would prefer them to have the courage of their convictions
and make the extension an additional story, if that makes sense.
I think trying to sort of be discreet about making it a Mansard roof is a mistake
and that it would be better considered as a proper additional story.
Thank you.
Okay, can I sum up where I think we've got so far?
We have concerns about materiality color.
I think I'm hearing that the principle of an additional story is accepted.
But there are concerns about the way in which the internal alterations actually affect the
how the elevations actually will work in terms of fenestration.
I can put it that way.
I think the dormers in the Mansard should be aligned with the windows below them.
And slate should be used on the Mansard.
Could I suggest what we don't want to get into, I'm thinking of your comment about slate.
We've had slate, we've had lead, we've had, we got in the plans copper perhaps.
I don't think we should get in, fall into the trap of getting into too much detail,
but we have a real concern about materiality and that needs to be sorted by the planners
in conjunction with the applicant it seems to me.
I think your point about the alignment of the windows in the upper story,
I've not used the word Mansard, is a good one,
and it does look a bit odd on those elevations at the moment,
the way that the windows are offset.
I mean, that might be a matter of taste.
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, no, it's a matter of symmetry and, you know,
the rest of the building is symmetrical
and it really is slightly jarring
if the mansard windows don't marry up.
And I think on the subject of making it a complete story,
that's a problem because later on you'll get an application
to build a mansard on top of that.
So I think let's leave it as a man's thought.
.
I'm going to take one more comment.
Just the point about whether the windows on the Mansard should be aligned.
In other words, do we ask for five windows immediately above to keep it symmetrical?
Well, I would be in favour of that, I have to say, but I mean, it is being said, basically
a symmetrical building.
So keeping a degree of symmetry is not a bad thing.
Can I just briefly contradict that one?
There is a strong tradition of having one less dormer in your mansard than the number
of windows underneath, as long as they are in balanced alignment.
So I think there's a case either way for that one.
Okay, have you got enough?
Right.
let us move on to a 2022 application, 3954, the former gasworks site on Swandon Way. Who's
leading on this? Okay.
Thank you, Chair. So this application originally came back, came to the Conservation and Heritage
Advisory Committee in March 2023. So quite a bit of time has passed since then. And now
there is revisions to the application which I'm presenting here. So I'm going to go
through it fairly quickly in terms of introducing the scheme because all of members do know
So as you see, here's the location plan and context, so not far from us here, just
to north of where we are situated right now.
The former gasholders' site abuts the – and takes part of the River Wandle to the north.
Quite a constrained site in terms of ownership.
You see you have the small – relatively small site to the north between the gasholders'
site and the railways, which is what we class as the Delta site.
And then to the south we've got Two Armory Way which is subject to another item on the
agenda tonight which I'll go into a bit more detail when I cover that.
Outside of a conservation area, here's the designations and how it relates to the site.
So outside of the conservation area but very close to Wonsworth Town Conservation Area
to the south and we have the Old York Road Conservation Area.
to the east, a number of listed buildings, Wentworth House to the west and the former
stables of the ramp to the south and a local locally listed buildings as well.
So really quick overview because I think we all know this site. We've got the former
gas holders. This is a really good context to show the site and the big gas holders element
of the site, which is the biggest constrained element of the site in terms of that space.
This existing view is currently housing the backyard cinema.
Again, this is the site constraints, as you see,
which shows the challenges that the applicants
were facing on this site.
So, going straight into the key changes
from the previous scheme.
So, we've got part full, a hybrid application,
part full, part outline applications.
So three plots, plot A1 and plot B are in full,
plot A2 and A3 are in outline.
The main changes are to those detailed elements of the scheme.
So plot A1, which is within the northwestern part
of the site, which is the taller building right
next to the Wandle, that's down from one story down to 29.
A bit more complicated in terms of the sort of rotunda type
building that sits in the location of the former gas holders. That is down from down
by one story down to 15 on one of those elements down two stories to 14 stories for another
element down three stories to 13 stories on another element. But some of these podium
levels which are cut will they rise up by one story and I'll show you a little bit
more when we see some of the visuals. Other changes that are not necessarily applicable
to this committee, but just for context, affordable housing at 40 % of which 70 % is social rent
and 30 % intermediate homes and other highway works to facilitate the new service road south
of the site. So in total, 20 sickless homes proposed part of the scheme with the reduction
in height. So proposed layout, ground floor plan, no obvious changes other than that was
presented. You've got the Wandle trail here is part of the proposals with a
green area right next to the Wandle. This is an area play area right next to
the to the outline block here.
External amenities not change, not changed too much from the previous
scheme. The main changes, obviously the height and there's some changes to the
sort of a tundra style building. So
Plot B1, this is showing you as before original application and as proposed.
So you see the main changes are the height as each level has been brought down by a mix
of one to three stories.
And then you've got the podium level here has raised up by a single story.
At this point, there is materiality changes as well.
You see that the podium level here has been changed in color.
It's much darker.
But also as you see through the application, they've introduced the materiality that gradually
lightens as you go further up to try to reduce the sense of bulk to the development.
You see somewhat in this application, there's also some changes to some of the balconies
as well.
Again you see this gives you an idea of those main changes here in terms of the lighter
color towards the top of the buildings and those lighter colors introduces within the
balcony facades and the cladding.
There's some changes as well to the cycle storage area, which we've included here
for completeness, but obviously not necessarily something for the committee to consider in
terms of heritage impacts. So quickly just going through the change in elevations, you'll
see that each element is slightly different in height now, so that you've got the stepped
arrangement of the three elements. Ground floor plan, again, not much changed with the
main entrance there from the gas holder gardens, propose sections to show you those main changes
in terms of stepping down of the three blocks. Podium 4 plan, this is just to give an indication
of some of those outside spaces and landscaping. And we've included this just to give an
idea of how each element of the rotunda will work all together.
So the main element of the presentation is the visuals. So here you'll see some of
the main changes in terms of facade treatments and that gradual change in facade in terms
of the lighter cladding. And this is giving you another view just before and after in
terms of those main changes to that main entrance into the site with that additional floor.
proposed Prop 1A, we've got a story decrease, but the actual design and materiality of it
has not changed. It's literally just a story decrease and obviously the affordable housing
provision has been changed. So these details remain largely as posed in terms of those
wider beneficial works to the River Wandle and the landscaping works.
Outline application for a two no change a three no change. So I go through these
views that these are the same views that we provided in the March 2023
application above is what was, um, originally submitted and then below is
what's revised. So this is the review from the north bank of the river Thames,
not necessarily a heritage view, but just to give you context in terms of
on the river and that wider context. However, this is a heritage view in terms of impact
on Wandsworth Town Conservation Area and the RAM. So original and proposed. They've used
the same CGI images for this one to give us a good indication of the changes.
