Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 20 November 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 20th November 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

.
I hope you find it interesting and you appreciate the decisions we take.
I hope so anyway.
My name is Tony Belton.
I'm the chair of the Planning Applications Committee.
I represent Battersea Park Ward in Battersea.
I will ask members to introduce themselves when they have something to say.
Of course they all have something to say at some point or other, but I will also first
First of all, ask the top table to introduce themselves.
Good evening, I'm Nick Calder, I'm the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
Good evening, I'm Duncan Moore, I'm the External Legal Advisor.
Hi, I'm Becky Hickey, I'll be Clerking the meeting.
You'll be what?
You rushed.
Clerking the meeting.
Thank you.
Okay, first of all I have to ask if anyone got any interest to declare.
Any interest to declare on any of the particular items?
None.
Any apologies?
It looks like a full house, which is pretty unusual, so no apologies.
Minutes to sign.
I've read the correct record, you agree, Councillor Humphreys?
So agree to the minutes and in that case we can move on, I think, onto the agenda itself.
And the first item on the agenda applies to Tolland Square or eastward south estate and
Councillor Graham Henderson has asked to address the meeting.
I suggest that we say yes, welcome Councillor Henderson.
As I'm sure you know, you have five minutes
and the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chair, and I'm speaking on behalf
of all three of the Hamilton Councillors.
I understand that an email sent a couple of days ago
from a number of residents on Tolland Square
has actually been circulated to all members
of the committee, therefore you should be aware of
their concerns, particularly in relation to storage
as a consequence of the guarantees being demolished,
and also car parking issues.
First of all, on behalf of the Roehampton Councillors,
we recognize the very serious housing crisis that exists
in Wandsworth and across London,
but obviously this is one with orientated.
And we do actually support the planning application.
There is a need for much larger properties,
three, four, five bedroom properties.
So we do actually support the application.
Having said that, we have actually worked very closely
with the residents of Tullan Square for quite some time.
The current planning application is certainly
a very considerable downscaling
of what was originally intended.
It has twice been amended.
And the Hampton Council is actually very pleased about that,
that we have actually certainly worked with the residents
to safeguard the green space, et cetera,
particularly in the center of the estate.
We do actually believe the original plans
involve far too much amassing.
Having said that, the development before you
is essentially the demolition of a number of garages
and a replacement with new housing.
The garages themselves, you'll see in the reports,
I think it's about nine of the garages
are leased out to residents.
But clearly, the age of the actual properties
on Tullan Square are such that storage is limited.
There are proposals to replace the capacity of storage
within the garages with the number of storage bins,
so described, one for each of the garages, I believe.
We do actually believe that this issue of storage
can be resolved and we would therefore urge officers
to engage constructively and positively with residents,
I'm sure they will, that's their nature.
But clearly it is a concern to a number of the residents.
The other issue concerns car parking.
And whilst I think we certainly recognize
there are issues associated with car parking on the estate,
we do actually believe that there are certainly
solutions to that, in particular in tightening up
and ensuring that the car parking on the estate
is actually available to estate residents.
The Tolland Square location is very close
to Pimaeris Hospital and a number of residents
have complained to us that people visiting the hospital,
even some, they believe to be hospital staff,
actually park in Tolland Square.
The current restrictions are from 7 a .m. to 7 p .m.,
but we certainly think that that could be tightened up,
Again, we would urge officers to consult and discuss
with residents to find a suitable solution.
I think that is all really I'd like to say, the Chair.
The residents, I think, are being quite clear
in their email.
Sorry, there is actually just one further point
which Mr. Hartigan, who wrote on behalf of the residents,
I think quite modestly, didn't mention.
He actually lives at 1 Tullan Square,
which as referred to in paragraph 7 .8 on page 23
is the property most affected.
He and his wife and family have assigned to the property
which will open out onto the new development.
Currently he has a wall protecting him,
therefore providing him with a high level
of seclusion, et cetera.
and we would also urge officers to consider providing some protection by, for example,
planting trees or some other suitable means.
So with that, Chair, I think that summarises as best I can the views of the residents and
also the views of the elected councillors.
Thank you.
I think that's very clear, Councillor, and I think we all understand that.
Does anyone have any particular questions
they'd like to ask Councilor Henderson?
No, okay.
In which case, I would say that, I would add,
that since I received the letter, whenever it was,
I've talked to the officers about it,
and Ms. Molloy, who's the planning officer concerned,
has actually raised the storage matter
with the housing department.
So perhaps, Ms. Molloy, you can tell us
what the result of that was. Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the storage,
there's currently 33 garages on the site. They will be replaced with storage sheds of
a standard specification across the wider estate. As Councillor Belton has said, we
have contacted the applicant, the housing department, and they have committed to bring
forward the storage sheds for the residents on the estate before the construction of the
houses. So there will be storage sheds implemented and constructed so people when the garages are
demolished they'll be able to put their storage into those sheds and that has been agreed
and committed to by the applicant.
