Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 12 December 2024, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 12th December 2024 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Good evening.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this meeting of the Planning Applications Committee,

meeting of December 2024. We've got a reasonably busy night tonight, so let's crack on. My name's

Tony Belton. I'm a Councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea. I'm Chair of the

Planning Applications Committee. I will be asking members, that is, Councillors who have

contributions to make to introduce themselves when we get to them, not all in one go, but

I will ask people to introduce themselves on the top table if they would.

So beginning on my left.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Nick Calder, I'm the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth

Council.

Good evening, my name is Duncan Mors, I'm the External Legal Advisor.

Good evening, everybody, my name is Callum Wernham, I'm Democratic Services and Clerking

on the committee this evening.

Okay, thank you.

Have we got any apologies for absence?

None received.

No apologies, in fact we've got yes,

clearly a full house.

And have we got any declarations of interest?

Anyone got any pecuniary interests?

Councillor Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Guy Humphreys,

Councillor for Southfields in Putney,

an opposition speaker on this committee. I have got an interest not in pecuniary but

in item number 6, 150 to 170 Penwith Road. I am a very close neighbour and have had dealings

with the people concerned with the applicants, so I will step off the committee for that

one.

Any other declarations of interest?

Councillor Wight.

I am not sure that it affects tonight, but I am a member of Community Renewable Energy

Wandsworth.

And you are?

Sorry, I am Councillor Paul Wyatt from the Tootingbeck Ward. I am a member of the community

room of Bournemouth energy, Wandsworth, but I draw no financial benefit from my involvement

with them.

We are finished, right? We are only having some minutes. I have seen the copy of the

minutes. Have you, Councillor Humphreys, been happy for me to sign the minutes as a correct

record?

Agreed.

Right, now I think that's correct.

Now we move on to the applications.

There are 12 applications tonight,

which is one of our busier occasions recently.

And we have several councilors, four councilors here,

who want to speak on various items.

In deference to their evening,

but more particularly the public gallery's evening,

I'm going to take the order of the meeting as follows.

Item seven, the Innis Gardens application,

item eight, the Haywood Gardens,

item nine, the Cortis Road, and item 10,

the rather different but similar in one sense

as a council estate, acroid and estate application.

We've got representations from the councilors.

Can I make it clear that these representations

are about the councilors view of what they're doing

and what they're representing?

They cannot be asked strictly planning questions.

They're not planning offices,

they don't have planning expertise,

so the questions about their presentations

and what they have to say,

and indeed what their constituents think,

which is fair enough.

Now, on the first application,

which is Councilor Austin wishes to speak,

then on the second one,

Councilors Sutter and Ambash,

and the third, Councilor Austin,

I just wonder whether seeing that all three are these one estate, whether we

just want an introductory remark about the estate before we get on with for the

councillors if that's okay by the councillors. Okay, Mr. Calder, an

introduction about the three estates, three applications in general. Thank you,

Yes, I'll hand over to Cathy Malloy who will do a brief introduction on that.

I just wanted before we start, just to draw members' attention, I sent all members an

email earlier today that the new National Planning Policy Framework has been updated

and makes various, a few changes and emphasises house building and increases mandatory targets,

makes a number of other changes to it.

Myself, officers and our legal advisor have reviewed the MPPF

because it's released today, it now becomes a material consideration.

We've considered that all the matters raised in reports

and the assessment and the recommendations are in line with the new MPPF.

So I am quite happy that we don't need to change any recommendations

We have an up -to -date local plan which is one of the main thrusts of it and we

have a seven -year housing land supply which is another thrust of it. So without

further ado and if you do have questions you are members we can always come back

to me on that email. I'd hand over to Cathy who's going to do a brief

introduction. Sorry. Sorry, it's Councillor Gavindya, East

Butney Councillor. In light of what Mr. Calder just said, perhaps Mr. Moore could

actually make some points clear about the NPPF. I haven't had the chance to read it.

I think it came out in the middle of the afternoon. Is it a material consideration in that the

NPPF is effective? Is it a consultation where it's a material consideration but of a lesser

quality? So in some ways I think to just throw NPPF recently announced this afternoon into

into the well of the chamber to say, that's it.

I think we need to know a little more

to say how material it is and how does it impact

on our individual decisions.

I can see from Mr. Cawders, but we slightly differently,

but our decisions.

Councilor, excuse me, Councilor Devindia.

And in a way, I agree with you,

but we've been advised that it made

the material difference today.

We live in a very dynamic world,

things are changing all the time.

It's a long enough agenda for us to sit through

and listen for a 10 minute discussion

to conclude it makes no difference.

I'm not prepared to accept.

We've been assured it doesn't make any difference

on a first glance.

So I can ask Mr. Malloy to introduce.

Yeah, that's fine, okay.

So who do you want to write to?

Mr Moore.

I am happy to add to the email that Mr Cawler sent to all members this afternoon. It was

published about midday today. There was a session in the Commons from the Minister and

the Shadow Minister discussing all the elements. It is very difficult to summarise an 80 -page

document prior to the applications this evening, but members can be assured that we have considered

whether any changes within this national policy affect the consideration of your applications

this evening and the recommendations considered within those. There are no changes that need

to be brought to members' attention.

Thank you. Ms Molloy. Good evening everyone I'm Cathy Molloy, Principal

Planning Officer in Wandsworth. I'm going to do a very brief overview in

terms of the applications that are before us this evening, items 7, 8 and 9.

I'll just show my screen, just one moment.

Just to give an overview of where the applications are located, this is the Ashburton estate

in Putney and we've got three applications on the agenda this evening.

One for Innis Gardens, which are two sites here. We've got Hayward Gardens,

which again are two sites. Quartus Road, which the main site is there. There's

also some improvements to the play area there and also improvements to the

children's playground in the middle of the site. So I think we're going to pause

there and the council is going to speak and then we'll go back and go through

each one of the applications in detail. Just so that I get this right I know the

area pretty well but this is Putney Heath at the bottom of the page. Correct.

So for those people who automatically think in map terms like I sometimes

do the north is in the bottom part of the picture and the south is in the top

part of the picture as it were.

Yeah, okay, understood.

Okay, I think that's the scene set in a very broad sense.

So over to Councilor Austin.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Sorry, I do beg your pardon.

I should have said, I'm sure all four of you know,

you got five minutes each.

And that does actually mean Councilor Sutter

and Councillor Ampere, I shouldn't have to split your five minutes, but I think you know

that.

Okay, Councillor Austin.

Thank you very much, Councillor Burton.

Can I just start by thanking you as chair for allowing me to represent the residents

of Innis Gardens tonight.

Given today's announcements, I'm fully aware of the vogue for the planning decisions to

be taken away from local residents, but we as elected members need residents to have

confidence in the decisions this council makes.

I'm afraid that the perception many of my residents

have fair or otherwise is that this council

is trying to sneak this in before Christmas.

I really could be here for a long time

talking about the deficiencies of the application.

In fact, this entire report just goes to show

the lackadaisical nature of the council's approach

to the Ashburton development scheme.

I lost count of the number of times in this report

that the development is either referred to as Heywood Gardens,

HG1, HG2, or even the wrong number of units

in the proposed scheme on multiple occasions.

Instead, though, I want to concentrate on three matters.

Firstly, parking.

From the outset, it was acknowledged

that parking is going to be an issue

as Ashburton relies heavily on cars.

That is in part the reflection of the PTAIL rating of two.

The loss of parking spaces will be most acutely felt in Innis Gardens, where 16 parking spaces

will be lost and 10 garages removed.

It is essential, therefore, that an accurate parking survey and report is submitted in

which current and future parking demands can be accurately assessed.

The report states that surveys were conducted on 7 and 8 February 2023, following the Lambeth

methodology.

This is not the case.

The Lambeth methodology explicitly recommends avoiding survey weeks that encompass school

holidays and suggests steering clear of weeks preceding and following holidays.

The surveys were carried out the week before half -term holidays.

As a consequence, the results relating to the existing parking stress levels cannot

be relied upon.

The traffic assessment survey is fundamentally flawed as it relies on data from 2011 and

is significantly outdated and the 2021 census data

should be used instead.

This oversight means that the survey should be redone

using up -to -date information before the matter

can be determined.

Laterally on the parking front, 50 % of parking spaces

in the area are not controlled by CPZ.

This lack of regulation means the condition proposed

in the report is unenforceable.

Secondly, loss of amenity. The loss of amenity in this development is going to have a serious

impact on the residents in this gardens. The loss of 10 garages, 27 storage units without

any provision to replace them is wrong. All apartments have storage issues and space constraints.

In older buildings, this issue is worse. Removing these units and not replacing them is going

to cause more crowding in the apartments and inevitably cause spill out into the communal

area causing a fire and safety risk. Lastly, the Labour Party sets out the preferred housing

mix for new developments, which says that one -bedroom dwellings make the highest proportion

of affordable homes with 40 to 45 per cent. The Council, which should be considered, updated

its partial planning review last week, which said that the existing policy caters for relatively

high proportion of one -bed properties, which does not fully reflect the types of homes

most needed. Why are we not following best practice and catering for the housing need

regardless of the current local plan? My residents are not NIMBYs. They are not anti -housing.

They simply want the right homes in the right places.

There is much more that I could say about this application. The design review panel

had various issues in the report that have not been adequately addressed. The design

is considered to have a negative visual impact on the surrounding area. It does not complement

the existing architectural style leading to discordant appearance. The design fails to

adequately address issues of privacy and overlooking.

Policy LP 27 emphasises the importance of high -quality, well -designed residential environments.

This policy highlights the need for sufficient private outdoor space, natural light and overall

residential immunity that all new developments must comply with. Only four units comply with

this standard. Since Covid, the emphasis on private outside space and how important it

is to people's mental wellbeing simply makes the substandard offering of the outside space

in this proposal unacceptable.

If this committee allows a badly thought out substandard development proposal that fails

on so many grounds to be waved through, then it will open the floodgates to challenges

on developments that have been refused.

There is only so many times that you can say it does not strictly comply and allow for

some flexibility before the cumulative impact on residents far outweighs the benefit to

existing and new residents.

This scheme is far beyond what is acceptable and I urge you to please vote against it tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, okay. I think you've made your point clear. Very excellent. Five minutes, 20 seconds.

Not bad at all. And I commend you for your elegant positioning of your constituents'

concerns. Now, this is an opportunity for members to ask questions of the Councillor

concerned. He raised several issues of definitely of planning issues like parking, loss of amenity

and the right houses in the right place. Those are questions that you can by all means ask

of officers that are qualified to give the Council's official position. I'm not interested

nor can we be legally in what Councillor Osteen was respecting on those particular issues.

We have advisors to do that.

Any questions to the Councillor about his presentation?

Councillor Govindia.

What you did not mention was the play areas.

I am reading through some of the correspondence of the local residents.

There is concern about the barriers, the overlooking or not overlooking the safety and the security

and so on.

In fact, there is only this evening a letter from one of the young mothers saying exactly

the same.

I do not know what your residents feel about the revised play arrangements.

Secondly, I would say, do you think, a lot of people say they have made their points

but they have not been heard.

Do you feel that they have felt they feel adequately represented by the council in the review of the

original plans

Thank you much counselor

unlike the other two

Developments in his gardens doesn't have a specific place area attached to that area itself. So there is

So they'll be using the main

Play area on Tillsley Road while they are while obviously there is

an extension and bigger and brand new equipment

going into that play area.