Oak Hill, proposed view from Oak Hill Road showing as proposed originally submitted on
on your left and then as revised on your right. Once with the town station, so looking at
this Old York Road Conservation Area as originally submitted, they have provided new CGI, new
photography for this view. So you see this slight change. So I tried to match up as much
as I could, but with the different photography, it's slightly difficult. It shows that change
large, largely obscured by the tree outside the town.
The station, Rylinnett Boulevard,
looking through the RAM quarters,
so towards the listed stable block with the building
towards the rear.
Obviously, the outline application
is set out in a Y line with the detail application,
the detail element of the tall building in the background.
It doesn't show two armory way, but obviously, the revisions
came in and we had two armory way that's to the south of site come in subsequently
so that hasn't been included in those proposals. Now I think these next two images are probably
the two images where you can see the real changes to the scheme. So this is obviously
just outside where we are at Fairfield Street looking in terms of impact on quite a few
heritage assets, conservation area, list of building and then the further list of building
with the grapes. And you see here the main change. They've again changed the image,
so they've taken a new image here. You see that it's more of a winter image. But you
can see the change here quite clearly in terms of the height change. And then this one being
the one that was sort of most talked about in the previous committee meeting, this image
taken with the grapes in the foreground and the development in the background to show
the main change in terms of those heights, but also the materiality.
So I've included this image again.
It's just the same view, but with the gas holders there in the kind of orange -red outline
and showing its relationship with that new development.
Obviously, the big difference with the gas holders is it went up and down, so there would
have been periods where it was you only saw the metal frame of the gas holders as opposed
to a built form that you'll see in this.
And I just included some other views
we didn't include in the previous,
just to give an idea of those impacts
in terms of those wider conservation areas.
So this is Branford Road,
which is Old York Road conservation area.
And then the junction with the ones
with High Street and Buckhold Road,
we've got the impact there in terms of the outline
and the full applications of the two plots there.
And then again, the Landscape Master Plans last year
has changed, but it has been updated to include the wider site. Some of these applications
haven't come forward, but obviously we don't have to armory way come forward since then,
but nothing from Mr Clutch site to the south. And so a bit of change there, but obviously
main element of it is the height change in what the committee considers of those two
main revisions to the application. I'll leave it on that one because I think that's
probably quite helpful one to stop.
Okay, thank you.
And as you've said, I think most of us remember
this application coming to us a couple of years ago.
First of all, questions as to fact or interpretation.
Are there any?
Mr. Catto.
If I might, Chair. The question still remains, one of the points that obviously, as you said,
this has been through before the Pudney Society commented on the original application some time ago.
And what we notice is that the tallest building, block A, whatever it is, remains apparently without any vehicle access.
which, considering we're talking about a building,
if God forbid the fire brigade ever had to get there,
it's a bigger building than the Grenfell Tower,
it's got no fire brigade access.
It's going to be occupied by hundreds of people.
There is no delivery access.
There's nowhere to park an Ocado van or a scooter
or the taxi that's waiting for you or your removal van,
or indeed, has anybody talked about how the rubbish comes out of this lot?
It just looks to me like what you need, please, is the whole plot designed and then subtract
out the parts.
But the individual landowners obviously don't want to hear that.
I suspect that's not strictly a conservation issue.
But do we have any comments from the planning department?
Yeah, I can answer that one because it was the actual layout and the way the access and roads work in relationship to the, not only the swan de way as it is now, but the proposals is quite complicated.
But basically, it's a one -way anti -clockwise, so the refuse truck comes in from the right -hand corner and there are, there's a lift, it stops by the top end of the block B and the lifts go up and down.
probably two or three lift before they get all the bins back into the lorry.
Also, the lorry goes round anti -clockwise and out,
but for the other blocks, the block A1,
there's a parking bay just in front of A2,
where it parks into there,
and then they roll the bins down from the building into that part,
and likewise with A3,
they come down and reverse into Wonder Walk,
I think it's called, or proposed to be called,
and then they collect the bins there,
then go out anti -clockwise around,
so everything's anti -clockwise,
and the road to the south,
which is reused by also by the joining development,
which we'll come on to in a minute,
there are, there's a tabletop
where there's a pedestrian crossing,
north -south route and also a tabletop where you go into the building on the right -hand corner.
Although, I should point out that the car lift comes up from the basement and
they have to turn right where the bin lorries come in.
They turn right going clockwise around and
and they meet up with the vehicles coming round the other way
at the point where they enter Swanton Way.
So there's a complication there.
And you've also got to think about the future pedestrian movements as well,
which is going to be quite complicated.
Okay, I think Mr Farrow had a question.
Well, probably not a conservation matter either, but just quickly.
The site shows land to the west of the Wandle and to the east of the Causeway.
Have they acquired that bit of land, do you know?
Yeah, there's quite a number of different ownerships.
To the north of the... where the old gas holder was,
you've got the Delta site, it was quite a substantial site,
they haven't acquired that one.
To the south east, you've got the Mr Clutch site,
which is a very awkward shaped site as we'll see in a minute on the
Armoury Road, Armoury Way application.
There's also a head house which remains outside both applications,
which has been put in some time ago because that's all to do with the
underground pipe work. And there's also, you'll find out in the next application,
there's a sliver of a triangular site onto Armoury Way, which is not part of the,
nobody's acquired that one yet.
So there's a lot of issues about ownership, I think.
It sounds like fun.
But in particular, there's a landscaped area
that falls within the red line
to the east of the causeway
in the top left -hand corner,
and the wandle, as it were, runs through the site.
I thought that was in council ownership.
and it was just slightly odd that they've included it within their site boundary, presumably
claiming it's part of the open space to justify the density of the development.
But no doubt that would be cleared up.
I believe the island itself, Causeway Island, is actually in council ownership.
I don't know what agreements have been made over that.
Sorry.
Okay, any other questions before we move on to comments?
I just to remind anyone who's forgotten, we were quite strongly opposed to the original
application.
So I think the question before us is essentially whether the changes that have been made allay
our concerns about the impact of these buildings on the neighboring conservation area.
I think that's the essential question that's in front of us.
Unless anyone disagrees with that.
Does anyone disagree with that?
They don't anywhere near come close to addressing the concerns that the ones that society had
about the development.
It is in essence, in terms of its height, albeit it might be slightly lower, but the
bulk of the building, its appearance, and of the other buildings are so similar to what
was previously suggested. We can't see any reason to withdraw our application.
Our principal concern was with the height of the building A1. I think it is just significantly
too tall and it's in a prominent position and I think it will have an adverse effect
on the river and on adjoining conservation areas and on,
I've forgotten the name of it now,
the building on Dormey Street.
Wentworth Health, thank you kindly.
For those reasons, we will object to it
and I hope this committee will object to it.
I mean, if our effort for lightening the buildings
as it gets higher, but I don't think that can be considered to have had an ameliorating
effect on its bulk.
Other comments?
Or am I seeing agreement?
Any contrary view?
Okay.
We sustain our original objection.
We repeat what we said last time.