Which sounds good, sounds as though it's some considerable way on the storage. It doesn't
cover, I think, the storage for people who rent the garages but are non -resident on the
estate, is that right?
I think it is within the late, but the priority will be given to people on the estate. It
is one for one replacement, so in terms of the people who are renting it from outside
of the estate, they will have storage, but the priority will be given to the people who
are actually on the estate at the moment.
Thank you. Perhaps I can turn to Mr. Tiddley about the parking. Where are you Mr. Tiddley?
Hello, hello councillors. David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy. As Councillor Henderson said, the parking on the estate is currently managed, or should be managed, 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.
but it is a state road, so it's managed
by the housing department, so that's certainly a matter.
I mean, I'm sure they're aware of the residents' concerns
and issues here, and it's certainly something
that we can clearly take up with them.
In terms of the parking on the estate itself,
there's no net change in the amount of parking
on the estate, there's a net increase of the seven units,
and our surveys, or surveys of the local area,
indicated that any potential demand that seven new units would bring which
would be very small could be suitably accommodated. Thank you.
Councillor Ayers. I'd like to ask Cathy Molloy about the volume. Introduce yourself.
I beg your pardon. Finner Ayers, I represent East Putney Ward.
Cathy, could you tell us about the volume of the storage spaces compared with the garages?
Because from the drawings, the storage spaces look about the size of a telephone box, and
the garages are garagized.
I think that could cause some problems.
Hello.
So just in terms of the size of the proposed storage units,
they are within the lates.
So they will be 0 .9 meters wide, two meters in depth,
and two meters in height.
The existing garages at the moment are 2 .4 meters wide.
So they cannot accommodate a car,
but they obviously are providing an area for storage.
So there is a reduction in the size
of the actual physical structure.
However, the storage units which are going back
are of a standard size, which is, I understand,
is implemented across the borough.
Councilor Apps.
Thank you, I'm Councilor Apps
and I represent Chastre in Queenstown Ward,
which is kind of relevant to what I'm going to say,
which is that I've seen a sort of similar situation
with garages being demolished in my own ward
to create new housing units.
There was a lot of worry at the time.
I'm not saying it's going to be exactly the same
in other areas as it was in mine,
but I can give an example of the experience we had,
which is that despite many concerns,
the new storage units have worked well in that facility.
They used within that state.
It was actually a design which was put forward
by the previous administration,
and our administration changed it to be social homes.
So the garages were replaced,
people were worried about the loss of green space,
but actually the landscaping that's been done
has made it a much more pleasant, much more well used area,
and it's got improved walkways, and new cycle storage.
And also the derelict, well they kind of,
I know they weren't derelict garages,
but they were in bad order,
and actually what they've been replaced with in housing
has made it a much more pleasant area to look at as well.
So overall it's given a much greater aspect
and I haven't had any complaints about that development
since it's been completed.
We've made a few minor alterations as it's gone along
but I just thought that was,
it's a fairly similar scheme
in a different part of the borough
and although people often think that people in Battersea
never complain about development, they do
and there were certainly a lot of complaints about that
but it is actually my view it's worked very very well.
Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor Givindia, Councillor Colle, and I got a
comment myself and Councillor Humphries. Wow, poor house almost. Go on.
Thank you, Chair. Councillor Givindia, I represent East Butney Ward. I just want to pursue the matter of
storage and I think, um, as in a sense, uh, encapsulated the concern or the divergence
between what the residents think of as storage and what we think of as storage.
I mean, that's inevitable, I guess.
So, my specific questions are, the storage that we are providing, will it be compliant
with the London Plan guidance on space standards?
And if that's the case, then perhaps it's one of those things that we ought to have
mentioned in the paper, that it's compliant with some sort of a guidance which is objective
and so on.
The second related question is that, so we've got seven homes who are they going to have
adequate storage according to those space standards?
and then the nine existing storage users,
will they all have replacement storage units
provided by housing?
And then the third related thing is
it whilst welcoming housing's willingness
to put all the storage in place in advance
of current storage being demolished,
can we consider making that either a UU
a unilateral undertaking by the applicant to do that,
or better still, perhaps a condition that will be
conditioned precedent to starting demolition work
on the estate.
So the residents have an absolute guarantee
that what they were concerned about has been addressed
by this committee, and this committee in addressing it
has ensured that the applicant actually delivers
before they lose their storage.
And the second thrust of my argument is that whilst it might be inadequate compared to
what they have, I'm certain it is, but is it somewhere in conformity with objective
standards that are applied by City Hall and are universal across London?
I suspect we can assume that the new properties have the storage space that fits in with modern
standards because I'm sure that otherwise it wouldn't be being put
forward but perhaps Mr. Malloy can ...
Thank you. Funnily enough I do actually believe in things in tech
happening occasionally from genuine people and if there's rules I suspect
it'll happen but Mr. Malloy will possibly put his right on that. One other
thing that was mentioned earlier which you may like to make a comment about is
is the particular protection in terms of number one and trees.