The emphasis is around, more for them,

the emphasis is very much that the balconies

are overlooking and the loss of amenity

for the existing residents that are there at the moment.

I think everybody welcomes the extension of the play area

and we should do even more to support young minds

in the area.

But because this area doesn't specifically have

a play area for themselves,

they're using the bigger communal area in,

it's not been the biggest issue

that has come across with residents when I've met with them.

Other questions?

No.

Well, thank you, Councillor Austan.

As I said, well presented.

Now can we turn to the actual matter itself

and anyone want to question officers on any of the details?

Sorry?

Should we have the overview from the county first?

Oh, I beg your pardon. Thank you. Can we first have an overview of the application

from Ms Molloy before moving on to Councillor's questions? I beg your pardon. Go on.

I'll just do a brief overview of the application.

Apologies.

I know.

There we go.

Thank you.

New technology, don't you think?

Sorry. Sorry about that.

Go on.

Just in terms of the application, it relates to two sites.

Innis Gardens 1 and also Innis Gardens 2 which can be seen on the presentation.

Innis Gardens 1 is at the western end of Innis Garden and it accommodates 10

garages and also parking spaces. Innis Gardens 2 has existing storage sheds and

and various other areas of storage.

So in terms of the actual layouts of the two proposals,

we can see these here.

And then in terms of the kind of ground floor areas,

in terms of Innis Gardens One,

we've got here, we've got bike shed substations

and various other elements to accommodate

the new properties. In terms of Innis Gardens 2, we have a unit of ground floor and various

bike storage.

Just some visuals to show the context. This is Innis Gardens 1, the western site. We can

the heights there and we are within a mid -rise zone. The local plan does allow for buildings

up to six storeys and we can see the architecture that is being proposed. Innes Gardens 2 is

a similar form to what is being proposed at Innes Gardens 1. This is just to highlight

some of the landscaping that's going to take place in and around the site. So we've got

additional planting and various other landscape improvements and changes there. And then in

terms of the central playground within the estate, that is going to be also upgraded

and enhanced. So in summary, the proposal seeks the provision of 29 affordable units

all for social rent and we've got 12 one beds, 11 two beds, 4 three beds and 2 four beds.

Enhancements to the existing central playground, some additional landscaping and tree planting

across the wider estate. As stated it's within a mid -rise zone so suitable for buildings

up to six storeys and also sustainable meeting the home quality mark and also carbon reductions

of 71%. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get to parking if a Councillor

is asked about it later. Councillor Govindja, I think you wanted.

Thank you, Chair. I mean, it's a good question, Ms Molloy. In two of the three applications,

there is a reference to protected legal species, legally protected species. So it doesn't say

what they are and it doesn't say, the report doesn't say

what has happened about that protection

or whether they're needed to be protected.

In case of Innis Gardens, in fact, there appear to be

no protected legal species in the area.

So I just want you to expand on what they are,

what measures have been taken to safeguard them and so on

and why this is missing from Innis,

given that it's largely the same landscape,

same tree cover and so on.

And just turning to the matter of parking.

Again, there is both the reports talk about

that in the event of the development happening,

the new units will be excluded from any future CPZ.

And again, there is lack of clarity in that

that the housing department has its own

estate parking control arrangements.

There are adopted roads where there is no CPZ,

although there may be one in the future.

So is it the intention to exclude new residents from a future CPZ or is it the intention to

stop exclude them from the existing estate regulated parking?

So the reports are unclear and they apply to several of the applications so it would

be helpful to know.

I imagine Mr. Tiddley would have something to say about the parking but Miss Molloy on

the other issue.

You are referring to the constraints in terms of the report. There is a general database

that deals with ecology and things like that, and that will flag up if there is any protected

species within the locality. As part of that, a preliminary ecological assessment has been

carried out, and that has identified nesting birds and bats and things like that. That

That has been reviewed by our ecologist and has also requested bat surveys and has been

working with us and the applicant to ensure that anything which goes back there will be

ecological enhancements across the estate—bird boxes, bat boxes and things like that—but

there was no evidence that there would be any harm to any protected species.

Mr. Tiddley, perhaps you can address both Councillor Galindya's points and the more

general points that Councillor Austin made in his presentation.

Hello Councillors, David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy. Before I do, I was

just going to ask Ms Molloy if she wanted to say something about the parking, because

she knows all about it anyway and it was a question whether I should just add

more at that point.

Not really, just in terms of the parking, we understand obviously

there is going to be a loss of parking across the three sites however there

has been survey work and I understand you know Councillor Austin's point about

the survey data and some of the issues that he has raised with that. From my understanding

and from the comments from our transport officer, we are happy with the evidence provided.

Okay, okay. I'll add to that then. So the first of all just to come back on the issue of surveys

being undertaken in half term, I have to admit that was the first time I'd heard of that,

but having just quickly checked the time table it did appear that the half term in 2023 was

the 13th of February to the 17th of February.

So these surveys were taken outside that period.

So we would be comfortable with the survey data

that's been collected.

Notwithstanding that the data showed adequate levels

of vacant space in any event.

But just to take that a little step further,

the surveys indicated for this particular development

There were 39 vacant spaces on the streets in the sort of middle of the night when most

residents need to park near their homes.

There's 1500 properties on these days.

And just to also add that we'd expect that 29 units, despite the fact that they would

would be refused CPZ permits for

any future controlled parking

zone, 29 extra residential units

could generate about 10 cars on

the basis of general

homeownership in that area.

And those could be therefore

accommodated on the street.

To take Councillor Gavindia's

point, we would be excluding

from a future controlled parking

How the housing estate manages parking on the estate is largely a matter for them.

I'm sure that they would clearly manage the arrangements as they see fit.

The other point, I think, taking Councillor Austin's view about the potential unenforceability of a non -CPZ rule when there's no CPZ, if you like.

So that is taken, I mean, that's a genuine concern.

I think that clearly if there is a problem

or would become a problem in the local area,

then the solution would be to consider the introduction

of a controlled parking zone rather than

to resist development.

And that's generally been a position that's been held

certainly at appeals when we've had this sort of,

this particular issue, but even if the development

generates cars, despite the fact that it would be excluded

from a future CPZ, then on the basis of current car ownership

levels in that area, we would expect those cars

to be able to be accommodated on the street.

Thank you.

Absolutely not.

Could I just, well, first of all, could I just point out

to members of the public gallery,

that all the members of the committee

are residents of Wandsworth,

and they all live with parking in their own areas,

and they all know the practicalities of it.

Whatever your feelings are,

these are the, this is the advice given to us,

and that's what we're taking as the advice given.

Now, who is the next?

Councillor Apps, then Councillor Colle,

and then Councillor Covindia.

I am Councillor Apps and I am the Councillor in Shaftesbury in Queenstown Ward, one of

the three.

Would you care to start again?

I wanted to talk a bit about the Met Police's findings. They mention the importance of CCTV.

I know that you will hopefully be looking at what more you could do that the residents

would like to see in that area and that's really critical.

People's homes are just so important to them, it's really important that the area is a good

place to live.

When I visited the area and spoke to residents, one of the issues which cropped up was about

the fact that there were motorbikes driving into the Innis Gardens area and that was making

people feel very unsafe.

I see the police have recommended CCTV and I want to know if there have been discussions

with residents about that, if we are looking at those kinds of developments and if not,

how that can be taken forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Just in terms of the application, the applicant has met with the Met Police,

are secured by design consortee.

So there has been discussions on that

and that detail is within the design and access statement.

In terms of CCTV, there is condition 23,

which asks for details of CCTV

under the lighting conditions.

So that will be considered as part of any condition.

Okay, Councillor Colle.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Colle for St. Mary's Ward.

Councillor Austin had mentioned the survey data for the amount of road trips I was taking

from 2011 and they were saying that the counts should have been used in the 2021 data and

I didn't see an explicit response to that in the report so I was wondering if David

or if any officers had some reason behind that

and why they're still comfortable with the survey as it is.

Mr. Tiddley.

Thank you, Chair.

The 2011 census data indicates that 20 % of journeys to work

are undertaken by car.

That number hasn't changed dramatically

in the 10 years since.

But clearly for the purpose of having a travel plan

and looking at how the new residents would move

around the area and the extent to which they change

their behavior between public transport and vehicles,

it clearly makes sense to use the latest census data

as the base, but it doesn't really change

the recommendation in the paper.

Council, Govindia.

Thank you, Chair.

Just going back to the issue of parking.

There's a reference here to two parking spaces

for disabled people, one per each of the two blocks

in Innes Gardens.

Is that considered to be adequate?

because my understanding certainly of knowing some disabled people is that

they almost anyone who owns a car and is a disabled person would like a parking

space and would like it quite close to their home so that they don't have to

wheel themselves or go unaided over longer distance and the second point I'd

make it like about parking capacity that Mr. Tiddly earlier mentioned is that

It's all very well that within a two mile radius there were 39 car spaces

available but actually ask a young lady coming home late at night wanting to

walk a long distance back from an available car place to a home, it's

just not right. This area isn't a particularly safe one at night and so this theoretical idea

that there are spaces is not the same as what residents perceive to be available.

I'm sorry, it was, I don't mean this in a, those are interesting remarks which any resident

in Wandsworth would make, I'm not ignoring them, but was there a question as well?

So the parking, the planning question would be that is it right to in a sense judge available

space over a much wider area than what residents perceive to be their

neighbourhood. The resident state is their neighbourhood and the survey has

taken a much larger area to come to the figures. I don't think you'll find that

in the planning regulations and I think we all can

understand that as an issue right or wrong in our own streets and our own

blocks of flats wherever we live in Wandsworth. There are places like it everywhere in the

Councillor Owens and Councillor Justin.

There is an answer that...

The answer about disabled persons has not been answered specifically.

It's a specific question.

That's what I did ask, whether you had a specific question.

The second one was a matter of political opinion, which we can all have.

And I know plenty of people who say parking is too far from my place or another.

It is not a technical decision, but the first one is certainly a technical decision.

What was the disability one?

I can deal with that.

So the levels of disabled parking that are being provided with the application are considered

to be compliant with policy.

I think the slightly different or added comment I would make is that any disabled person would

would almost certainly receive preferential benefit

from the housing department.

Plus, in addition to that, any blue badge holder

who lives in the site, they're excluded from the exclusion,

if you see what I mean.

So a blue badge holder is always permitted

to park on the street outside,

irrespective of any control parking restriction

that might be introduced in the future.

I want to pick up a bit on what the Councillor of India said earlier to Councillor Austin.

That relates to the impact on children of all of this.

Obviously, we have had a lot of correspondence, particularly about the health risks, exposure

to hazardous materials and the consequences of that, the safety risks with increase of

and the restricted areas that impact on children,

their disruption to routine

and interference with their learning,

but more importantly, with the playground being closed

during the construction period, the Tivesy Road playground,

there'll be a reduction in outdoor play opportunities.

What will be available for children during this time?

Thank you.

Can I, whilst I'm sure an officer will have an answer

or an answer that I hope you find satisfactory,

actual disturbance during work is not in the law

a planning reason, otherwise all development

would stop everywhere, which obviously wouldn't be

acceptable to any government, so to make that point.

But in terms of, do we have any practical,

temporary solutions in terms of anything lost?

Ms. Malloy.