I'd like to just give back.
On that, they've been to much darker color.
How is that?
One might well ask, I'm tempted to say.
Don't we have complete freedom as to what color we're looking
and all this sort of lightening as we go up?
I think, I mean, we could say that we think the changes to the, I'm not sure what you
call it, the visual access to the inside of the rotunda with the additional story and
the dark color in some ways worsens the impact of the building.
Is that acceptable?
I think the additional story actually is fine.
It's the darkness of it, yeah.
Could I just put that in context because it seems to be lurking at the bottom of the picture,
but let us not forget that that entry section on Stilts is still a building as tall and
nearly as wide as this town hall.
Let us move on.
I think we've...
Let's move on not very far to 2024.
This is a new application, 3497, very contiguous.
And it highlights the issue of the problems of land ownership and land assembly, it seems
to me on the wider site as a whole, but on this particular site. But over to Miss Way.
Thank you, Chair. So very, very kindly gave a bit of an idea of what the challenges are
with this red line, because it's rather landlocked in this site. So again, the same, really the
same sort of heritage designations being impacted here. So here you see the red line with those
listed buildings and conservation areas in its surroundings.
As you say, you've got an awkward land locking, which does restrict them somewhat in their
site.
So if you see here, this is giving you a bit more of an indication of that red line and
the awkward – this is the awkward triangle here, this point here that isn't owned by
to Armory Way and the applicants, which Barry mentioned. Just at the bottom of the site,
not much you can do about it. There's not likely to be anything coming forward for this
site, as Barry's mentioned, that has already had permission for a head house building there
that is very much associated with a cable tunnel that leads from Wandsworth, a weebalden
to Kensal Green, and then you have what we are sort of,
what we're classing as the Mr. Clutch site,
which is this really awkward site just on this corner,
which then comes down to a point to Armory Way.
So with that in mind, that does restrict them somewhat
in what they can achieve on site.
So existing context here just to show that,
and you've got emerging development
coming through Shearing and Hatched.
So the proposals coming forward for this site
are two buildings up to 10 stories above the basement.
It's comprising student accommodation
and light industrial floor space,
so different from the gas work site to the north.
It steps up away from two stories up to 10 stories
in the centre of the site with landscaping surrounding it,
including the entrance here and then a sort of small square in the centre between the
two buildings. So this shows you the site -wide elevation with that building, which steps
up to that middle point. And there's a two -storey element just here because obviously that's
the location and it's closest to that relationship with Wandsworth Town Conservation Area and
Wentworth House, which is listed. Just the side elevations, again showing that stepping
up towards the middle of the site with the two -story element towards the west part of
the site. I've included this in because this actually is including the gas holder
site towards the rear as an outline so it can give you a bit of a context in terms of
what's coming forward with the previous application that we looked at, albeit it is
in outline form. Unfortunately, as well, the visuals are not showing as cumulative with
the gas holders development coming forward, which is unfortunate.
another just the other side in terms of the site wide west elevations and some
site sections we usually include for you just for completeness. So down to
the C G I s you see here, um, the one of the sites which rise up to that 10
storey element gives you an idea of some of the external wall material and
cladding that they're proposing, so it's quite a variation,
but very much a grid -like pattern
that we've seen quite a few of the developments
within this part of Wandsworth with some variations
in terms of the materiality to break up the bulk.
So views assessment, I'll go straight through to this
because this is the elements that I think committee
need to look at in more detail.
So similar sort of, pretty much the same sort of view,
albeit slightly further along from Llanham Boulevard
with the listed stables in the foreground
and the development coming forward in the background
and obviously taking account of the previous application
that we were looking at and the cumulative impact
that it would have with gas works in towards the rear
as well, it's just unfortunate they didn't include that
in the actual reuse assessment.
Views from Ram Street towards Armoury Way
with the two buildings in the foreground.
These the proposed view from Fairfield streets, a slightly different view to
what we had from gas works, which is just showing as a wire line largely
obscured by the town hall building
and proposed view from Wandsworth High Street at the junction of Ram Street
again as a wire line showing it largely obscured by the RAM public house and
the round development.
Obviously, this view from Army Way at the junction of Wandsworth Plains. Same
view is what we had for the gasworks, which shows that development and sort of the reasoning
why they've started that stepped arrangement and its relationship with the site adjacent
and the conservation area.
Now this is obviously views from Swandon Way that very much take account of the fact that
have the gasworks development immediately in front of this. So in reality, subject to
what comes forward on that site, it will be largely obscured by the gasholders' development
that will be coming forward, which is where the visuals are a little bit frustrating in
terms of not having that at least as a wireline. But for this view from Old York Road, you'll
see it without – subject to what happens for – comes forward on the Mr. Clutch site.
Obviously, this impact will largely not be changed from the gas works development coming
forward.
So you see there the relationship and the visual impact from Old Rock Road Conservation
Area looking towards the site.
Again landscaping, soft landscaping, they are constrained by what they can do on this
site but in large areas of landscaping surrounding the site and similar to what Barry's mentioned,
and this access road which is included in the gas works site
which will be shared with this site
in terms of access arrangements towards,
I'm assuming for refuse,
but largely it's taken up by the majority
of the two 10 -story towers.
I think that's the last image.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any any factual questions to start with?
If not, then can we move to to comments?
Sorry, yeah, I
Was just intrigued by the amount of trees
can they actually grow? Because I've worked on contaminated sites and the one I worked
on, there was only about a foot of topsoil before you hit the ceiling layer. So it just
had jolly little bushes around the buildings actually and not real trees. And real trees
make it look much better. So that was my question is have they done something underneath to
make it good for trees to actually flourish?
Well I can better answer that question. The site is contaminated. It will need to be decontaminated
and clearly changes of soil will help with the trees. But there again under that area
there, where you said the central north -south route. We did start off with an avenue of
trees, but because of the proximity of underground services, it's just one single line of trees.
But obviously, we do need something substantial there to marry in with the height of the buildings.
I think back in, oh, before 1980, once the Historical Society looked into what might
be there and it was a fairly nice cocktail of things underneath from a gas work site.
So I was assuming that they'd have to move some of the layers to be able to actually
plant anything much.
Just to add color, if you like, I was actually working at the GOC under Ken Livingstone.
and it was 82 to 86, and I managed to get hold of the GLC's scientific paper about the
state of the site, and it was pretty bad.
That was 82 to 86.
I've got a feeling that we might be talking about gas works site for a few years yet,
but go on.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Catto.
Yes, I'd like to ask officers and counselors whether this is and surely is a case where
the council might look to see if it's got any powers to deal with the funny little triangle
and the odd bit of parking space in front drifting right down along the Armoury Way frontage where
at the moment the people occupying the Mr Clutch building seem to park the damaged cars they're
going to get round to working on next month. The whole thing's an eyesore because much of the
changed and that is impacting already right now the heritage settings on this side of
armory way.