I'm sure you can't say anything now,
but you could possibly raise it with the housing department.
Over to you, Mr Billa.
Thank you.
Just in terms of the London plan,
in terms of, as far as I'm aware,
the only standards is for built -in storage,
so I don't know if anyone,
if there is anything for external storage space
across an estate. So it is built in storage and in terms of the seven houses they do have built in
storage on the ground floor and that's as you come into the properties. In terms of the securing it
through planning, it's something that I think the applicant has committed to. We've got a landscaping
condition on there. But in terms of a unilateral undertaking, this scheme doesn't have one.
It's conditions only because there are no legal obligations that need to be secured
because it's seven units.
I mean, in a sense, the unilateral undertakings are relied on in planning process when we
know somebody is agreeing to it, but we just want to make sure that the third parties who
are concerned about it feel confident that they've been listened to and their concerns
been somehow buttressed by this committee's decisions.
So I don't really see anything wrong in saying a willing applicant would not have any objections
to making that undertaking and we could sort of almost invite them to do so or perhaps
do an informative saying, will the applicants invited to undertake to provide this in advance,
in a sense already having committed is invited to do so.
I mean that's, I'm not asking for a condition,
I'm asking for some sort of faith
and enshrined in some sort of statement from this committee.
Sounds to me as though you're not asking for faith at all.
If you had faith, then you'd have faith
that the housing department would do what they,
but that's another point, don't argue with me,
please give the Councilor of India,
I was told off last time, to rising to,
and I'm saying it's you, rise to me, but there you go.
I think probably it's unenforceable in the condition
in terms anyway and we've got their word
for the housing department that they would do it.
If you want to reinforce it very slightly,
we could make it informative I think.
Go along with informative, okay.
Sorry, can I just pop in?
I think Councillor Covington's not quite right
with his definition of a unilateral undertaking.
It's a section 106 agreement.
and it's just submitted by the applicants.
So it's a requirement to mitigate
the elements of the development.
It's not there for third parties to feel assured
by the process, which is exactly what you said.
So I think we probably need to be clear
about what we're talking about.
We've accepted that an informative will do, I think.
Councillor Colquay.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Cokley for St Mary's Ward. I just wanted to, I was pleased to see that these
seven units were doing the passive house standard for energy efficiency. And just more out of
curiosity, I wanted to ask officers because for instance we have some applications from
the council that are passive house and some that aren't. I was just wondering if it's
more difficult to have passive house on say larger buildings and it was easier to, and
was it easier to do passive house because these were smaller individual units and when
we had larger blocks that are built it was a lot harder to do those standards.
Can you comment on that Ms Malloy?
Just in terms of the policy, where we are, the policy either requires developments to
to meet passive house or the home quality mark.
So we have on these council schemes had a range
of either passive house and I know the next scheme
that's coming forward is the home's quality mark.
In terms of the question, if it's easier
to actually do it on the houses, I'm not entirely sure
because I think on a previous scheme that I have dealt with they have also achieved
passive house.
So it is just in terms of how the project team take it forward and I know Mr Hayter
has got some information about home quality mark as well and it is a slightly different
assessment where the home quality mark is where you take wider things like air quality
and things like that.
It is more of a BRE assessment and the passive house is quite different.
So it's just how the applicant takes it forward
in terms of the policy, which allows for either or.
Okay, Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Guy Humphries, opposition speaker
on this committee and a Councillor for Southfields in Putney.
I'm afraid I'm gonna drag us back to the garages again.
Are we sure that nobody in these garages
has got a car inside them?
Because we don't seem entirely sure who's got them
except the nine residents on the thing,
Again, as Councillor Hatfield was saying, I keep a car in a council garage in a different
part of the borough. If it is not a modern car, it will fit comfortably inside the older
garage because we are built for older cars. I am sure that nobody has got a car inside
one of those garages.
In terms of what I understand the applicant has undertaken, a recent survey was provided
at that information today. I think there might be a motorbike in one of them, which is within
the representations, but no one in terms of any of the objections has stated that they
are storing a car.
Thank you. I am still not convinced that the phone box, as Councillor Ayres put it, is
an equivalent storage for some other kind of space if people are putting anything bulky
in there. I do think it is somewhat disappointing that these issues are genuinely concerned,
as Councillor Henderson said from residents on the estate, after the long history we've
had on this development already going down in size and all the rest of it, we couldn't
have got these things bottomed out before it came to committee to decide.
It's something that's obviously been an issue for quite a while, so it's not a surprise
that people are going to worry about losing their storage.
I think it's disappointing that we haven't got this finally settled and we're still discussing
about how we can make sure it does happen successfully for the residents, whether it's
the storage or the parking or anything else.
It's a bit disappointing.
I just want to reaffirm Councillor Garin dia's point that I would like an informative on
that because it's not a question of not trusting our housing department colleagues, but as
this committee can do its best to do anything to defend the residents' point of view, our
point of leverage is lost once we've granted permission.