In terms of the construction and the disturbance, this happens on the majority of sites. There

will be disturbance, but there will be a construction management plan that will then manage that.

There will be hours of operation in terms of working hours, in terms of the normal parameters

that we normally there will be the usual safety hoardings and various safety elements as well.

This is obviously a Council -owned scheme, so there is that level of more discussions

that can take place with the applicant and we have flagged this up in terms of the representations

that have been received. In terms of the play space and bringing that forward, the condition

requires it to come forward prior to occupation of the new units, so there will be a period

of time where that work will be undergoing. Again, we have raised this with the applicant,

and it may be something that can be considered, but we cannot do that under the planning process.

OK, Councillor Justin, Councillor Boswell, Councillor Humphries.

Mark Justin, the Councillor for Nine Elms.

The Councillors at the beginning of this meeting brought up what I thought was a very good

point about the timing of this traffic survey, and I don't think it's been properly answered.

I mean, for example, in the 1960s, Lord Beeching axed all the railways in Devon and Cornwall,

and it turns out that he did his survey in the winter when there were no tourists.

So it is actually crucial when you did this survey.

I live in Albert Bridge Road.

I can tell what month it is by the level of my ease of parking.

So if you did it in a certain period,

it would make the parking look a lot easier than if you did it in another period.

So I think that because that hasn't been correctly done,

or you haven't answered their question,

why didn't you do it in the correct period?

It makes a huge difference.

With respect, Councillor Justin, I don't think you can say it was improperly done.

First of all, Mr Tiddley's proved that it was not during the school holiday period.

And second, February's hardly, well, in my experience, you've got the experience as well,

I've got the experience, far from being the least busy month of the year.

almost any time of the year when it's more like summer,

there's in some ways less.

So that's just a matter of opinion.

Councilor Boswell.

Councilor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Beckwood.

I'm going back to play.

I wanted to ask a question around that and children.

The new playground that's going to be there

looks very impressive and it's obviously an improvement

and the equipment's going to be great as well.

But thinking of the reality of families' lives

is some distance from homes and I noticed in the report

that you talk about informal play in the courtyards.

Just from a totally practical point of view,

for parents to be able to keep an eye on their children

or at least have them nearby rather than going all the way

to the playground, however great it's going to be.

So informal play in the courtyards,

if that could be developed,

if we could hear a bit more about what that could be,

and that's also relevant to Councillor Owen's question

about during the time of construction,

when of course the playground,

the children won't have access to a playground

If there could be informal play in the courtyards could we hear more about that?

Miss Malloy any comment just in terms of you know, there's very across all three applications. There's various

Just just in terms of across all three there is various pockets of of play space

so in terms of Innis Gardens, there is

linked to this, the main playground, which again will be improved and there's been

you know work done with local children and things to kind of design that space and then there will

also be some more kind of informal space within those courtyards as well.

Thank you. It's just doorstep play. Public gallery, can I say

I know the Accra Oden reasonably well.

We all, Ashburton, sorry, Ash, I get the two confused,

but I know it reasonably well,

and there is no question that it's an extremely nice estate,

and many of us only wish that estates

in our own areas were good,

and we understand your great concern.

We, however, are in a situation where

there's a duty on us to provide housing for the homeless.

We're trying to consider this in a quasi -judicial sense.

That means it has the rules of a law court in some ways.

I don't want to overemphasize that we do.

And therefore, you can heckle as much as you like,

but actually we're going to carry on

and just try and do our best to make sure

that the estate is as good in the future as it is now.

So if we can just proceed as we were.

I think it may be Councillor Colle,

but I may have lost, no.

Councillor Humphries, I beg your pardon.

No problem, thank you, Chair.

There's a lot of references in the report at various places

to the construction management plan

as Ms. Malloy has already referred to,

and also travel plans that aren't bottomed out

and finalised yet.

And obviously we've heard tonight,

let alone in our previous correspondence with residents.

There's a lot of concern about all these areas.

I just wanted to ask how much engagement there will be

with the residents with those discussions going forward.

Because as we all understand,

they're crucial to making this work.

And for the residents that live there now,

let alone any future residents

to making it successful development.

So can I ask what level of engagement

when that engagement will be with residents

in both of those areas, the construction management plan,

and also with the details of the travel plan coming forward?

In terms of planning conditions, it is normally a process that we do not consult on. That

is normal across. However, given that it is a Council scheme, I am sure that the applicant

is able to liaise with neighbours once they have appointed a contractor. Once a contractor

is appointed, if permission is granted, then that will be the opportunity for discussions

with neighbours and things like that about what are the issues throughout construction?

Thank you, that is helpful. I think there is a degree of mistrust from the residents

that the council is going to fulfil. For the reassurance of those residents, I do not think

it is acceptable at this stage for us to have to say that the applicant is aware of that.

I would like to ask you if this is to go forward, we could put an informative on to make sure

it is formalised in the agreement that the applicant will have those consultations with

the residents because it is a key part of what is going to address their concerns.

Just in terms of since the application has been in, there has been a big piece of engagement

work that is going on in terms of the Ashburton more generally, not in relation to the planning

applications but broader more so regardless of that regardless of

everyone's view can I ask technically mr. Calder in giving planning permission

if we do so do we have can we ask for a view from the applicant about the amount

of consultation in future and we do it as an informative award my suggestion

Thank you, chair, would be, as Councillor Humphries said, to put an informative on it

and we'll also write to the director to ensure that there's suitable engagement.

I know that there, as Kathy Molloy has mentioned, there is now engagement officers being brought

in and they are trying to encourage and find out more information about it.

So that's certainly an area that housing colleagues will look at in detail, but I will ensure

that we've got an informative and unwrites them directly to cover that.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Calder.

I've got one other smaller point of view made, Councillor.

And to refer that to the travel plan as well, by the way, not just for the construction

management plan, travel plan as well.

On a completely different matter, Councillor Austin referred in his presentation to another

issue that is obviously of significant concern to residents and that's about the loss of

storage space.

And we had a case last month, I think it was Tollan Square, wasn't it, where we had a re -provision

of storage space specifically to address those concerns of residents on that estate.

And I just wanted to bottom out why we haven't got that in place on this thing, because obviously

it's an issue, particularly recently with the tighter regulation from housing, rightly

on fire regulations about not being able to keep stuff in the stairwells and things like

that.

So we understand the need to keep those stairwells free,

but the by default therefore has to be some kind

of recompense to residents to make sure they've got someone

where they can put their stuff.

Just in terms of this application,

the replacement of storage didn't form part

of the application.

So we are assessing it in terms of planning policy

and we do not have a planning policy that protects

or requires the replacement of storage sheds. It is a case -by -case basis.

Whoever it is, other people in the public gallery might be interested in hearing the

answer and I certainly am. So are the members of this committee.

So do continue, Ms Molloy. So in terms of it is a case -by -case basis, however we have raised the

concerns with the applicant again who is you know within the council and going

back to the you know the engagement officers and things like that if this is

an issue on the estate that is you know where it can be raised for the

replacement but from a planning point of view it would need permission in its own

right, given the size that it would need. It is not something we could condition under

this because we have not made that assessment and it did not form part of the application.

In terms of the planning policy, there is no basis to request that on this one. We have

raised it with the applicant so that they are fully aware of the feeling of that.

Thank you, Ms Lloyd. I do not know if Mr Calder's the right one to answer this. There is no

policy basis to put a condition on but again is it not possible to put an

informative on to raise it flag it up as an issue of serious concern for

residents that needs addressing so we need to formalize in some way that

registration of discontent with what's being proposed tonight and there is some

recourse to a remedy at some point in the future. As you know

Councillor Humphries whether storage space or not is included it's hardly a

planning matter and not let me finish, let me finish and is hardly something that you

can blame the planning committee for one way or another. It's down to the applicants and

the applicants will no doubt hear about this. We know in a similar application elsewhere

they've done their best to improve storage facilities. If the residents can persuade

their landlord, in some sense, their freeholder to provide storage spaces, fair enough, but

that is not part of this planning application.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it is not.

Councillor White.

Hi, can I ask a couple of questions about the design?

I have already told people who I am about the design review

panel. One was about the community centre being relocated and the

other one was about the top floor of IG2 and Hayward Gardens. They

were too large and dominant. Could you give comments about that,

please?

The DRP took place in June 2023. In terms of the feedback received from the DRP, the

scheme was amended. In terms of the design of IG2, that was amended in response to some

of those comments.

In relation to the community building, there was a discussion at the design review panel

about incorporating that into the shops which are in the middle of the estate. However,

we have looked at that and the applicant and the housing team have also looked at that,

but the majority of those shops are on long leases, so they are not really available for

that use. However, there is the existing community use down there, the yard, which is a social

enterprise that runs food banks and various things like that. There is a community element

there already, and there may be an opportunity for one of the units to come available, but

that is not formalised.

The Community Centre has nothing to do with inner -sky items.

Sorry, the answer you have got from Ms Molloy is the answer she gave. Have you finished,

Ms Molloy?

Yes, it was just because the DRP, the design review panel, covered all three schemes.

I might say I went to the DRP and that might sound suspicious, it is not. I only

go on the condition I keep quiet and don't say a word and purely observe part

of the rules of the DRP. On the whole, the review panel were very complimentary

about this application and thought it chimed well with the estate as a whole. I

had one or two details that one or two people have picked up, but it was very

complimentary and thought it was an extremely good way of tackling the housing shortage we've got here.

But now we've given this a pretty good go and people are coming back for second bites and I'm

very low as to stop second bites but let's make sure the new stuff. Councillor Govindia.

Thank you. On page 201 there's a reference to the employment development officer

and a contribution of 30 ,000 on this.

Is there any proposal that this and the other

applications about the estate will generate

job opportunities for people on the estate

because the reports are silent about it?

And I would have thought that one of the things

that the council has tried to do,

wherever it's done, estate regen or estate developments,

is to find job opportunities.

So where is this 30K going for?

Why don't the other applications have similar contributions

to make and so on?

And my just point on the storage space,

would be just a question to the planning offices,

whether storage space is part of the space standards

required for units.

It'd be useful to just know that.

In terms of the employment contribution, it is set out within the planning obligations

SPD, so if it is under a threshold, I think it is 50 units, but I will confirm that, it

is a financial contribution. If it is anything above that, then it is an employment plan,

basically, which then the developer and our employment team and work

match, they work together in terms of coming together and doing a plan

together. If a scheme is under that threshold, then it is just a

contribution which then our employment team will then use within the

Just in terms of the storage, the only requirement for storage is internal storage, so that is

set out in the technical housing standards. That would be in relation to the new units.

I think it was in Haywood Gardens that I met a resident who was desperate to downsize from

their current property, because I think they were paying bedroom tax, etc., a local authority

resident. Would it be possible for someone from one of the adjacent blocks as part of

this wider group to downsize into, say, Innis Garden from Hayward Gardens, for example,

or is it just restricted to those sites?

My understanding is that there is a local lettings plan, so people within the estate

are able to put themselves forward to downsize, or if they are overoccupying, to put themselves

on a waiting list. That will be allocated by the housing team and the housing department,

which are separate to the housing and regeneration department. There is a section 1, or the unilateral

undertaking there would be a local letting plan which would set all that out. My understanding

is that that is the procedure for these Council.

Ms Malloy, I should have possibly jumped in, thank you. We have some people from the housing

department who might be able to answer that specifically. Do you know what the local letting

plan is? Has it been agreed yet? Can you answer that question?