All right, if I can just add a comment to that.
It is clear from the proposed changes to the MPPF that land assembly, the council's roles
in land assembly could well be changed as a result of legislation to be forthcoming.
We don't know exactly what those changes will be yet, but I suspect what Mr. Catto and others
might be suggesting that this is a very clear case
where some work on land,
helping on land assembly might be very useful.
But that's for the future, I suspect.
If I could answer that question, certainly.
If you look at the site allocation in the local plan,
in the Emmergineau local plan, sorry adopted local plan now, it does say under
allocation Wt4 that the council should be thinking about using its powers in order to
bring forward relevant parts of the site and that's something I put in my own comments
to the case officer because it also affects the Block B facility.
I mean, Block B set far back than it would otherwise normally be,
because it'd be close to the back of the footway.
I mean, if that were developed in isolation,
what could they do with that triangle of land?
Not a lot, really.
And as to the other triangle,
well, we've encouraged the Downing owners to negotiate with them,
because we were a bit frightened that an advert application might come on
to that triangular piece of land,
and we wouldn't want to see that, would we?
Okay, so can we put into our comments that we would urge the Council to look at the issues
to do with the configuration of this site and the possibility of playing a more active
role in land assembly?
I'm not drafting, but something to that effect.
Is that okay?
Beyond that, what do we want to say about this application?
Is it acceptable?
What's wrong?
Well, I think, again, these are massive blocks.
And they appear at various viewpoints
from the conservation area.
The contaminated nature of the site
tends to mean that in order to develop the site,
to make it viable, presumably they're having to put on a vast amount of
accommodation, but I don't know how that works. Because I haven't, you know, their
figures are their figures. I don't know about the contamination either, or what,
how much remediation has already been done, or what the cost of it is likely to be.
Councillor Belton.
Just going back on the land issue, can I help Callum, perhaps, in that if these comments
are usually sent to the Planning Applications Committee or, well, as the Planning Applications
Chair, there's nothing I could do about that.
I think that particular comment you need to send to the member in charge of policy, planning policy.
In other words, Councillor Hogg.
Thank you.
Is what we are saying that as currently presented with all the problems about the site, this
application is unacceptable on the grounds of bulk and height?
Is that what we're saying or not?
Mr. Catto shakes his head.
I think the answer is we have to take this application certainly with the revised roadway
and discussions that are clearly there why we were just looking at the gas works all
over again.
I think we have to say that this application is effectively being read as to be built as
part and parcel of the works behind.
In which case, sadly, at ten stories it's probably not too bad compared to the background that's going to happen,
although we would very much hope the background doesn't happen.
But there's a clear missed opportunity to enhance in any way the heritage that sits on the other side of the one -way system
Because nobody's doing anything about the little wedges of land the blank bits of concrete the bare walls
All the rest of it and indeed about as far as I can see any kind of measure to help
The many hundreds of residents who will be living there get anywhere like crossing the road to get to Wandsworth
And
just to add
That is not in accordance with the master plan for the Wandle Delta,
that issue of access across Armoury Way.
To say that the number of people living in this accommodation,
plus those living in the accommodation beyond Wandsworth Tarrant Station,
to be a massive social problem. There's already a social problem. Petty crime.
What are we saying? Can I just say something in response to Mr. Catto's comment?
it seems to me that we have to...
We cannot assume, in looking at this application,
that what is being proposed at the gas works
is going to go ahead or not go ahead.
It seems to me we have to look at it on its own merits
because of the uncertainty as to what will be going on around it.
I do think, having said that, that the accessibility of the site,
particularly for student accommodation...
And... Yeah.
..is a major, major problem.
The students will all be wanting to get onto local buses or probably to Wandsworth Town
Station if they can then get onto a, actually get onto a train at Wandsworth Town Station
in the Russia.
And it's going to, I mean, access across those busy roads is a major, major, major problem,
which neither of these applications seeks to address in any way.
But I think the key point is that we have to look at this application forgetting,
essentially, what may or may not happen on the gas work site,
because we can't know that that is going to happen.
It does seem sensible to take that view that it's an application and it stands and falls
on its own merits.
I think it is possible and maybe officers can help, that an application can be approved
subject to development on alternative sites proceeding or not proceeding, but I'm not
sure about that because if the application on the gas works site goes
ahead then to a degree it doesn't really matter what's built on this site because
the gas work site will dominate it. As to the application as it stands, again
within the context we have the Swanton Way development further to the west
Yes, anyway, you know what I mean, the B and Q and the home -based sites.
And this is just more of the same.
So I find myself conflicted because partly I think, well, the whole damn thing is damned
anyway by what's already been built.
and talking about this appears to be sort of relatively inconsequential considering the harm that's already been
inflicted on the area, but nonetheless I think that as it is
my view is that the site is too large
for and will have an adverse effect on the causeway
which I think is a significant
local asset and on adjoining heritage assets.
But as I say, you sort of approach it with some gloom with the approvals that have already
been granted and with the buildings that have already been built.
I take that point, but I do think that this application is significantly different from
what is happening further east, because what we're really considering here is the impact
on the conservation area.
That's the key issue.
And so...
Is that the general view that this application will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation area?
Sorry, we're going around a bit in circles here.
And I suppose we might add the rider that there are issues to consider about the configuration
of the site and the possibilities for land to make a more buildable site out of what
is within the red line on the application at the moment.
Can I just add a small one on that?
I think when we're talking about impacts on conservation areas, we need to be aware that
The stuff nearer the railway is really only visible,
well, is visible in large quantity should it get built
from the back of the ram site
and Wandsworth town conservation area,
but as we saw in one of those CGIs,
especially if you take the leaves off the relevant trees,
this building, or at least the one on the right
in the image we're now looking at, the red one,
will have a considerable impact on Old York Road as well.
So this is something that the others,
horrible though they may be, don't actually do,
but this is sitting right on the end of that street,
really, which has finally made itself pleasant again
after all the years.
Do we have enough, Mr. Woldham?
Can I just clarify just to get a full understanding of what that impact might
be is it the height is it oh is it a number of factors just say that we can
be clear in terms of what the committee are objecting to in terms of the impact
in one book in that picture taken from what is a street with three and four
story, three and a half story buildings maximum, two and a half mostly. Yes, the tree is masking
some of it and it will look a lot bigger than that come the winter time.
I thought I'd, sorry.
Let us move on to our final application, 20241322.
Again, this is an application we have seen before and expressed a view again.
This is a, there's been some significant changes to that original application.
So, the question to remind us all before we start is have the changes been enough to change
our view?
No.
Over to you, Ms. Way.
Thank you, Chair.
So, this is our final item of 2024.
This is our final committee of 2024, so we'll go out with a bang.
So as you see here, the description of the development has changed as well as just to
give an indication. So erection of a part 10 story building, part 28 story building.