So that's, I think, the reason why we want to make sure we can reassure residents as
much as possible that we're doing what we can to get as much as we can to suit them,
whether it's the surrounding hedges and trees
for your gentleman at number one, or the storage space.
Oh, Councillor Humphries, you've regirled
as with a little personal anecdote.
I can't give you one.
I had a car stored in Chatham Road estate,
and you've just dumped me out of it
to put in the development of the Chatham Road library
without making any assessment of whether I could,
needed, or whatever.
and my rather grand old car, which you may or may not remember, certainly it was very
difficult in there. When I was young and fit enough I could just about get in and get in
and out of the car, but I doubt I could do it now. And it forced me to take a decision.
I suspect that that would be the case with some of the other garages. Frankly, we're
We're building seven new homes for people here,
large -ish homes for people,
and we're providing storage space for the people
who already have the garages there and our residence,
and we're prepared to talk about other storage space as well.
I think we're doing a pretty reasonable job.
Can we move to a vote?
Oh, Councilor White, Councilor Absol,
What is another go?
Councillor Whyatt, Teuton Beck Ward.
I suppose I should mention that I am the Chair of Housing on this
particular proposal.
Like Councillor Colle, I am delighted with the environmental
aspects of this housing.
When I visited this place, I thought this would be the least
controversial of the areas because it's stuck in the corner. I thought it was an invitation to ASB,
it looked quite ransack already down there and I think that the image that we have of the new
housing looks a massive improvement and a massive improvement for the estate.
But a little bit disappointed that we didn't manage to squeeze more housing out. Again,
I felt that this was one of the least controversial of all the
Thousand Homes programme.
I think we have lost a few houses there, and in this
instance there are 14 homeless people in our rising homelessness
numbers who will not be rehoused, unfortunately.
Sorry, Councillor Apps.
Oh, Councillor Owings.
Thank you.
Sorry, just briefly, Councillor Emily Knowles, Northcott Ward.
I just had a question about the impact on the school because I sit on the Children's
Committee and I was just curious.
Clearly, they're going to be losing the boundary wall.
I'm assuming they use that for basketball hoops, that sort of thing.
and the issues around getting children to school with the bill going on, that's of interest too. Thank you.
Thank you. Just in terms of the understanding the applicant has been discussing, the proposal with the school,
Condition 27 has details of boundary treatment including the boundary to the school.
In terms of noise disruption, construction impacts and that type of thing,
again there's conditions for a construction management plan, air quality, dust management
plan, so hopefully that should be sufficient to minimise the impact.
Are the recommendations agreed?
Agreed unanimously.
Good.
move on to the Akeroiden Community Center
for an application to rebuild and add some housing units.
Miss, Mr. Hayter, I think you want to show us some pictures
to add color to the paper version we've got.
Thank you, Councillor Henderson. I hope you're reasonably happy with the end result.
Mr Heije. Thank you. This is an application for the
The development would involve the demolition of the existing community
center and the construction of a part three story, part four story building
that would include 13 affordable units, 7 -1 beds and 6 -2 beds, along with
replacement community center at the ground floor level and associated cycle
and vehicle parking, landscaping and the construction of a new children's
playground. Just to give a bit of context, as you can see, the application site boundary
is in red. The existing community center is in the center and then to the left is the
existing sunken garden area. That would be where the new playground would be. Then to
the right -hand side, the red line boundary includes the existing paved area to the front
of a row of shops which is proposed to be resurfaced
as part of the development proposal.
And then you can see there's various residential
dwellings around, there's San Joaquin Close to the north,
and then there's adjacent blocks to the south
and to the east.
And then there's some images of the existing site,
if you can see them, I know they're a bit small,
but hopefully that gives an impression of the existing site.
So the proposed ground floor would include
the community center, as I said.
So you can see the layout of that
with a large hall on the left
and then a smaller hall on the right hand side.
And then the community center would include
a garden as part of it, the left hand side.
And also on the left hand side is where the playground
would be located in the existing sunken garden area.
And then this is a proposed first floor plan
just showing the general layout of the residential units.
And then just some before and after images
to give you an idea of the existing site situation
and what it would look like.
You can see the proposed playground
in the existing underutilized sunken garden area.
And then this would be the view from the front of the site,
from Montfort Place.
And then a view from the other side,
yeah, existing and proposed, you can see in,
this would be the side where the,
this is where the sunken garden area is,
and then there's the,
where the playground would be in its place.
And then this is the view from Sand Room close to the north,
and you can see existing residential dwellings
neighboring the site.
And just a little overview for you there, thank you.
Thank you.
And the recommendation of course is to approve
the application.
Any queries, any questions, any comments?
silence. Well, I thought this was, sorry, I didn't see either. Councillor Humphries and
Councillor Givinja then.
Thank you, Chair. A couple of things. There was a comment in the comment from residents
about the sunken garden. There was a referral to historic flooding on that sunken garden.