I would not be able to add much more than what Cathy has already explained, that there

will be a local lettings plan in place as things progress.

So with luck, there are so many competing demands on council housing, who knows, but

the potential is there for people to downsize, if that is the right, or possibly even upsize,

though it is unlikely, in the new buildings if they go ahead.

Yes, and that's a priority for the housing department.

OK.

Councillor Humphries and I are then going to draw it to conclusion.

Thank you, Chair, for letting me in under the wire.

It's a separate point again, and again it's something that was raised last time at Committee on the previous application on Tollan Square,

but I was trying to find it relevant to that.

I'm thinking about future -proofing the estates and provisions for where we're going ahead rather than what's adequate now,

and on the things like the food recycling and bulky waste.

Again, I know these are things that concern the residents

and I tried to find it in the report,

but forgive me, I couldn't find it.

The reference is to how we're going to deal with that.

Again, when those things get rolled out

across the borough more widely,

is there a provision in this application

to accommodate the food recycling and also bulky waste,

which is always an issue on the estates

or somewhere where that's gonna go

and we don't want it to become an issue, more of an issue.

In terms of the refuse, there is space within the two buildings to accommodate the waste.

In terms of the bulky waste, that is something that our waste manager has raised, and that

is within the consultation comments. We have put on a condition to secure further details

of that. That would come forward at a later stage. That is condition 27.

That is condition 27 also included. We are looking at somewhere to put bulky storage,

somewhere to put any kind of storage for residents, because even if it is not our policy, it would

be something that residents would appreciate.

Thank you, Mr Milne. I am happy to go straight to a vote, if a vote is required. Otherwise,

the recommendation is the recommendation

from the planning officers that this application

should be approved.

Is that agreed?

We need to vote.

Those in favor, please show.

Those against?

That application's passed by six votes to four.

We move on to the next application,

which is, remind myself, is the Haywood Gardens, isn't it?

The next one.

And that's where Councillor Sutter and Ambash

are going to give a presentation.

We've had the general introductory remarks from Ms. Molloy.

So just waiting for, I'm quite happy to take it

alphabetically and if that's okay, Councillor Ambash.

He'd like to go first.

Ah, well of course we defer to the wounded amongst us, don't we?

The depth of feeling for residents living in Haywood Gardens is profound.

Despite three consultations, many people feel that the Council just hasn't listened,

nor changed the plans for the proposed two buildings, HG1 and HG2.

The concerns many residents have expressed to me include massing, loss of privacy,

loss of light, the enclosed design of the fourth side of the rectangle,

and the loss of open space.

I'll do my best to cover them in two and a half minutes chair.

Page 264, Para 5 -3, talks about part F of LP 4, and it says,

respect the width, scale, and proportion of adjacent buildings.

This is to do with massing.

The proposed new buildings are higher, over three meters higher,

and more than twice as wide compared with the existing buildings.

Many local people feel this does not respect the proportions of the existing buildings.

The design review panel said in June 23 appears to support this view.

They say on page 255,

however, how the building tops are designed is critical

and we do not think the Innis Gardens IG1 or Heywood Gardens are successful

as they feel too large and dominant.

Now, loss of privacy, the summary here on overlooking para 11 .7 says overall on balance,

given the distances, orientation and location of the balconies and degree of overlooking

has been found acceptable.

The degree of additional impact is not considered substantial.

Clearly this confirms that there is some negative impact.

Loss of daylight and sunlight, pages 267 to 271,

gives a reduction in the visible sky across many buildings

with losses of VCS ratings from 32 % through to 45 %

in PARAs 2 .9 to 2 .31.

PARA 9 .44, it says a number of isolated windows

could not achieve the BRE guidance.

Further, many residents are concerned about the overshadowing of the community gardens

on the north side of Hayward Gardens, covered in 9 .41.

This important central amenity would be badly impacted.

Clearly, there are significant losses of sunlight and daylight.

Loss of open space, page 262, para 2 .2, 8 % loss of space.

Para 2 .5 says whilst the loss of open space would be contrary to policy LP 53, and it

goes on, the report justifies this by talking about planning balance.

That's the loss of open space is considered acceptable in this instance is what it says.

So clearly another detriment.

In conclusion, of course we need more affordable housing, but these proposals go too far, several

breaches of the planning guidance and detriment for existing local residents.

I hope the committee will reject the application and the council will come

back with a more acceptable development proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ambersch. Councillor Suttles. I'll try and sub this back as

I'm going through because I don't want to repeat everything that my colleague

has said. I speak on behalf of Heywood Gardens again who have strongly resisted

these proposals and I would say that the council has aggressively pursued them.

The complaints are genuine and they're well thought through. Residents value the

existing environment. This is not necessarily about the number of flats

and increased density, it is about the buildings themselves and inappropriate

building placement, loss of amenity. Consultation began very very late and

positioning was fixed, meaning residents had only limited input into peripheral issues.

I really think that's a big issue here. It's also noteworthy that the officer's report

employs unverified CGIs. This does not evoke trust nor aid understanding. Some of them

I looked at actually show Heywood Gardens as quite a wide carriageway. In fact, it's

narrow cul -de -sacs and that's not good either. Support consultants reports seem to be after

the fact and by styling the area as urban rather than suburban there is a shift in their

conclusions but it is hard to imagine why you would call this an urban area. If you

doubt reports before you, you really do have to ask questions and maybe reject this application.

Kaplan Design, H .G. 1 and 2 upset the original design narrative and changed the perception

of space and outlook. Tacking blocky, overly modeled building form of varying heights to

the clean lines of the original building footprints risks a disconnect in both design and material

integration and this was not really fully resolved in the application. I did look for

a few times. Also, cycle storage and bikes at ground floor level, this is just not something

that should be done in 2024 and it's not good to walk across in the frontage for women.

Community facilities are limited to only one oddly placed community hall and I'm not really

sure why it is where it is. The relocated Spley's Place from the central area has lost

safeguards offered by passive surveillance and overlooking and lots of residents object

to the reciting. As my colleague said, the daylight and sunlight studies flag some unfortunate

VSC losses and the FTP and the transport assessments misrepresented Jane senses, demographics and

ease of access to facilities. The area is PTL2. Residents need their vans and cars for

work and for household management. The fall in provision has caused anger and

re -provision should be looked at. Added to this local buses are now infrequent

and it is a very head fit of household who shops on foot or cycles six to eight

kilometres as the report tells us Mr. Tiddley. Anyway finally internal

storage which has been brought up. When Hayward Gardens was built adequate

internal storage was not an issue, was never an issue in the old days, it was always external

storage. So the flats that exist there rely upon storage for overspill. The lost lock -ups

will have an effect on residents' lives and should be replaced. It's fine saying the new

flats will do better, but we should be looking after our existing residents.

Thank you, Councillor Sutters. I will be in trouble with the whip because I allowed you

both to have about a minute extra. But well done between the two of you. Obviously, a

in the public gallery and indeed us, because as we said before, it is a very fine estate

and we do not want to change that.

Ms Molloy, any comments on this particular application?

Just in terms of the neighbouring amenity point and the daylight and sunlight report,

the findings are fully set out within the officer report and there are some isolated

windows, which do have more of an impact. However, these are secondary windows and the

full justification in terms of each window is fully set out in the officer report and

also the daylight and sunlight report, which has been submitted with the application. In

In terms of the design of the proposal, this has gone through quite a lot of pre -app discussions.

It's gone through the design review panel.

It's gone to our design colleagues internally who are broadly supportive of the architecture

and the form.

In terms of there is going to be a change.

these are buildings infilling areas within the estate.

So I think we have made it quite clear in the report that there will be an impact.

However, on balance and when you review the public benefits, officers are of the view

that this is acceptable.

In terms of the kind of design, the bulk and the massing, this has been reduced towards

the rear of the building to again reduce that impact on surrounding properties.

Thank you, Mr Lloyd. Can I just ask you to, perhaps, to cease being a planner for a moment?

I'm just an ordinary person. I think I know what he means, but for everyone else's benefit,

but when Councillor Ambaish talks about some technical VSH

or whatever it was, reducing from 25 to 42%,

I can't remember the exact figures.

You just now said secondary rooms or some words like that.

Can you explain in the type of rooms,

what are we talking about, lavatories, kitchens,

halls, something that makes, if you know what I mean,

and what that means, roughly speaking.

Just in terms of some of the areas

where it shows more of an impact,

often these rooms have secondary, another source of light.

So some of the windows, and again,

some of the areas are kind of in,

trying to explain it.

In terms of isolated windows, which are almost set under balconies or in isolated corners,

various things like that, there are a lot of windows surrounding the development, which

has been tested. Some of them have other sources of light and also are bedroom windows rather

than main habitable rooms.

and things like that. Overall, the daylight and sunlight report has concluded that for

the majority of the windows, the level of daylight and sunlight is acceptable.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Apps.

Yeah, I would like, Councillor Apps, I would like to ask a question to Councillor Ambash,

if I may. So, I am allowed to, right? We obviously heard your concerns loud and clear. I have

to say, I have to put it in balance with when I look at these proposals, when I look at

proposals regularly here, there is often not all windows meet, say not all planning meets

all of the kind of daylight or other grounds and we have to put that in balance. So obviously

I'm weighing that up but what is the aspect that most concerns you overall about this

development? Apologies for not giving an opportunity to

for those should have said that.

I think the thing that most concerns the residents

is the thing that most concerns me.

It's about the scale of the development.

It's about, we have three sides with open space

in the middle, a lot of people sit in the open space,

young people, but also elderly people too,

who don't want to go far from their house.

We're closing off, is it the north side

or the south side, Che?

I sometimes get the line of Haywood Gardens.

So it's the words I started with on the massing,

the size of that fourth thing,

it's going from six stories down to five,

and the report says I don't understand

all the technicalities, it's more acceptable,

five is obviously a bit lower,

but the sixth floor with modern standards

means the whole building is higher

and kind of overlooking people.

So I've kind of talked to individuals who've said,

I'm worried I'll look out of my window

and the people on the new side

will look straight into my window.

I won't be able to go and sit out in the green space.

The playground is being moved.

That has some pluses and minuses.

But some children may have to go a bit further

to a much better playground.

So there are some benefits in terms of the playground.

but it's not going to be quite so local.

But it's the massing overall that's the most concerning issue.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Ambish.

Sorry, go back to any comments, questions.

I do beg your pardon, I didn't allow time, but if anyone wants to ask questions of either

of the councillors, then let's take those first

before going on to the technical planning questions.

Councillor Lavinda.

Thank you.

I, both councillors, that is an ambush,

are eloquent in representing their local residents' views.

The question I have for both of them,

and then it's certainly the local member of parliament's

views also recorded in here,

that given how strongly you feel,

given how strongly local residents feel,

and given how strongly the local member of parliament feels,

what have you done to ensure that the applicant

and the appropriate cabinet member has adequately heard

and reflected those views in revising the scheme?

Spoken to him extensively, tried to argue our points, told him how residents feel.

He has been up to Ashburton, he won't tell us the dates on what he's coming, so we

missed those meetings.

But I have sought Councillor Dickardam out deliberately because I am not afraid to face

people one to one on something as important as this to my residents.

I too have had informal meetings both with Councillor Dickerman and the leader of the

council and one of them with the Member of Parliament to explain the depth of feeling

about the consultation.