Those are the key changes, but I'll run through these and I'll try to get through
these quickly so that we can focus on the visuals. So again, site outline we've got
here. It's not within a conservation area, but right adjacent to Patsey Bridge, which
is listed. We have the Westbridge Conservation Area to the south with a number of listed
and locally listed buildings. Bassie Park towards the east, which is also a registered
park and garden with several listed buildings within the park and within the conservation
area and a number of locally listed buildings between. This is just on the Wandsworth side.
We expand further into the north of the site. We've got a large number of conservation
areas within Kensington and Chelsea area, including Royal Hospital and Chaney Conservation
Area directly north of the site. So the existing building on the site was built in the 1980s.
It is as it is described, glass mills, largely glass building of five storeys, right at that
entrance to the borough from Battersea Bridge. You have the Foster Building next to it. Here
you see it's not particularly good public realm immediately surrounding it in terms
of that Thames Path. Existing context, this is showing you some of the taller buildings
within the wider vicinity of the site, which is being used by the applicants as part of
justification for the height on the site.
So main changes from the previous application.
So the building's now been dropped
from 33 plus ground floor
with that shoulder element been removed.
So you now have a single height to the taller element,
what they're classing as the top of the building.
A simple crown form to the very top of the building
as opposed to previously.
ground plus 28 now bear in mind that the floor to ceiling heights are still as
proposed in the previous application so I calculated it this morning it is if
you're if you're considering it against the floor to ceiling heights that are
within our local plan it would be considered a 34 story building in terms
of height AOD to the tallest element of the building other changes to it the
podium level has been added by one story, so it's now 10 stories and affordable housing
provision has now been increased from 35 % to 50 % of which 100 % of that to social rents
at 70 30 split in favor of social rent. Uh, three D views before and after the revisions.
So here you can see that main change in terms of the per the podium level and being added
up by one story. And then obviously the main change is the top part of the building being
reduced slightly in height and having one single top. Unfortunately, there's no changes
elsewhere. So the proposed ground floor has not been changed. It's still the same arrangement
as proposed with the restaurant towards 10 side to residential lobbies in the
community space towards the rear with a small entrance lobby for the office
post west elevation showing that crown and that very distinct change in the
crown area. See this what they're considering base middle and top with
the top being the main
main, um,
103 meters AOD for the main part of the building, which is where we calculated that it would
be equivalent of about 34 stories, give or take. Section through the building, no change.
Another illustrated image, just to show it slightly in its context in terms of that immediate
surrounding area from Battersea Bridge Road and then Thames to the north. 3D view again
showing that no changes in terms of the podium level that will be utilized for outside space,
same as before in terms of provision. No changes to the landscape master plan in terms of some
of those beneficial enhancements to the Thames path. And unfortunately, no changes in terms
of the Thames frontage. This is the CGI showing some of those main enhancement works in terms
of public realm. And again, no change to community amenity space up the level 10 looking west.
So this is just up by one level. Illustrated view. So again, indicative of what it will
look like in its wider context. You see here at the bottom, you've got a much wider context
with those taller elements of buildings in the wider context showing the main premise
obviously we're aware of this from the previous CHAC meeting but the main premise of this
is to do a metropol and scale marker building that marks the entrance to the borough and
its relationship with Battersea Bridge and there's a lot of information in there design
and an access statement that talks about other types of buildings which have these marker
buildings next to them, including that within the borough. Views from Brassybridge Road
and then ZTV, which is a zone of theoretical visibility that shows that basically the site
and how visible it is from the wider context, not just within the borough but to the north
at Kensington and Chelsea. So these are the same views that we showed you in the previous
presentation. So what I've done is I've put, as was originally proposed, above and
then what the revisions are below. So this is from the setting of the Royal Hospital,
not within the borough, but obviously something we have to consider as it's within our borough
boundary. This is Grade 1 listed, Royal Hospital and Register Park and Garden. Another view
from, uh, well, hospital again showing the changes in height and what that
impact might have on that view.
Albert Bridge showing, um, as before. So it's still an impact in terms of, uh,
your appreciation of Albert Bridge from the north side off the river
again, not within the borough, but within the neighbor and bury Cheney
Conservation Area. This junction at Beaufort Street at the junction with
Kings Road showing that change. I tried to put them next to each other with the same
interest to see if there's a possibility of seeing the differences in, see that difference
in height and some, it's obviously for the committee to decide whether that change has
been sufficient, that concerns have been raised by officers that this change is not showing
sufficient level of change to reduce the impact on heritage assets. Again, a view
from the north bank of the river looking at that, looking at the building with
Battersea Bridge in its context, from the embankment again with Battersea Bridge in
its context and the wider surroundings building slightly reduced in height but
that's the only real change.
From Chelsea Bridge, you see here,
you can see an ever so slight change in height,
but still you can see it rising up above
with Battersea Park in the foreground there.
This wasn't included in the previous presentation,
but included just for completeness here from Battersea Park.
This is a winter view so largely obscured by the trees.
But there's other views within Battersea Park where you do see the building rising
up above the tree line, even at winter level. So this is showing it from within the park
towards the site, a slight reduction in height, but still rising above the tree line.
One of the key views looking towards the site from Battersea Church Road, which is in Battersea
Square Conservation Area, which shows the change. I think when you start going a bit
closer you can start to see those slight changes which is similar to what we had in the previous
presentations that we went through for gas works. Church of St Mary in Battersea Square
Conservation Area, so previously it rose up quite a distance above but slightly lower
now but still rising above. And then immediate surrounding, I think this is one which is
the most pertinent, is within the Westbridge Conservation Area with several locally listed
buildings within the immediate context, and see the Duke of Batsy is locally
listed and that and the building rising above in in the background. So, um,
you can see the changes here in terms of the very slight deviate difference in
height. I think that's the main image. So I'm going to leave it, um, there for
people to discuss whether they think those changes are sufficient to
overcome concerns by the committee.
Okay, thank you.
Questions to start with, factual questions.
Mr. Farrow.
Thank you.
The CGI comparisons that you showed, especially the ones in the latter part of the presentation,
were they all generated by the applicants?
Yes they were.
They are all from the visual impact assessments.
Yes.
I've usually been very convinced by CGIs
and relied upon their accuracy.
What I found terribly confusing looking
at what you've just shown us is when you see
these two images of the photorealistic ones,
the difference in the height of the building
seems negligible.
But when you looked, well it is negligible,
But on the wire frames that you showed just now,
the differences seem significant.
There was one from Battersea Park
with the bandstand or something, this one here.
Now on that one, the difference seems quite dramatic.
And it just confuses me, as I say,
because I've usually assumed them to be fairly reliable.
But here, the photo realistic ones,
which show dabble difference and these which suggest
that there's quite a significant difference.
Let's return to the photorealistic ones.
They clearly show a building
that although it might have been changed,
has not been changed anywhere near enough I suggest
to change the committee's view about the unacceptability
of the development and its effect on heritage assets, both in our borough and in the borough
to the north.