I wanted to have that been picked up and addressed in the improvements we're going
to do. It's not much of having a great place, but it's underwater. So, it's some
improvements to the drainage and such like proposed as part of the scheme to
address that issue.
Included in the application is a sustainable urban drainage system, and
that would be conditioned. And as part of the proposal, there would be permeable
surfaces. So that will deal with that then. Yes, yes that's our understanding. I can't
see the planning officer can do much more than say there's some conditions
gathering the item I mean it can hardly guarantee that we won't have a once in a
several millennia flood can we? I was just impressed that you knew the acronym
for suds rather than the result of what that meant in reality.
My other point, which is a different one, we've just seen on the CGI's, I think it's
on page 45 of our report, the impact of the North elevation on Sandringham Close.
I think that's the one CGI that doesn't do this any favors to be honest, it does look
quite impressive.
I read in the report that there's a cut out on the building on that side to try and increase
the depth on the distance between the properties.
But I just want, I suppose, a bit of reassurance
that's not grain -speed,
because just on the face of the visuals,
it does look pretty imposing
on the front of those houses adjacent to it.
Yeah, so the, we've also looked at this in a lot of detail.
So the applicants submit the daylight sunlight assessment,
which includes impact on properties on Sandring and Close,
and that the impact is within the BIE guidelines
in terms of daylight, sunlight.
The balconies which face number,
I think it's number nine, San Joaquin Close,
they sort of face the side of the property.
There are a couple of windows in the side elevation
of that property, but they're at ground floor level
and there's one sort of towards the other side,
so there wouldn't be any direct overlooking,
and we don't think into those windows.
There's also a recommended condition for details
of screening to the balconies.
So when that comes in, we'll look at
what potential overlooking impact then there'll be,
if necessary, will require some more screening.
And yes, like you say, there's a cutout on that corner
which reduces the overbearing impact
on I think it's number eight, it's not even close.
And then there's some windows in that elevation
which there's a condition requiring them to be
at school glaze to avoid any potential
overlooking to that property.
I must confess I felt the same about that particular CGI.
It's difficult to tell here.
What's the distance between number nine and the block?
You can measure it.
It might take me a couple of minutes though.
Okay, come back to us in a couple of minutes.
I just wanted to say that just as a way of reassurance as well...
Sorry, who are you?
I'm sorry, my name is Ellen Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area.
I actually visited the site, this is a long time ago, and it was specifically to do with Sandringham Close
because we felt like this block would be so imposing on them given that they haven't really got an awful lot there at the moment.
But you can see that there is a part of a building there already that they deal with.
But we were very concerned about their garden and we were also concerned about windows.
But the windows on the side there, they're secondary.
The main windows are still clear with the lovely aspect through the garden.
There's a walkway along there with quite dense tree growth if you like.
In an odd way, even though distance -wise you would think it would be quite imposing,
the way that you sit there relative and the direction of the aspect, it is not as bad as you would imagine.
I think that was our biggest concern, but it was amended to create further setbacks at that point,
specifically for that property. I hope that helps.
Councilor.
Mr. Hayter might have the.
Ah, Mr. Hayter.
So it's on page 62 of the report, paragraph 7 .1.
The distance is 7 .5 meters at first floor level.
Okay.
Councilor Gavindya and then Councilor Apps.
And then Councilor His.
Thank you.
I couldn't understand the comment about Sill
in the late letters, late papers.
I mean, my understanding has always been
that it's 100 % social housing
and the community use underneath,
neither of which would be eligible for levying of Sill.
So I don't know where this figure comes from.
I see that at some point it'll get come out in the wash
and perhaps it'll come out as zero,
but I didn't really get that clear message through.
So perhaps somebody could help me with that.
One question arising from Councillor Humphrey's question
on SODS, which is that the area does actually
suffer just more generally from urban flooding.
And whether this solution is adequate for just this site,
or it's got a capacity to partly address the wider problem.
I mean it's obviously not a matter for this application and so on, but it's just curiosity
that is the opportunity being taken to help address a wider problem at the same time as
solving this site specific problem.
And my third is generally a comment.
I mean I raised that in my earlier correspondence with Mr Calder.
I am really, I was really worried about the kind of questions about the fire safety.
You have a council application, you have a council appointed fire expert working for
the applicant who comes out with a solution which is inadequate.
We then need to challenge it and then he gets enshrined in the paper and it's out there
in the wash saying council as an applicant starts off with an inadequate fire response
and then we have to push them to do it.
I mean, I just think it doesn't read well, and I only hope that opportunity be taken
to pass the message to everyone who does this, that it's important to, and it's just important
in terms of council reputation, that we as an applicant behave with some thoroughness
about something as sensitive as fire in a public place.
Absolutely.
We've had enough problems with fire in public buildings.
I absolutely agree with you.
Ms. Hager, can you help us?
So in terms of the SUDs,
we can only look at what's in the application
red line boundary.