And when one of the problems was that

the first consultation got off on a really bad start.

And so I understand people were a bit skeptical.

They got the invitation to come to the consultation

in Granite School the week after the consultation

had happened because there was a postage delivery problem.

But I've been at all the consultations

and I've encouraged Councillor Dickardham to come to the consultations and I think

he's been to two of the three consultations, if not all three.

Yes, but I think just to say I'm not absolutely certain of this but I think that Councillor

Dickardham would say he'd been to all three. I mean, I think, but go on.

It's a bit difficult if we're asked the question straight out. We have to give a straight answer,

so I'm sorry, I owe him no disrespect,

and I think he really does believe in the schemes.

But by the time that first consultation was held,

the building footprints were set.

That's my point.

It was never a real consultation,

and we've managed to make no headway since.

Thank you.

I think there's no doubt that everyone understands,

as I said before, it's a very attractive estate.

There's no doubt everyone understands the strength

of the feeling about it, particularly those locally.

We're trying to look at it from a planning point of view

and give them the advice we've got.

So just remember that.

Any questions from

from members got to go. Sorry. Have we finished with the with the

Thank you council Coakley

Thank You chair

Just based on the

Informities that we had for the last application. I'm just

asking whether we it's appropriate to have the same ones for this application if it is approved as well and

also

as an informative

mention especially, Councillor Ambach's written statement

about the community center, if we could maybe also be

an informative to encourage the council to really look

at that central area and if there are more opportunities

to sort of develop the sense of community space there,

if they are to do so.

So you're not sure I heard all that,

but you're asking for the informatives about

building construction plans, those kind of informatives

apply to this application as well.

I'm sure that's true, is it not?

Yeah, if we take it as read that those informatives

will be on all three, we're all three to get consent.

And?

And then also, specifically with this one,

there was, I was saying how the community center

was maybe not in such an appropriate place.

And while we are going ahead with the community centre

in that place, if also the central areas,

I think it was Tildsey,

and so the informative to encourage the applicant

to sort of keep an eye on that area.

And if there are more opportunities to develop

this sense of community in that area,

then I think that'd be really appreciated by the residents.

I think, I wonder whether anyone from the department

can confirm this. The applicants have been trying to consider whether the community centres

should be anywhere near what the sales call shopping area. Have they not? But there are

problems with it. Is that right? That's correct in terms of the leases. So there's long leases

on the shops. So in terms of also just from a planning point of view, it's not within

the red line site. So it's not something we could put an informative on. But it is something

that the applicant is aware of and again looking into, but we cannot secure it under this application.

Hopefully, there might be room for movement.

Councillor Apps.

I have a couple of questions.

One relates to the trees and landscaping.

It is regrettable that some of the trees would need to be removed, but there are a number

of trees being transported and relocated?

What steps are being taken to make sure

that those trees are safeguarded?

What measures are taken to make sure

that during construction the trees aren't damaged

or damaged in the future?

And just on the issue of storage at Haywood Gardens as well,

I wanted to ask about what the visual appearance is

of the storage and I can't actually visualize it.

I can remember the garages at Innis Gardens

but I can visualize those but I can't visualize if you've got any and if

there's any kind of pictures or anything that be useful or if you could describe

it I'm just very conscious that in a development in my own ward in Gideon

Road there were some garages that were used for storage they were sort of

undersized for full cars so primarily used for storage and I guess you get

used to things so they just always part of the visual landscape but they

actually looked a bit ropey to be honest and when now that they've been replaced

with smaller storage units which are considerably smaller I have to say so

it's a compromise for residents but that it's a better look in the estate and I

wondered if there might be a way that there could be some new storage

introduced which would be a help but also that we could make sure that was in

keeping with the overall design as well if that's possible but I know that can't

be a planning requirement but I would be interested to know if housing had looked at that at all.

Any comment? Sorry, I was just going to have a street view

up. Just in terms of the trees and landscaping, there is a category B tree going and also

some category C and U trees that are going. However, in terms of

replacement, we have 13 trees planted at Hg1 and then another

11 at Hg2. In terms of if we are looking at all three sites

together, we would be looking at 69 trees being planted. In

In terms of the conditions, there is conditions on tree protection and landscaping details

as well.

Thank you.

Councillor White.

A couple of questions.

One is around the design review panel.

again. I wonder if anyone could comment on the second point of

the sustainability section about passive house principles. These

homes are already reaching quite high standards, but the design

review panel has said that we could reach a higher standard.

Also around active travel, the same point really, could we

improve on what we have got?

In terms of the design review panel, that was undertaken in 2023. There was a period

of time where the plans evolved and things moved on in terms of sustainability. We got

more information about that. In terms of our policy, we require either passive house or

home quality mark. This scheme is achieving home quality mark, which is in accordance

with our policy requirements and also in terms of carbon emissions, very sustainable as well

in terms of I think it is either 70 or 71 % carbon reduction. These are good energy efficient

buildings.

In terms of active travel, there will be cycle storage, travel plans as well. In terms of

some of the other measures, we have under the unilateral undertaking some additional

things like car clubs and things like that.

Is there parking for the car clubs on the estate?

Not on the estate, no. I think that has been investigated, but it is quite difficult to

do that on council estates as it were.

Also, I can ask one more question.

Especially if you remember that people want to hear.

In other words, speak up just a bit or microphone the area.

You are one of the other.

That is the first time anyone has said that to me.

On the fire safety as well, about the sprinklers, are they in the homes or in the communal areas?

I would have to check the fire report. I assume both, but the fire

statement would have been reviewed by an independent third party, so it

will meet all the relevant fire safety regulations. I would have to

confirm where they are, but I will have a look.

Can I point out that the Fleur Anderson MP, who has been quoted

quite a bit this evening, one way or another, also said, and I'm in the negative, the

kernels of concern she certainly comments on, but she also says she welcomes the council's

effort to support the delivery of more homes for local people and know many families who

want to live in these new flats and that the plans for the Ashburton estate started under

the previous administration here and have been revised under the current administration.

That's obviously an indication of the expectations of government in terms of what we need to

provide for housing in the borough.

So this is not being done for fun, but because we recognise a desperate need for affordable

housing in the borough, we want to make sure that this very nice estate is kept as very

nice as possible and that these applications are as good as possible. I again thought that

the review panel thought it was very good.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. Just a little correction there. With all respect to our MP in Putney,

she is actually incorrect on that.

Sorry, I just did not hear what you said.

I said, just as a matter of fact, it's not correct the assumption from the MP that this

scheme was originated under the previous administration, just as a matter of fact, rather than...

Oh, alright.

Okay.

But anyway, that's more than what I was actually going to say.

I do hope, and I'm sure they are, and it would be very surprising if they weren't, that the

cabinet member and the Director of Housing are listening to this debate tonight, because

I think it's, this is the Council's,

another Council's own application.

And I think it's evident from what we've heard tonight,

particularly, and from the residents,

that the deeply flawed nature of the consultation

and the whole approach to this from the beginning,

we all understand there's a need for housing.

And I think all the residents have said themselves,

they're not NIMIs and they understand

there's a need for housing,

but it was only some attempt

at bringing the residents on board earlier.

I hope these lessons are being learned

by those people listening to make sure that when further applications come forward they'll bring more consultation with the residents in the right time

earlier in the process to make sure that a scheme could be brought forward which may have in fact the support of the residents which

Is not what we're clearly seeing tonight and it's just as important for us to look after our

Existing residents is any future residents that might come forward in the process

Was that Councillor Justin putting his hand up as well?

No, okay. I did actually have a question which I haven't

asked yet if you may be so bold. What was the question?

We were talking earlier again quite often at length about the DRP.

It's interesting in recent times we've had a lot more direct quotes and a lot more reference

to the DRPs and details of what the reports actually say, which is welcome. I'm not criticising

that at all. It's really helpful to see what the DRP has said in more depth than we've

had in the past. I think that's a forward step. But what would be nice to see in this

report and in other reports coming towards us is a specific section in that after the

reflection of what the DRP said on any changes that have been made as a result of what the

DRP has said. Because at the moment we have to rummage all the way through it and try

and find out there's a bit there and there's a bit there. And just as a point for next

time, it would be really helpful to have a little summary of and the results and changes

were X, Y and Z.

Just one moment.

It's not an actual requirement but it's something we've taken on board and who thinks it's

a good idea to do it.

The government said you ought to do it.

Right.

I just wanted to explain for people in the public gallery who must be wondering what

on earth a DRP is.

The DRP is Design Review Panel,

which the previous government,

and I congratulate them on it,

the previous government suggested

local authorities should introduce.

Not has to, but should introduce.

And I think Wandsworth, again, credit to our predecessors,

was one of the first authorities

to introduce it on a regular basis.

And the DRP is a selection of professionals, by which I mean architects, town planners,

surveyors, perhaps surveyors, landscape architects.

I've been to one or two, listened to them, certainly ecologists, people who know an awful

lot about horticulture and about animals and birds and reptiles and all sorts of things,

that advises the council on what these applications are like.

Just to give a flavor of what a DRP might be.

Any other questions?

Councilor Govindia?

I've got three different areas, but just on the transport issue, car clubs was mentioned.

Is it the idea that only new residents would have access to car clubs, or would the old

residents also benefit from the largess of car club membership?

Secondly, there is a reference about emergency vehicles.

And I think the local residents have always expressed concern

that there are narrow roads in and around the estate.

Emergency vehicles have difficulties

because of parked cars and so on.

And in fact, life would be made difficult for them.

Now, is that issue being addressed adequately?

And do we have comments from the emergency vehicle people,

in the blue light people, saying they

are happy with access into and out of the estate.

Chairman, can I come back after Mr. Chitli's answer?

There's a couple of other things.

Mr. Chitli, presumably the car clubs

are just ordinary commercial car clubs.

Anyone can join anywhere.

This is about us encouraging them in this particular area.

Is that right?

There were a couple of issues here.

The first is that the new residents that move in

would be presented with offers to encourage them

to join a car club.

But at the same time, anybody who lives locally

may also, of course, wish to be encouraged

to join the car club.

And colleagues are also considering,

through the access for all scheme,

to introduce discounts and offers that would also

make that more attractive as well.

In terms of the emergency arrangements

or the access arrangements, as far as I'm aware,

the roads around the sites would remain

very much as they currently are

and therefore there's no immediate

or obvious identified need for any particular improvements

but a highway authority's task on a day -to -day basis

is to consider assessments of highway safety

and whether there's any additional need

for single yellow lines here or double yellow lines there

is a day to day task that we will clearly always

be prepared to make.

So in paragraph 13 .5, it sort of says that

only five of the units would comply

with the external immunity standards.

I mean it's quite a significant number of units

that will not comply.

I mean the space standards and the paragraph

on standards of accommodation is saying it's not good enough

but we can live with it or they can live with it of course.

I mean it's quite a poor standard of accommodation

that is being offered here.

And whether that is a feature of the design

or the feature of cramming too many flats here,

I don't know but perhaps somebody could explain

whether those space standards could have been better met

by reducing the number of units.