I think this building is unacceptable by virtue of its height and its dominance on surrounding
assets.
Sorry.
I better stop before I get there.
Before we move on to any further comments, can I ask if there are any further questions
for Ms. Wei?
No?
Okay.
Can I take sort of Chairman's privilege as the local civic society?
I mean, our view is that setting aside all the issues about changes in number of units,
changes in affordable social rent housing, and so on, that the changes are negligible.
So in that instance, I agree with Mr. Farrow that the fundamental flaw with this application
remains what they claim as the core reason for going ahead with this application, that
it optimizes the capacity and the potential of a very small site.
You might as well say that I could sell my little house near Clapham Junction
and optimize its capacity by building a 20 -story tower instead of my two -story house.
The claim makes no sense at all, because it doesn't take account of the context in which the proposal is set.
The site is too small, it is too prominent, and there is no need to maximise its potential in this way.
Or if you do want to maximise its potential,
you have to take account of the local context in which it
is built. And similar arguments that they make about the need
for a metropolitan marker building,
and the nonsense that they claim about every bridge in London
has marker buildings on both sides of the river and, you know,
East Amite is utter nonsense.
Most London bridges do not have marker buildings,
London Bridge being a classic example.
The only marker building at the foot of London Bridge
is South at Cathedral Dammit.
Yes, it's a complete nonsense.
And the 28 -storey claim is unrelated to height, as Ms Way has explained.
It's well over 30 storeys in terms of height.
It is utterly unacceptable in my view, but I'm prepared to hear contrary views if there are any.
if you dare.
Ms. Greenwood.
I was just going to add a comment.
This is part of this sort of turning the Thames
into a tunnel of tall buildings.
And when you stand on the foreshore by Putney Bridge,
you can't really see that it's a river anymore.
It looks more like a lake with tall buildings around it.
We're ruining the by letting these things in we're ruining the vista and the glory of
That scene plus, you know the the heritage
assets
Along it and it's a complete change and if let any more of these through it's just going to make it a sort of
a road between
skyscrapers
And I could say more about the
the inadequacies of the current London plan in that regard.
I won't go into that issue other than to say that the policies actually in the London plan
are not compatible, or this building is not compatible, not only with our local plan,
but with policies in the London plan.
Mr. Catter.
Could I just thank you for reminding me about the view from Putney,
one of the very few protected views that the borough allowed to sneak through,
because it was...
because you didn't think anybody would be building in the way of it.
Well, here it comes.
You know, this one and also the two other applications we've been discussing tonight.
The 30 -storey tower on the gasworks site will be even more prominent from Partney Bridge.
But all of these are dominating.
And yes, there's no need for landmark buildings, as somebody said.
In the past, the landmark heritage buildings were the great public edifices, not the private blocks of housing.
And that's how, you know, as church spires one thing, usually pretty skinny and pointing to God,
but this is not pointing to God, this is pointing out where mammon has taken over. Thank you.
Any other comments on this? I'm very open to contrary views. I'm not hearing any.
Councillor Belton.
You certainly won't hear a contrary view from me.
As you know, I keep saying rather boringly, I have to try and keep shy of that kind of
comment at least at this stage.
However, I think that it's consistent with one element of the London plan, or at least
That's one element of the P building in charge of the London plan, and that is allowing for
a higher proportion of affordable and particularly socially rented housing.
And I'm not at all sure that your comments on several of these applications, this one
included, don't need to be sharpened a little bit by actually pointing out that there may
maybe a conflict, but on some issues,
the kind of position you're putting has to take priority.
Otherwise, you don't leave people in the committees
in a very strong position in terms of arguing your case
as against to the need for affordable housing.
Does that make sense, what I'm saying?
I do accept what you have just said,
And indeed, there will be, if there isn't already, increasing pressure on the council
like all other councils across London if the government goes ahead with an 80 ,000 a year
housing target.
So that means I'm trying to argue that, I mean, obviously you take the point, but you're
trying to say, as people always do in planning applications,
talk about treating particular applications
on their own merit.
And then you're trying to introduce a London -wide context
about the river, for instance, right down.
And I don't think that's strengthening
the hands of those people in the Planning Applications Committee
who might wish to support your arguments if you don't somehow
or others say something about there are some areas
where there may be conflicts, but this is so important
that the affordable housing side argument
should be put to one side, or something.
I mean, I don't know how you say that exactly,
and I shouldn't be advising you on it,
but that's what I think.
I think there are a number of things,
I will say briefly, because I think other people
want to make comments about that.
Clearly, there are opportunities across the borough,
as there are across London, for building on brownfield sites,
on some possibly currently industrial sites,
making them into mixed -use sites and so on.
And there is scope for densification.
Horrid word, but around my area of Battersea, Clapham Junction,
there is clearly scope for densification of sites
that have large car parks and largely single -storey buildings.
It's all a matter, it seems to me, of the right building in the right place.
I know that is a cliché, but it's a cliché because it has a lot of truth in it.
And what we have been discussing tonight, I think we have supported one very minor bit of densification,
on the corner of Northcote Road and Butterssey rise, not housing of course.
But a significant addition to the building landscape as it were.
But there are opportunities and we should support opportunities for densification
and innovative forms of development where they are appropriate.
And there are sites within this borough, and I've identified one very local to where I
live.
My point, you don't have to tell me this.
I've been arguing for as long as I've been on the planning.
I what I'm saying is other members on the applications committee
Need your support in being able to point because they're going to be taking your words and
Translating it into some kind of objection
And I'm encouraging you to put some words to that effect in
That's all I'm doing
Because I agree with you entirely. I shouldn't say that but
I will take two comments initially, Mr. Catto and then Mr. Farron.
Thank you.
My answer to Councillor Belton is to remind all of those dealing with these applications
that the NPPF wants us to optimize the use of land, not maximize.
And I think that does provide the opportunity to say this is too much.
Thank you.
A good point about the national planning policy framework.
I hope that if we give a clear and unequivocal objection to this development on the grounds
that it has, it will cause significant harm, actually I'm sensitive to the fact that
that is also defined in the planning policy framework, considerable harm to heritage assets
both near and far by virtue of its height and dominance on those assets, it will strengthen
members of the Planning Applications Committee in their hopeful objection to the scheme and
outweigh the benefits which I think the applicant is made either because he has to, or more
likely because he has to, to increase the amount of affordable housing within the development.
I don't – I mean, are you sort of asking that we identify the sites where harm is caused
and sort of list them in order to strengthen the arguments that we're putting forward?
Because if so, I think that might have to be as an addendum to this committee's present
objection if we can go through it at a later date.
But I think we're unanimous in finding the scheme objectionable because of its size,
and we find the arguments put forward about it being a landmark, a gateway to the borough,
are, well I think the word was nonsensical, are meaningless in terms of justifying its height.
I don't know what more we can do, to be honest, apart from dealing with it in detail,
which I think we're unable to do this evening. I'm sorry, I wish we could.