We're satisfied that the scheme would improve
the flooding situation on the application site,
but I couldn't tell you about the wider,
the wider the state.
Sorry, just to run it off you,
in your sense, in your assessment,
did you think that in addressing the scheme
of the fundamental technical pannier for this site,
can there be some spare capacity?
That's the area.
Sorry, Councillor, do you want to put your microphone on?
Sorry, microphone.
Right, it was just that in your assessment,
do you think there is some spare capacity?
I'm not asking us to determine the application
on the basis that they should be spec,
but it's just a curiosity.
Will there be more space for extra water?
So if I could perhaps come back on that one.
We can look to see where it was within the scope
because it's a figure.
You raised a very interesting point about sill as well.
So maybe I'll come back unless anybody's got a better idea,
but it's the Merrell sill is still required
on the community space, so that's not exempt.
That is the reason there is a smurter sill requirement.
That is something I think I learnt, perhaps I have been reminded of, but you too.
Councillor Apps.
Firstly, I just want to say that I really like this development.
I think it is going to look really good and hopefully be a very good facility for the
community.
I agree with some of the other comments about concerns about flood risk.
I think that is something that's going to form a bigger and bigger part of our applications.
I also wanted to bring up another environmental issue which is I hope I didn't miss it,
but I saw the provision for food waste collection in the Tolland Square, but I didn't see it in here.
Is food waste collection dealt with separately and can it be if it's not?
Also, I think on the whole it would be really good to see how schemes are going to encourage
recycling, encourage good levels of waste separation. That might not be something we
can do legally, but it would be good to know that that has been thought of as part of the
scheme by housing. Those were my questions.
For the residential units there's the ground floor refuse store and there's sufficient
space in there for the communal food waste storage.
Presumably, the waste, what we call it, the people we consult with about waste on almost
every application, lots of applications, that's within their milieu to check that the food
waste is being considered.
Yes, when we ask for, I am assuming, but this is good to clarify, I'm assuming that when
we ask the waste department whether the facilities are adequate, they will cover what they have
to cover, food waste as well as ordinary waste. Is that a reasonably correct assumption, Mr
Calder?
You are absolutely right with that assumption, Councillor. It is something we won't put
every detail in, but if it complies with the policy and they come back and say they have
and objections, we won't go much further than that.
So it might not always be in the report,
but it's a useful question to ask.
Councilor Covindia, Councilor Apps.
Sorry, not Councilor Apps.
Councilor Covindia, Councilor Ayres.
No, off camera.
Go on, Councilor.
Just on the food thing, I mean, as I understand it,
it is not a requirement for food waste to be collected
it on council blocks of flats, which is why perhaps the difference between Tolan Square
and this happens. But importantly, are we future proofing this scheme when housing roll
out food waste? And that's the question. And I know it might not be in terms of current
policy standards might be compliant, but is it are we future proofing the space standards
so that should housing do it, they have a space for it to happen?
It is useful to raise it and useful to clarify on all future applications.
The standards are changing so rapidly in all sorts of details of planning that we cannot
just stop.
I am assuming that the food waste will be covered in here, but in future rooms make
sure that that is the case.
It probably is in any event.
Councillor Ayers.
Thank you, Chair. I wanted to deliver a bouquet, because not only do I agree with Councillor
Apsley—I am very pleased with this project—but there are two particular items in the internal
planning which fill my heart with joy. One is that we have bathrooms with windows, so
we have natural light and natural ventilation. The other is that there are utility cupboards,
So you can put your nasty, noisy washing machine away
and not ruin your nice dinner parties by candlelight.
Thank you.
Thank you for that ever practical remark.
Sorry, Chair, could I come back on something?
Go on.
Sorry, just coming back to that food waste,
because I think it is a really interesting point
about future proofing.
We have a condition, condition 30,
regarding notwithstanding approved details to ask for further submission. My suggestion
would perhaps be to include food waste within that so we can just make sure that that's
covered.
Thank you. We're all happy with that. Thank you for that helpful addendum. Is it agreed?
Planning and Application agreed? Planning agreed.
The next one is the orders, all drinks on the road, which as far as I can understand,
after you ploughed through all the papers one way or another, is because Network Rail
have decided, as is their right to if they're concerned about the safety, we have to move
about 18 inches to the east. Apart from that, it's all been agreed. But open to any questions
or queries about it. No questions? It's agreed? The order's agreed? Good, thank you.
Rowie and a crescent. I'm sure we all have views about this one way or another. Mr. Grainger,
do you want to introduce yourself and fire away?
Good evening, my name is Nigel Granger. I manage the East Area team in Development Management.
This proposal essentially is the retention of the front elevation and obviously the supporting
side party walls, but the removal of the internal fabric, so that would mean partitions and
the timber suspended floors that create the levels inside the dwelling and the rear addition.
and it's rebuilding with a series of improved built layouts
and importantly a roof extension above what would be
commonly known as the rear addition
and the ridge would be raised also by 500 millimeters
in a continual plane using the same angle
as the existing roof pitch.
which I think you would all have gathered by now,
that in the course of the application,
the basement was deleted from the proposal.