Just in terms of the standards, the previous local plan required five square metres. When

these discussions and pre -app discussions were taking place, that was the requirement

at the time, so the design was evolving around those standards. When the new local plan came

in in 2023. That increased the standards to 10 square metres. On flatted developments,

these often become at 10 square metres, very oversized, overly large and result in issues

in terms of the flats below. It restricts light into those properties. It also has implications

on the design. It can look very bulky and heavy. In terms of the London plan, their

requirement is actually five square metres, with one square metre additional floor space

for every additional occupant. We have acknowledged in the report that some of these do not meet

the standards. However, given the amount of communal space across the estate and all the

improvements to the play space that on balance it's acceptable.

Any other questions? Councillor Colle. Thank you chair. So I saw in this

particular application that there was a 10 % reduction in the biodiversity and

part of the justification for that was because of the offset gain in the others

because I noticed there was a gain in the in the previous applications as well

the Courtice Road application. I was wondering if the officers had any statistics of on balance

how much, you know, is there a sort of environmental improvement of the area from the three applications

in terms of urban green and biodiversity because I feel like that's more useful to get like

a better picture of it.

Mr Molloy, I was intrigued by the accuracies of these statistics too. I wonder how many

butterflies or newts or whatever have been counted everywhere. Can you give us some detail

on that?

Just in terms of the biodiversity net gain, when these applications came in, it was not

compulsory or a requirement. However, the applicant has undertaken that. They have also

done the urban greening factor, which is a requirement of our local plan and also the

London plan. In terms of the urban greening factor, that will increase from 0 .43 to 8 .3,

so there will be an increase of that.

Is this for the specific application for all three? My question was more all three, because

I know this one has a biodiversity net loss of 10 % and they said it was more than offset

because of the gains elsewhere.

I was wondering what the overall gain was from the applications together.

There will be an increase in overall soft landscaping.

There will be 58 square metres additional landscaping.

Often with the biodiversity net gain, when you remove a tree, that is what almost reduces

it and it is quite difficult to bring that up. The applicant has worked with our ecologist

and our parks team to really get the value back into these sites in terms of the type

of planting, green roofs and various ecological enhancements. That will all be secured by

condition.

There has been quite a piece of work done on that. On the Haywood Gardens in particular,

the ratio of tree planting is one to four. There is going to be quite a lot of additional

landscaping across the estate generally.

Thank you. I am going to take the vote on the recommendations in a moment, but Councillor

Humphries is last.

I appreciate it, Chair. It is a separate point entirely, but on this particular application

out of the three, this is obviously a very close neighbour of ARK Academy, just over

the road on the other side of the way.

And I wondered if there is any scope in this application

to do some work collaboratively with the school.

So whether that's in the nature of,

and it doesn't explicitly say,

but perhaps something we could add in.

They're going to actually work with the school.

There might be opportunities for work experience

for the children in the school over there.

And also there's a school street

which is in operation at the school.

And that would have an impact on deliveries and such like

at times of the day.

One of that's been taken into account by Mr Tilly when we're looking at the transport

strategy on this one.

So there are implications on this particular one that aren't on the other ones that are

relevant that haven't been bottomed out in the report.

It's also the case, which surprises me somewhat, that talking about all the qualities of this

state, the fact that it's across the road from one of the largest areas of open space

in the borough which might mean the quality,

the amount of open space in individual facts

is perhaps less contentious than it might be

in other places in the borough.

Not mentioned, nor mentioned the fact

that we can all see it 10 times in the next month or two

in Love Actually continually being played on the TV.

Any comment about that, Ms. Malloy, or perhaps that's...

Just in terms of again, just going back to the new engagement and community engagement

officers that have been appointed, and I know they're doing quite a lot of work locally

within the estate, and my understanding is they are going to be talking to local schools.

Okay, thank you. Let's take the recommendations. Those in favour of the application as it stands?

with the informatives as already agreed.

Those against?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Sutter's ambush.

Can we move on to the next one,

which is back to, I think, Councillor Austin on...

The decision, sorry.

Sorry, the decision was approved by,

recommendation was approved by six votes to four.

Okay, I beg your pardon if that wasn't clear,

but Gansler Austin, we're on to the next one,

Court is Road.

Colleagues, like the proverbial padpenny, I'm back.

I'd like to thank the chair once again for his indulgence.

Last night, the leader tabled a motion

about compassionate Christmas,

and it is certainly not a compassionate or Merry Christmas

for the residents of the Ashburton Estate this year.

My residents, they understand that we need to provide

more social and affordable homes. We need family homes. There are no family homes in

this application, not one. The argument put forward is that building one and two bedroom

flats will allow those who want smaller homes to downsize into, thereby freeing up larger

homes for families in need. To answer Councillor Apt's point, there are only 20 people in

West Putney according to the Council's own stats who are looking to downsize currently.

The biggest single housing issue in Wandsworth for those in social housing is overcrowding,

though we can probably add being ignored to that as of this evening.

I work in housing. I find this approach so frustrating because with a bit of care and thought

we could have given families with two and three children a wonderful new home to call their own.

Instead, the administration is playing a numbers game of rack em and stack em.

I don't care what they are, just get us over the thousand homes line.

I know this is novel for the Labour Party to want to keep their election promises.

Just ask any farmer or business owner recently, but this obsession with the thousand unit

number is doing real harm to local residents.

Courtis Road is further away from any public transport as it suffers from the worst connectivity of all the sites in the Ashburton Development Scheme.

The traffic survey having given a peat how which barely scrapes the rating of two just and sits on the cusp of 1B.

Residents in Innis Gardens and Hayward Gardens can at least cut through to Putney Heath more easily.

And at the risk of repeating myself, conducting traffic surveys in school holidays, where

there is a primary directly opposite and the results were woefully inadequate and do not

conform to the Lambeth method.

Just to give context to this from the previous application, the surveys took place the week

before the half term, six and five days from the start of the half term period, ergo within

the seven -day buffer period.

it does not conform to the Lambeth method.

The new residents of this building will be heavily reliant on cars,

as it is the most inaccessible of all the sites,

and again, over 50 % of parking is not CPZ controlled.

A thriving, wonderful primary school is within 200 metres of the site.

Having a long period of construction work outside the classroom

is going to cause huge disruption to the children and their learning environment. The dust in

emissions from construction and traffic and building work will mean the air quality in

the area will stop classroom windows being opened and could cause the playground to be

a no -go area altogether. The noise from construction will have a detrimental effect on the learning

environment and the children's mental health. Courtice Road is narrow with cars parked down

one side and it is heavily used adding a large number of construction vehicles into this

environment next to the school is just an accident waiting to happen. To me, substantial

private outside space is non -negotiable and this application does not even come close.

As someone who lived through Covid in a property without outside space, I know what it is like.

Upgrading a playground next door and expanding another playground, while commendable, is

not good compensation when you are only allowed out one hour a day and you are not allowed

to be near anyone else. None of these sites meet those standards and it is simply unacceptable.

The report says that all the trees on the site will be retained. Trees T4 to T9 are

in such close proximity to the construction site. Roots will protrude into the construction

area, the tree canopy is going to cause issues making crane work

impossible on site. The stress put on the trees' reduction in

nutrient availability, water drainage, root damage and soil

compaction will ultimately result in these trees dying and needing

to be removed. If this is the best the Council can do, having spent

over a third of a million pounds in fees, then it isn't a good

reflection on the applicant who happens to also be the council. I would urge you to save

your colleagues from making a terrible mistake and vote against this application.

4 minutes 47 seconds. Excellent on timing, a little bit unfair I think on the approach.

I might ask you questions like exactly what kind of housing you do work in, but that's

a different matter. Any questions for the for the Councillor?

Councillor Govindia sorry. Thank you.

Councillor Austin you mentioned the local primary school and the disturbance during

construction period. The paper talks about a construction logistics plan. Are you aware

whether the applicant has engaged with the school in devising that logistics plan and

If not, do you think it should?

Sorry, I didn't know if Councillor Apps

wanted to say something first.

No, I don't think so.

Not for Councillor Apps to refine

Councillor Govindia's question.

The question was directed at you, Councillor.

I have reached out to the head teacher at Granard Primary.

I haven't had a direct answer

as to whether they have been engaged,

but yes, they should at least definitely be engaged.

As a matter of interest, Councillor Osterling,

you mentioned Granard School.

Many schools in the borough are having a slight problem,

to put it mildly, with school roles

because of the falling age of primary school population.

Is Granard by any chance?

I don't have the specific data for Granard,

but I know in West Putney that there is currently

about a 20 % vacancy rate.

So there is a vacancy rate.

So in that sense at least, refreshing our schools

with a new young blood, these developments

might be very helpful.

So there is a positive side.

Counselor Apps, you wanted to ask a question?

Well, it was more a point of clarification, actually,

which is the resident I spoke to who wanted to downsize

had actually tried to downsize several years

before through the council and had actually given up.

And I was encouraging her to renew her application.

And I imagine there's quite a few other people who maybe

could be thinking about it, maybe have had a bad experience in the past. This was several

years before by the way. And you know they give up putting their lives on hold and they

want to move forward and if they see the new housing then that becomes an opportunity.

But the other thing I'll just say is it's about the mix of housing for me overall. You

know it's yes we do need new family homes but we also need really good quality housing

for single people as well. I wondered if you could reflect on that.

As I said earlier, when it gets to, and I'm slightly guilty myself of getting into technical

questions which if you want to ask that question, ask it to the officers I think. Any other

questions specifically of Councillor Austin? No? Ms Malloy, we want to present, keeping

you busy this evening.

Kathy don't rush we've got to Chris has gone to take somebody out so you can't

is going to help you with the chairing.

Have we got a break for a moment?

No. In that case, go on and carry on.

Carry on, Ms Mouloy.

There we are.

Oh, right.

Thank you.

This is Qantas Road, item 9.

In terms of the two sites, this area here is where the new building is proposed.

and just in terms of the unit mix,

it's six two bed units and one one bed units.

And then the existing playground here

would be increased in size and upgraded.

Just a quick overview of the kind of layouts

and the kind of scale and then also the ground floor there.

So we've got a unit on the ground floor

and some ancillary items such as bike and bin stores.

In terms of heights, we have five storeys and then it drops down to three storeys.

The reason for that was in terms of the daylight and sunlight analysis,

which was showing up that it would just be two imposing on some of the local residents.

Again, just some idea of some additional landscaping. These are the cedar trees over here, which

Councillor Austin was referring to. They have been looked at with our arborculturists. Also,

there are various conditions on about tree protection measures. Given that it is a Council -owned

development. We have control over these trees. They will need to be pruned. In terms of the

windows on that elevation facing the trees, again, they are secondary windows, so they

will have additional light from other sources. The pressure to prune, we do not think, is

going to be too much of a concern. Over here is the number 6, which is where the new playground

will be, so again that is going to be increasing size and also upgraded, and then again the

central playground in the middle of the estate.

Thank you, Mr Loy. I would have said personally that most of the issues in general have been

covered one way or another this evening. But I don't want to close down completely.

Any comments, questions people want to ask specifically, Councillor Galindy, Councillor

Owens, Councillor Humphries?

A question about the kind of overall child yield. I mean, I think Councillor Belton mentioned,

and in a sense, ability to refresh

Granard's falling school role.

What's the child yield projected

over the three developments here?

And my second question in the area of Sadat

is what is the local lettings plan for the Ashburton

and what does it indicate by way of how many families

are waiting to downsize and how many families

are overcrowded and went wanting to live in something

more spacious.

I think, I'm sorry, I think that's a question

for the housing committee.

You asked, sorry, Councilor Gibbins,

you've asked that in a very broad sense.