Frances Ratcliffe.
I would have thought that it was significant by definition
that on the North Bank and the South Bank
there are so many listed buildings.
And to put a 28 -storey or a 34 -storey or even a 20 -storey building
at the end of Battersea Bridge is inappropriate
in terms of the destruction that is caused to the low -level landscape on
the banks of the Thames between Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge,
which is just full of special buildings. I mean surely the number of listed
buildings, the Royal Hospital, the park, the Thomas More Church etc etc count
for something and the phraseology to encompass them is sufficient for the Planning Applications
Committee.
Sorry, I'm just totally failing to get my…
Think of it from the point of view of the members of the Committee for a moment.
They will be under a lot of pressure about other elements of London plan and local plan pressures.
And if I ask you to speculate what would happen if this application were to be rejected,
I think most of you would say they'll come back with another one, still unacceptable,
but a bit lower and a bit this and a bit that,
and we'll just carry on with this.
What I'm trying to say is that the message has to be,
and as you're making very clear to me,
but I see your comments come through
to their planning applications,
it's got to be very, very clear indeed,
and say we recognize that affordable housing
is really important, but they've got to be elsewhere.
I'm telling you to strengthen, not weaken,
strengthen what you're saying,
and I'm going, as some of you will know, I'm going far over the top of where I should be going.
I don't think there's anyone around this table who is not aware of the awful, awful pressures on housing
in Wandsworth and in London more widely.
I think it probably, if you think it would be helpful,
I'd be very prepared for us to say we recognize
the demand for additional housing in London,
and particularly for housing for social rent,
but...
Absolutely, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Well, I'm very happy to say that
in relation to both of the Wandsworth applications
and the Glassmill applications.
I am very happy to say that.
I mean with the second of the,
with the Armory Way one,
to recognize the huge demand for student housing
and housing for special needs and so on.
We recognize those.
But in these three cases, the harm outweighs the benefits.
And we believe that there are other sites in the borough
which can meet the demands.
And to be very specific, and I'm not suggesting this goes in what we say, the Morgan's Walk
development right next to the glass mill is a low -rise development, arguably too low -rise,
and could be increased.
be increased. I'm not suggesting we say that, but I think there is an argument on Morgan's
walk actually that it could be added to. That's a personal view. I'm not suggesting that's
committee view but that right next door in my view to the site there's somewhere
else where you could have added housing I personally wouldn't object to it
subject to all kinds of and I just respond on that point it's worth bearing
in mind that things that the pressures that Councillor Belton feels he's under
at the moment are complete reverse of how things were 40 years ago when the likes of
Morgan Wharf were built, when in fact all the relevant planning plans specified a maximum
density which was lower than the average density of Victorian housing in London.
That is how it was.
I know it is not now.
But you do have, surely, we have a local plan which specifies acceptable heights and all
of the rest of it in order to give the planning and applications committee and officers a
benchmark for saying yes, there is pressure for more social housing but that does not
to justify going above certain levels in all these areas.
Otherwise, we might as well have 50, 60, 70 stories
anywhere in the borough you feel like building.
Because that's the argument you're giving us at the moment.
I'm sorry, this is really, please don't lecture me, please.
I was on the council when Morgan's Walk was built,
and I was the party that wanted it CPO'd
for much denser council housing.
And also there was a plan for an enormously high office block that Morgan's wanted to
pursue.
I know all that stuff.
And I agree.
Don't you get – I've said it about ten times.
I actually agree.
I'm saying I've seen your comments often enough, and I think it would help you, not
me, it would help you to make your arguments that you're putting to me, I don't want to
know them, I know them, to put your comments as strongly as possible in what you're saying
to the Planning Applications Committee.
So it registers with the council the strength of your feeling.
I can't say it more obviously, can I?
Please don't lecture me on it.
I'm absolutely, it's in my ward.
What do you think it's going to be like for me politically with what the neighbours think about it?
I mean, come on.
I mean, can I say it more clearly?
Well, I think we have in outline a form of words which says that we recognise the pressures.
And we not only we recognize the pressures, we actually support the development of additional housing at scale where it is appropriate,
including additional social housing.
from speaking personally, that's the highest priority, it seems to me, across the borough
and across Wandsworth.
Much more than Tall Towers with penthouses and so on, which are lived in by, you know,
for a few weeks or months in the year.
It's social housing which we want above all, and family -sized social housing.
In these three cases, we are accepting the desirability, indeed the need for more housing
and particularly more social rent housing.
But we're adding a big part to that in these three instances.
Can I say?
All right.
Count it.
Yeah, that's very helpful, Michael.
Can you also summarize the form of words for the arguments against the proposal at Glass
Mill?
But, I mean, we have, I think we said it all in our previous, in the minutes of our previous
meeting.
If I can sum up, and it's from memory,
I haven't got the minute in front of me,
that the building would have an unacceptable impact
on both conservation areas in Bonsworth
and north of the river in Kensington and Chelsea,
and on listed buildings in those areas, and on the riverscape of the major blue asset
that we have in London, the River Thames.
And that impact is so serious in scale
that in terms of the glass mill,
that it is the current proposal in height in particular
and in losing in some industrial space,
I might add, a significant amount of employment space, rather not industrial employment space.
And there is no benefit in terms of enhancement of the public realm.
Okay, so a damaging effect.
I recall, I think, the comments last time around,
having seen them before, that a damaging effect
not just locally, but over a wide area, et cetera, et cetera,
and that the changes that have been made to the proposal
as it's come before the committee tonight
are negligible in the face of that.
I think it's been a useful discussion and a useful thing to hear that we focus on conservation
issues in this forum.
That is our job.
But we have to be aware of the wider context in which the planning officers, dammit, and
the planning applications committee at the top of the hierarchy, if you like, have to
take account of.
I think that's a salutary reminder for us, and I accept that.
Okay. We've given quite a job to our clerk this way.
I just want to just point of clarity for Democratic Services Officer, because you mentioned about
the impact being so serious. Just for the purposes of the MPPF, when you're talking
about levels of harm, can I just get clarity from committee what level of harm you're considering?
I appreciate that there's a number of heritage assets, but overall level of harm to heritage
assets when you're looking at your summary comments, you've got less than substantial
or substantial, as we're always required to give a range within the list of substantial
if it's less than substantial because I think that would help clarify for planning committee
as well.
I think we would say substantial, very substantial.
Yes.
And Sebastian Bridge as well because it's going
to create a wind editing effect as well.
Yeah.
I mean I'm not requesting that this be minuted
But I would have to say from my perspective, the argument is the strongest case is the glass mill.
I mean, I would be very unhappy if the gas work site were to go ahead in the way that it was presented to us.
But I wouldn't be as unhappy as I would with the glass mill.
Sorry, and I'd say that -
Councilor O 'Brien.
Obviously, we've been doing quite a lot of petitioning on this as well.