So there is no basement in this proposal.
Right.
And as it's not conservation area,
there's nothing we can say about the demolition
because people have the right to demolish the house
if they want to.
outside our conservation area.
Other comments, I just give a flavor
before people plow in.
I represented the area for a very long time
and the big space that you see across the road
at Rowena and out the back of those houses
on the other side, there's a big space
with a old Victorian frontage,
it was an institutional building of some kind,
it was completely gutted and essentially rebuilt
where you've got that big blank space.
And that has the original frontage
and everything else in the place is rebuilt.
So it's not unique in that part of the world,
though this one larger than what's there now
Now it's nowhere near as big as the one just 30 yards away.
Sorry, I was meter gassing here.
Councilor Ayers wanted to say something.
I have no problem with the design of this,
and I know it's got many precedents
demolishing and keeping a facade.
Piccadilly at the moment has got steel work along it
that would hold up the Great Wall of China
just to preserve some facades.
There may be cases to do this, but I really think this is a proposal that really upsets
me.
We talk about conservation.
Demolition on this scale is unsustainable, and although it is common, it should not be
encouraged.
I will therefore not be voting for it.
Thank you for that.
Any other comments?
Councillor Humphries. Mine's a bit more
I noticed a comment about the air source heat pump in the garden and I gather there's a
condition on that but are there not some, they're quite smaller gardens here aren't
they and there are some constraints are there not on the the siting of the heat
pump anyway because it's got to be like at least a meter from the boundary or
I just want to live, I know they're getting better,
but even so, they are still quite noisy.
Is this gonna be adequately shielded or whatever from,
because it's not gonna be very far from anybody else,
because the size of the guns are pretty small,
so you'd be lucky to get it a meter from the boundary
without it being slap bang in the middle of the garden anyway.
So just want to make some reassurance perhaps
that it's gonna be adequately shielded
and that's covered in the conditions.
Thank you, Candice, yes.
But the objective of condition 15 is to,
obtain that information on its future performance
prior to its installation.
So once you've actually got a baseline
and you've done a survey
and you understand what the ambient noise levels are
and then you know what the technical specification is
in terms of its operational noise levels,
then if you do, we have an opportunity
within the discharge of this condition.
If it needs an acoustic housing, we can get that.
And the condition also wraps it up
with the retention for its lifetime.
But just as an aside, a lot of these heat pumps,
if they're kept within the volumetric capacities
allowed under permitted development rights and only used for heating, you don't need
planning permission.
Right.
Writing that one down.
Any other comments?
If not, and I can see why people might not have any other comments, is the application
approved?
Agreed.
Thank you.
of this one abstention.
Well, if you want to make a point of your abstention,
one abstention.
Yes, I know, I was just leaving it.
There's other people around me who were after precision.
I was just happy that it was agreed.
Okay, move on to
Vision Point for Yelverton Road.
People have seen that.
I think we'd be quite interested,
some discussion about it earlier this evening.
We'd be quite interested, Mr. Grainger,
to know whether exactly the funding
that's being talked of here in terms of their failure
to build exactly as originally approved,
whether that funding can be used just for council house stock or whether it's wider than that.
Yeah, certainly, it's in the paper we touched on that point,
but this fund is specifically going to be ring fenced for the use for existing council stock
in order to either adapt it for this M4 -3 standard,
or it could possibly be made available to housing associations that are working with the council
in order to provide additional M4 -3 standard housing.
But the main thing is that it's going to support council -based social housing stock.
Have we any views about why apparently they didn't build what was intended?
How long have we got?
Sorry?
How long have we got?
There's an expedited version because it's not been an easy process, I must say.
But the proposed development was approved after two planning applications, basically.
and there was a benchmark position for the units,
particularly the identified M4 -3 units,
which are the wheelchair accessible units.
We always have a clause,
since our specialist occupational therapist officer
has been with us,
and this has been now for a number of years,
four going on, maybe more years,
for proposals to be, that particular element
of the proposal of the wheelchair accessible housing
to be consulted upon through discharging a clause
within the section 106 to specifically allow
the specialist OT to be able to review these units
and effectively agree what's been shown in drawn form
and obviously move on.
There's a mismatch in the way that the proposal was granted
and then the speed at which this was developed on site.
And the further that the development increased
in terms of its actual built form,
we then started to get approached
to sign off certain aspects of the Section 106.
For instance, the occupational therapists input.
But there are certain triggers that go into 106s
for monitoring, but they were difficult for the agent
to be able to adhere to,
because there was a lot of backwards and forwards
and changing of back office staff
during this development for the developer.
So that opportunity, we didn't know
at what stage the development was.
But then we entered into a series of negotiations.
Once we began to learn that these units
were going to be too small to support the correct standard of M4 -3.
So we started to then think, well, what can we do?