I was once told one of the earlier committees,

this council that it's all very well, Tony,

that's my first name for those who may not know,

it's all very well, Tony, you shared it all right,

but it's a bit of a Govindia, Belton show,

and that's what it was, and I've been trying to avoid that

for years, you raised, Councilor Austin raised

Grand Isle School, I raised Grand Isle School,

you raised Grand Isle School back at me,

that we all know that Granite School was a red herring.

Now actually, actually, now let me finish, let me finish.

By all means, pursue all the statistics in the borough

about the number of single units and double units.

All you're doing is trying to prove that my argument

to Gouns Austin rather in fun about the school roles

may or may not be accurate.

Well, I understand that, accept it.

I withdraw that remark.

Councillor Molloy cannot possibly answer all the details of housing.

Would you care to keep it to something simple rather than broadening it as far as you want?

I have to say, child yield is something that planners often talk about and therefore I

just thought that the child yield would have been something that would have been considered.

And then you went on to say, and what are the statistics about that?

etc, etc, etc.

No, no, and since we have somebody from the Housing Department who did talk about the

local lettings plan, I just wondered if she had information at hand about what Ashburton's

local lettings plan was.

I think that was answered earlier in a sense, but do you have anything to add?

No, just to reiterate really that there will be a local lettings plan in place. I don't

have any information beyond that right now. These matters are actually decided through

Housing Committee because they are quite detailed housing policy matters. I cannot add more

than that. So who was that? It was like the Councillor Owens. Sorry I don't have the yield but I have the

number of bedrooms overall on the three sites so it's 26 one beds, 33 two

beds, 18 three beds and two four bed units so that I don't know the charge

yield on that but it is generating a charge yield which then links into the play space

and those provisions are met.

Councillor OWEN.

Thank you. I am going to bring up Granard School. I have a couple of questions to follow

up from Councillor Austin on the impact. They appear to have a school street on Courtice

Terrace, which is right beside Aquotas Road. I was wondering how that will be impacted

as well as to the general impact of all the disturbance.

We have spoken quite a bit tonight about construction management plans and this development, like

the others would be subject to a satisfactory

construction management plan.

It's very common, in fact it's a normal requirement

that construction traffic, particularly larger

construction traffic does not enter or access the area

during school arrival and drop off times.

That's just a standard requirement of most

construction management plans.

The other two main requirements I always look at

is that there's always a contact detail,

so any residents or communities around the community

around any site can easily access information.

And the third bit is to ensure that there's something

in there about maintaining safety of cyclists

because construction traffic and cyclists

generally don't mix.

So those are the sort of three areas.

The school street would almost certainly

just continue to operate as it currently does.

And as I said, when the plan comes in,

we'll check against all those requirements.

Can I suggest we go to a vote?

I think we all know the position generally.

OK, no one's objecting.

Those in favor of this application?

Those against?

6 -4.

That application's passed.

Now, that concludes the Ashburton sites.

There's one in Akroyd, which I think should be

possibly less contentious, and then perhaps

a very quick break after that.

So if we can turn to item 10, which is on page 337,

and is an application for six -story building with, I can't remember exactly, was it eight?

I can't remember the number of units.

It was only five.

Five units.

So, Mr Molloy, your turn again, I think.

Oh, sorry, Ms Richards, I beg yours.

Ellen, can you introduce yourself?

Thank you, Councillor. My name is Ellen Richards. I'm the team leader for the west area.

As you've just summarised, this is another application by the Council for five one -bed units on a site in Aquoiden Estate.

All of them will be social rent.

I think you might say it gives the corner.

And I can...

Yeah, there's a gap at the moment.

I'm looking for a word.

It should have a dome or a tower on top of it as a presence.

That's right.

Any comments on it?

Council Member?

I have a question about how many dual aspects.

I'm reading through the standards paragraphs.

it looks like not many, and it was some of the BRE guidelines

not being possible, and I think it's kind of dismissed

at saying some of the rooms are not, does it say?

None of the habitable room in the development face

within 90 degrees due site.

I mean, almost suggests that the site is inappropriate.

I mean, is that not the case?

I mean, it says the exception to this is a living room

kitchen area, the proposed first floor floor

which will receive daylight below the BRE recommendation

in the summer months, which is exactly when you want

sunlight coming in your house in the summer months.

And this just seems to be quite a tight fit

in an ill -placed space.

And presumably, it's ill space, it's not been built in

because the original planners thought this is not

the place to put anything.

Ms Miller, any comment?

It is a corner site, it is an infill location.

It is going to be hard up against some kitchen windows.

again, we've talked about the impact of windows

and how we have to sort of gauge the impact

on those windows based on what they're used for,

whether or not they're primary or secondary sources

of light and so on.

In this case, the block and all of the floors,

all of the flats will be dual aspect.

There are some windows, kitchen windows

to the neighboring blocks that would be affected,

but again, it's a balance really

of what extent of impact that would be.

In the round, these will provide good standard of accommodation.

In the report, it says,

kitchen, living room stroke, kitchen area.

Sorry, can you direct me to where you're actually...

Can we perhaps use the microphones, then?

Page 341, you say.

Thank you, Councillor.

Again, it is an assessment of what has been submitted by the applicants in terms of the

internal lighting standards for the proposed units.

There are standards for what those should be in terms,

and I think it's talking about lux standards and so on.

And again, it's a balance about how much internal lighting

each of those rooms, depending on their use and so on,

whether or not they offer

a adequate standard of accommodation,

which is the case here.

The dual aspect, there's a large balcony area

that brings in light as well from double doors.

I don't think you could look at these

and consider them to be substandard residential accommodation.

I'm sorry to pursue this.

I mean, if it is not relevant,

then why do we say in a report that it is below standard?

If the standard doesn't matter, why do we have standards?

I mean, I appreciate that the conclusion would be that on balance it is still okay. I'm not challenging that bit of it

I'm just challenging whether this is a showstopper

What you're saying is it's not at the words here indicate. This would be a very poor flat

But we are okay with it because we're going not to live in it

Council Sayers

Can I point out

these

luxury bathrooms with a window so you have natural light and natural ventilation.

When you're having a bath.

Plus a beautiful balcony as my neighbour has just said.

Some people have baths as well and a nice natural light.

OK, we've got our views on natural light about dual aspect rooms etc.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. Again, it is something I have said before and something I continue

to say and something I continue to find disappointing, that when it is a Council's own application,

we do not hit all the standards, whatever standard it might be. It is an area that is

suitable for five -storey buildings and our own LP4 policy. This is six storeys. The standards

are not quite as good as they should be, but it is okay. It is adequate. It is very frustrating

for planning members who want to see the best of the borough. There has to be a compromise

to try and fit these things in. If it is compromised so much, it is disappointing when we as a

committee have to challenge any applicant across the borough, whether it is a private

developer or the council zone. If we ourselves do not meet the standards that we set, it

makes it very difficult to enforce it against anybody else.

I take this very hard when we're putting one story on, part five stories, which is for

public housing, when you and your colleagues approved, I can't remember, is it a 20 -story

block in my ward where the standard was, I've just been asking, I've just been asking Mr.

Mr. Calder, where he thinks it may have been eight or 10.

So to talk to me about one, when you imposed on my ward,

which really needs open space, 20 odd stories.

I find it very hard to take this one story

provided for people on the waiting list or wherever it is,

in an area where we need housing.

Councilor Apps, Councilor Colgate.

Councilor G

So I'd just like to reiterate that view as well which is that this is a scheme which is ambitious

for getting really good quality homes in place. Please don't interrupt me.

Okay come on boys and girls let's try and behave like adults. Come on, you know,

Council apps carry on.

Council Coakley, let's stop these two.

It is important that it's really good to see a council being ambitious for building new

affordable homes and that is what's driving this application.

We often have to look at on balance and this is another application we have to take on

balance.

Can I also draw attention to the biodiversity?

I'm really pleased to see that this element

of the design has been improved

and I hope you'll be consulting with residents

to see if we can see further improvement

in biodiversity across the estate

and also looking at other improvements

that residents would want to see

as part of the development.

Thank you, Councillor Copley.

I'm sure we could have a, I'm sure the planning colleagues would have a conversation with

about the interior spaces, like, it's a bit of a moot point, really.

It's a different thing, it's different priorities,

we're trying to prioritize social housing and so there are trade -offs,

but on balance it's still worth it.

The recommendations to approve, is it agreed?

Fotes? Those in favour?

And those against?

Right.

Sorry?

I beg your pardon.

Yes, that application, the acroid in the state was approved by six votes to four.

We will have a five -minute break and I do mean strictly five minutes before starting

again.

Thank you.

But don't worry, Chris, we are ready to go.

Okay we'll resume and that leaves Councillor Justin May or may not get in

time. I've got a few seconds or so. I've had a request which I'm happy to

acknowledge and just for the committee to know that we've had some public people

in the public gallery for application number two which is Battersea Square and

and also for application number 11,

which is a public house, so -called,

160, 162 Putney High Street,

where we've also got a councillor

who wants to speak as well,

and so I'm hanging it out for councillor Justin.

Well, I'm gonna take that one first, if that's okay.

So it's Battersea Square,

which is application number two, I beg your pardon as I'm scrubbing around this

as everyone else, which is on page 63. Now I'm not sure we need an introduction to

or do we we do need an introduction sorry I'm confusing my two. Mr. Granger.

Thank you, Chair. Nigel Granger, East Area Team Manager in Development Management. This

hopefully is the latest and hopefully the last application you will see at the Royal

Academy of Dance. If you look at the planning history, there have been several attempts

over the years when the Royal Academy moved to York Road, starting off with a residential

with a large roof extension over the granary building.

And then two other applications that were linked

to Thomas's school for education uses.

This effectively is the least invasive application

of all of these in terms of it's mainly for the change

of use of the existing buildings with the introduction

of air handling equipment and refurbishments mainly

of the granary building in terms of a lot of secondary glazing and refurbishment of

the existing warehouse style windows and other improvements to the overall sustainability

credentials of the granary building as the main heritage asset with the most significance

on the site.

Obviously the Fontaine building is a more modern addition to the overall suite of buildings

within the parcel of land.

The idea is to change the use, to provide some flexible uses incorporating class E and F uses.

E are generally more commercial uses that you may see on a high street, and F uses are more community -focused uses.

There's a blend of these uses with the introduction of some pure office space on the upper floors,

but that has been sequentially tested in terms of respecting or being required to

examine the town centre first approach but in all the units of sorry the uses

have been proven to be acceptable in policy terms along with the other

interventions to the building and the proposals recommended for approval

subject to conditions and a section 106 planning obligation.

Right, now I was perfectly happy with this when I read it through.

Councillor Colle please, got something?

Councillor Humphreys.

Thank you, Chair.

I took a lot of interest in this one because it was in my ward.

I really like the design and the layout.

I think it looks lovely.

It looks like the main concern when it comes to residents were specifically residents of

house in which the because the because the development backs out on that they're

worried about the increase in noise it says in the application that an acoustic

survey has taken place to make sure that there's not going to be excess noise and

that it didn't say in details like where the acoustic server was taken so could I

get some confirmation that this acoustic survey included a decent house and we're

so that the development will not negatively impact them with noise too much.

Mr Grainger.