And certainly, that would be the case from a resident's perspective as well, I would
say.
I think most of us are aware of that.
I mean the -
Yes. No, I'm not saying you shouldn't have zed it.
Is there anything else that we can add to this discussion?
And I'll obviously discuss with Democratic Services Officer the wording of our minutes
in these three cases.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 24-319)

Right. In that case, can I move on to now lost my place in my papers. The paper 24319,
the decisions paper, which I think is a paper to be welcomed.
Sorry, I think I need to take the decisions paper first and then I'll come back.
So, this is paper 24th, 319.
Page, what page?
What page are we?
That's what we've been dealing with.
Yes, 319.
Which is a welcome paper in that decisions have all been in line with the recommendations of this committee.
That's the Pene House, Mount Claire Campus and Emanuel School.
Can I then move on?
Sorry, before we move on from that one, since Mount Clare is there, it's probably not within
the normal agenda remit of this committee, but the Partner societies had discussions
both with the University of Roehampton and with the current, since it seems to be changing
hands quite a lot, the current freehold owner of Mount Clare, and they're all at a loss
what to do with the place.
So if anybody's got any bright ideas, there's a lot of empty housing sitting there, but
it's got a listed building.
In fact, it's got two listed buildings to support, which makes it quite a difficult
one to deal with.
But neither, the university don't need it
for student housing, they're clear about that.
There is no demand for it at that end of Roehampton.
And so anybody's got any ideas, all of you,
for replacement or enhancement or enlargement
or reuse of the student blocks,
which will somehow fund looking after two listed buildings,
the second of which the temple has no chance
of regenerating an income of its own.
They would be very much welcomed. Thank you for letting me intervene on that Michael.
Okay. I know there are at least a couple of items of any other business.
I know Councillor Osborne wants to raise one.
I do Michael but I think it would come better after the other matter of any
other business on listings.
I thought you were going to join them together.
I am but I want the officers to go first.
Okay can you give us an update on local listing, the local listing exercise.
Thank you chair. So the local listing public consultation is now live. It's
running until the end of February 2025. There was a press release that came that
went out a few weeks ago. There should be something within Brightside as well and
there should have been emails sent out on next door. I know that there was a few
issues that some members raised in terms of the information on the map. The map's now
been updated so that when you hover over the existing locally listed buildings or sites,
you have a description of the site with an address.
Another point just to pick up, because I know that someone from the Basque Society raised
the concern. So the purpose of the exercise is to follow on from the original exercise
that took part in 2017, so I'm very conscious of the fact that a lot of information was
provided to us in 2017. And at that time, there were challenges in terms of how we could
actually show that information visually on the website. We're looking into that, and
that's what forms part of this public consultation is we're utilizing the information we got
from 2017 and on a on a borough wide basis from this, um, public
consultation to draw altogether to provide a much more interactive,
interactive, uh, visual representation of the clear list of buildings, which
will be in a similar way to what we have as a public consultation with
commonplace. So map based where you could hover over the building, you can
see images and you and there will be updated descriptions where we're able
to gain the information from the public consultation.
So it does form part of a wider exercise that wraps up some of the information that we did
get from 2017 that we've not been able to show visually on the council website.
Thank you.
That's very welcome.
I know you've had some correspondence with one of the Battersea Society members and indeed
Councillor Osborne has. Can I add to that matter of any other business? A bit of
information. So one of, there is a plan to look at the street signage, both
traffic signage and street names in the borough and to see if we can find enough funding to
overhaul both of those during the course hopefully of the next year.
The funding has to be identified as yet but we are hopeful that we'll be able to do that.
We are conscious that there may well be,
there will be street signs that need to be repainted
or rebuilt or refurbed or something like that
in the sort of run of the mill way, street name signs,
as well as traffic signs and so on.
But we are conscious that there may well be
a heritage element or conservation element
to the process as well.
We don't know quite how many cases that will generate.
we're estimating something around maybe a hundred instances, maybe a touch more,
maybe a touch less, but we could be way out. We know that the listing process has
already honed in a little bit on such signs in Battersea, but that's not the
case borough -wide and we'd like the process to be borough -wide. We are
hopeful that we will get assistance on focusing on the heritage and conservation aspect of
street name signs, for example, from the amenity societies, as you all represent.
And so we want to fold into the request for suggestions on the listing process, a request
for suggestions on street name signs that the amenity societies may feel are of heritage
or conservation significance.
So they can be added to the process of the listing, but we can then possibly fold that
into the overhaul of street signage and street name signage during the course of next year.
so that we've at least got a list to know what it is we need to focus on.
And so it's an announcement but it's also a request to you all as amenity societies to help us out on that.
And I will be doing some work with the officer conservation team to make sure that it's,
It's the opportunity on street name signs is promoted at the same time as the request
for help on listing in the run up to next February.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Osborn.
That's very helpful.
When is there going to be some kind of public announcement about this?
If the funding can be identified, which I'm very hopeful that it can be, then yes, there will be a public announcement.
And in any case, we're going to need that list whether or not there's money about or not,
just so that we've got the potential to do something if necessary.
So there will have to be some sort of announcement and some sort of publicity between, in the
rundown to February.
Thank you.
Give me for being a little dull, but are you asking for us to suggest places where a street
name sign, which is presently, if you'll forgive me, a kind of a pedestrian standard one, might
be better if it was a more distinguished form?
No. As I say, most of them are run of the mill.
But we think that there will be some which will be of heritage
or conservation interest.
They might, for example, refer to the old Battersea Burra,
for example, and we might need to say,
well that one's a bit special.
We might want to make sure that that one is definitely painted
or that will come into the program or whatever it is we need to do.
Or it might be that they are on special wrought iron legs or something like that,
that we want to try and take into account. I mean we've got an open mind on what might make
a street name sign special in some way on the heritage or conservation front.
We're open to all sorts of suggestions, but I think it's a fair question because it's difficult to know quite how to put it into words what it is we're looking for.
But we are adding to the process of simply repainting and redoing the run -of -the -mill street name signs.
We're saying that some of them are going to be special in a heritage and conservation way
And we need a bit of help and a bit of advice and some suggested sites
That that you think we ought to go and have a look at and make sure we better look after
Yes, I was just going to ask that that's obviously there are a lot of signs that have the Battersea burr
On them and my question is going to be obviously we're planning to retain that from a heritage perspective. I would have thought
But certainly my own ward in Northcote, we do have lots of the borough of Bethany.
I'm sure they're all over the place, yeah.
Probably several hundred.
Mr. Catto, you had a bit of an AOB, I think.
I think I rather rented a mass train.
Oh, right, right.
Okay.
Are there any other AOBs?
In which case, I simply have to ask you to note that we meet next on the 28th of January

5 Future Meeting Dates

and then 26th March and 6th May.
So put those dates in your diaries if they're not already there.
And I declare the meeting closed.
Thank you.
Thank you for your forbearance.