Because the actual built layouts and the internal arrangements
were becoming more and more fixed.
We looked at making the terraced areas, enclosing those off
and including that space, or it was suggested to officers,
and incorporating that space, which are five
or six square meters into the overall floor layouts,
to up the overall floor area.
But the discussion there was, well,
that's quite inequitable,
because why would a wheelchair user suddenly be excluded
from the opportunity to have a terrace,
based on the fact that you've raced off
and there are mistakes that have been made.
and it could have had a side impact of even perhaps viability
because there would have been more internal floor area
that would have value.
It became very, very, very complicated.
And whilst these discussions were going on,
the further the project raced on and on.
So we got to a point where of no return.
And we've had to think imaginatively
on how we could actually resolve this problem, which
is regrettable and certainly a one -off. I've never seen anything like this and hope to
never have to go through a negotiation like this ever again.
Working closely with our OT, we've managed to come up with a formula based on build costs
of the shortfall of the square metreage with certain items that go into wheelchair accessible
housing like wet rooms and a number of fixed spurs that need to go into these facilities
and then multiply that by the square meters with the bill cost and then multiply that
by eight units and we've got to this figure.
Thank you.
Councillor Boswell.
Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Back Board.
Thank you very much for giving us more detail
around how the occupational therapist resolved this.
I do think that if that comes up again,
we do need more detail in the paper.
I'm not one for extending these papers at all,
but just one sentence on that, probably,
that wasn't enough, it would have been good to hear
more of what you've told us.
And I also want to make the point
that I was really disappointed to see that
I realize a mistake has been made,
but that this was a solution
because we've arrived at a state already
in this borough of a parlor state of affordable housing
because of developers coming back and saying
it didn't work or they couldn't make it work
or there wasn't a profit.
And I certainly don't want to see that starting to happen
on accessible housing.
So yeah, just a message really to back up
what's already been said that this is not
an acceptable work around.
We don't wanna see this in future
where people are able to come back and say,
well, we just weren't able to do that.
And we're forced to take this as a solution.
Thank you.
Agreed. Any other comments?
Councillor Gavindir.
We're not laboring the point too much, but it's just a question of maybe some sort of
clarity from officers. Was it possible, is it possible to read the plan, the floor plate,
and see whether what is being planned for a wheelchair accessible unit is in fact in space terms adequate.
Could we have read the plans and say yes this works?
Did we have to wait till afterwards and they say oh no it doesn't work?
Because it's that sort of thing.
Should we have read it better?
Is it our fault that we let it go and then we're found out, well then told that it doesn't work?
or did they plan deliberately something that just about passed and then when it
started being constructed it didn't pass it's just one of those things as to
whether could we have been more vigilant in the first place.
So Mr Grainger are you at fault or someone else?
Sorry don't read anything into the world I've just said.
I was trying to come up with a certain kind of confirm or deny answer but the
We have an update, but it will probably not be...
Yes, yes, yes. We do as well.
But there was a...
Now, come on, children, let's not get bitter about this.
Mr. Grange.
There was a situation where,
because this was subject to two applications,
because they had to come back for the increased heights,
I think that there was a situation created from the initial application
where there could have been a shortfall that wasn't necessarily identified
initially. That, to my understanding, and I've had to go back as far as I could
because colleagues have left since all of this is done and I and another colleague
have done my best to try and rectify the situation as best I can. But I think it
was translated to possibly by mistake that maybe might not have been identified
or there was a certain source of agreed position in someone's mind, the
that could continue on and it wasn't necessarily identified or just thought that what happened
before was good, it will happen again. It certainly, categorically, does not happen
now. That is where we are.
However, Councillor Ayres.
I want to offer some comfort because I've looked at those flats which we've ended up
with and they are reasonably generous especially the hallways and the
bathroom so although they're not to the correct standard they look as though
they could be relatively easily adapted so I'm a less less worried about it than
some of my colleagues.
Councillor White.
Yeah I agree with Councillor Boswell's comments really a slippery slope indeed
But also, just to comment, I'm really disappointed that this doesn't make the Wandsworth Plan
or the London Plan as far as the distribution of affordable housing is concerned, as it's
100 % intermediate and there are no social rent homes again.
So another opportunity.
We could have had at least 20 social rent homes, another 20 homeless families who won't
have homes at the end of this.
How did that happen?
Remind me.
This is a section 73 application.
We can't revisit the viability and the distribution
of tenure or what it is.
That's not up for examination.
That's why it's just a comment.
Yes, okay, okay, fair enough.
Okay, so perhaps mildly reluctantly,
but nonetheless agreed.
Agreed.
Thank you.
Move on to the decisions paper,
paper
330.
Any comments
noted?
Noted. On the closure of
investigations,
331, noted.
Closed appeals,
332,
Two noted.
And tree preservation orders.
Agreed.
No one's got anything to say
about the tree preservation orders?
No?
How uncontentious of us.
Right, thank you very much.
And enjoy the rest of the evening.
.