Yes, certainly. The noise impact statement, the initial survey to inform the actual specification

and how the future performance of the air handling equipment and all the other equipment

would work. There are air source heat pumps up there as well. It has taken over several

points around the site and these microphones are basically placed in front of what are

known as sensitive receptors.

So these are peppered all over the site because obviously sound permeates from this equipment

but certainly Eaton House was included in that survey.

During the course of this application, for two reasons, the air handling equipment and

how it was arranged, a lot of it was arranged on the roof of the granary building and a lower level

of the granary building. There's some on towards Ship House and then a lower level towards the

Fontaine building. In two aspects, the impact of the air handling equipment, a lot of it was

quite prominent on the front elevation of the granary building as you walk into the courtyard.

We didn't think that that in conservation and heritage terms

was necessarily the most optimum way

to actually preserve the significance

of the granary building.

And also there was some of the equipment

was closer to Eaton House.

So as we looked at this in terms of the noise impacts

and the heritage impacts of this proposal,

a lot of that equipment was moved

to the east facing elevation along the parapets

that faces out towards Thomas's school.

So a lot of that equipment has actually been moved further away from Eaton House

and there are benefits in that regard in terms of reducing the impacts, having a

much more clean and unfettered elevation of the granary building and

moving away those those potential noise impactful noise generating equipment

away from sensitive receptors like Eaton House. So our in -house environmental

health noise specialist has assessed all of this, was involved with the negotiations,

has obviously looked at the baseline information in terms of the ambient noise levels and the

background noise levels in the location and is satisfied that the new location of this equipment

would perform adequately. But he did notice that there's a drop -off after 11 o 'clock at night where

everything calms down and there could be impact from the equipment if it were allowed to continue

running. So you'll see there's a condition recommended for the equipment not to operate

between 11pm and it can start up again at 7am in the morning in order to make sure that it doesn't

have any adverse effects. Brilliant thanks that covers pretty much everything I was worried about

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Humphries. Thank you. Just quickly on the noise thing,

thank you to Councillor Colle for raising that one. I understood from the comments in

the comment section that it was also not just about the plants and the equipment, but also

there were concerns slightly about the first floor event space and obviously that's people

coming in and out late night and stuff like that. So is that something that also can be

addressed through the noise and disturbance issue? Is that something for licensing they

want to do it as events and such like.

Because obviously when it was the RAD,

there was a lot of coming and going at certain hours.

And it's people rather than kit.

Yeah, there were all sorts in the RAD.

It did cater for a broad spectrum.

But this, I mean, within that particular use,

we don't think, we don't anticipate

that the noise and disturbance created

by the comings and goings is going to be

demonstrably different from what the RAD operated as.

However, for other reasons in terms of land use reasons

and just best practice in terms of management

and making sure that the actual uses

remain within particular uses,

we've got within the 106, we've got heads of terms

to obtain that information as a management plan.

And then we can get that information.

It's a live document, so if things do change over time,

then we can obviously amend that as the 106 clause.

So that's all covered within the future management.

Great, thank you, that's reassuring. My substantive point was actually on page 81, on the BRIAN

status, and it tantalisingly in 6 .4 says it's within reach to get to very good. And obviously

I appreciate officers always do their best to try to get the maximum we can, but I think

again, to try and make sure we do the absolute best we can, it would be very frustrating

and having flagged it up early if we don't get to that kind of score.

So it's all degrees, isn't it?

But obviously we want to get the maximum we possibly can credit after this kind of thing.

And it's frustrating sometimes when we hear that, oh, we could have done that if we'd

done X earlier.

And now I just wanted to make sure we're doing everything we can to make sure that doesn't

happen in this case and we get to what we've been teased with.

Certainly totally agree.

And we have pegged the BREAM score within condition six as to be very good as a minimum.

So hopefully that obviously sets out what our aspiration is as a local planning authority.

But I would say this is a heritage building and LP 10 does actually make allowances.

There is a balance to be struck between retaining the significance of the heritage asset, not

knocking it down, obviously, but improving it and that goes into the mix.

Is the Councillor White?

Just a couple of points.

On that point about retaining the building, that is excellent for sustainability.

Are there any retrofitting aspects to this?

Is there improvement of the fabric of the building?

and the way that we are going to have a sustainable energy system?

As I mentioned earlier, the approach to heat and cooler building has been done through

modern technology and sustainable equipment, like air source heat pumps and other examples

of technology along those lines.

In order to achieve a BRIAM score of very good, there has to be physical interventions

within the building in order to actually make it the B lean stage, when they actually make

it firmly efficient.

And also, the technology that they're using to run the proposal has well exceeded the

minimum 35 % of over part L 2021.

So everything is as best as it can do, can perform in this particular regard whilst maintaining

the significance of the building, you know, the granary building within a conservation

area.

Sorry, Chair.

Go on.

Another question.

And also it talks about the social and community, would it benefit Batsy social and community

infrastructure?

How would affordability and accessibility be assured so that all of the local community can benefit from it?

The pricing is something that we don't have a policy to be able to dictate what that looks like when the facility opens.

We could have done that if the actual floor area

of the change of use triggered

affordable workspace contributions,

but it doesn't, it's not the existing building

and the amount of use change,

because some of the actual floors still remain

within an educational F1 use.

It's only parts of the building that change

away from that F1.

So it doesn't trigger the amount of floor space

in order for us to require affordable workspace which would obviously be discounted and made

available to the public. It's binary in that regard in terms of what triggers affordable

workspace and what doesn't.

Is the application agreed?

greed unanimously thank you that we move on to page 369 an application for

Huttony High Street a gaming not a gambling but a gaming application and

Councillor Brooke is here to speak about it.

Councillor Brick.

Chairman, members of the committee,

thank you very much for the opportunity

to speak on behalf of Putney residents

who are united in their strong opposition

to this application for an adult gaming center

at the Noroy Road junction with Putney High Street.

Despite what the paper says,

this proposal is incompatible

with the local plan policy cited.

The gambling policy reaffirmed less than 24 hours ago in this very room, which this application

will need to satisfy at licensing.

And finally, it's completely wrong for Putney and the hopes that residents have for their

high street.

Let me first address the principles of development as outlined in the planning papers.

Paragraph 1 .2 claims that under policy LP42 and PM5, the application would need to diversify

the centre's offer and enhance the vitality of the centre.

This application does none of these and the assertion that it does when the

paper makes it is simply wrong. Adding yet another gambling venue to an area

already saturated with such uses doesn't diversify the high street or make it

more vibrant. There is already another gambling venue

just like the one the business making this application just 30 meters away and

there are two betting shops also in close proximity. To suggest that this

gaming centre would not contribute to over -concentration as either a mistake or a wilfully negligent

interpretation of reality. Paragraph 1 .6 of the report is another example of a glaring

contradiction. It acknowledges that our local planning includes measures to prevent over -concentration

of gambling venues, yet immediately lists the already significant clustering of such

establishments in the area and still recommends the application for approval. Residents aren't

wrong to highlight the harm of over -concentration and the report itself inadvertently proves

to their point.

Paragraph 1 .5 attempts to justify this application

by citing high vacancy rates on the high street.

But in my, in residents, opinion,

a gambling center is not better than a vacancy.

Once it's in, it's in.

It's not temporary.

Approving this would be simplistic thinking

and short -term instead of thinking

about the long -term health and character of our high street.

Paragraph 3 .3, meanwhile, suggests that the gaming center

would generate less noise than a pub

and uses this to justify approval.

This is naive, surely.

Mercure, the operator of an identical business

30 meters away, sells alcohol 23 hours a day,

seven days a week.

If approved, it's all but guaranteed that this business

will also apply for an alcohol license

alongside its 23 hours a day, seven days a week

planned opening hours.

To prevent otherwise is wishful thinking at best

or an intentional omission at worst.

Now, let me turn to the ones with gambling policy

which this application fails to meet on multiple counts.

accounts. This business would, if this committee makes the mistake of approval, would need

to satisfy the policy. Paragraph 15 .17 of that policy is clear. Gambling premises should

not be located near sensitive community venues such as libraries. Yet this proposed gaming

centre is situated just steps from Putney Library. Approving this application would

undermine our commitment to fostering safe, family -friendly spaces in our community. Paragraph

15 .22 of the policy states that the council will carefully consider the cumulative impact

of gambling venues, including their potential contribution

to crime, antisocial behavior, and economic harm.

Paragraph 15 .24 goes further, identifying the over

concentration of gaming establishments and that it

negatively impacts the diversity and vibrancy of high streets.

This application blatantly violates both provisions.

To approve a planning application for a gambling venue

that would inevitably fail under our licensing policies

would not only undermine our credibility

but embarrass this committee, and to do so just 24 hours after reaffirming the gambling

policy in this very room would be nothing short of ridiculous. Moreover, approving this

application would betray the trust of Putney residents. They have made their wishes clear.

They do not want this. Gaming establishments disproportionately impact the most vulnerable

members of society, exacerbating issues of addiction, financial hardship and family breakdown.

In conclusion, this application and the paper recommending it for approval fail on their

own terms. Another gaming centre would plainly cause over -concentration, which the local

plan contains provisions to prevent. It fails to meet the provisions of the ones with gambling

policy, which explicitly acknowledges the issue of cumulative impact and advises against

this placement. It threatens to further erode the character and vibrancy of Putney High

Street. I urge colleagues to reject this application.

Thank you.

Any questions of Councillor Brook, Councillor Givindja, Councillor Aps, Councillor Ayres?

I see in the report comments from EDO, but any comments from Positively Patani, which

is the local bid, whether they agree with EDO's comment that a gambling establishment

is a better thing than an empty premises?

No, I don't think positively Putney the bids have commented to my knowledge. I think there's an issue

there's a

Delicacy that a bid has to

Deal with when they end up representing the bit any business that they end up on. Yeah

can saps

Thank you, and thanks very much for that presentation

And I was interested to know the other gambling outlets. Are they also close to Putney?

it sounds like they're all quite close by.

Are they also close to Putney Library?

Yes, they are.

So Mercure is on the corner of Chelberton Road

and Putney High Street,

all sort of equidistant from Putney Library.

I guess it's about 100 meters away from Putney Library.

And then there's a Ladbrokes betting shop,

even close to Putney Library

on the corner of the station approach.

and there's a paddy power on the junction

directly opposite the High Street,

opposite Disraeli Road where the library is as well.

Council, it is.

Sorry, could I just come in with just a quick

supplementary on that?

So it might not be for you, it might be for the officers,

but I wonder if that was in breach,

if this is in breach of the policy,

if those were in breach of the policy

when they were established,

or if we've had a change of policy.

But you might not be a taxpayer, I realize.

I think that is for the officers.

Council Ayers?

I think I've misunderstood what I thought this was.

I didn't read this as a betting shop

because I've seen a few gaming cafes

and they're not like betting shops at all.

They're sort of lines of people staring at screens

in a sort of totally comatose silent manner.

And I kind of share your horror

of a betting shop with alcohol,

but this is not applying for a license as I see it at the moment and we can cross that bridge when we come to

It I would have thought

meanwhile

Can somebody explain to me the difference between what they call a gaming shop and what you've been calling a betting shop?

I think that's a

For the officers and if I can I come in just like you could but just just to say because because I don't think

cancer Brooke

understands this as I see it, and that is,

if it's what he thinks it is, it needs separately,

sorry, that's the way the bureaucracy works,

a license, and that's from a licensing committee,

and the need to get the license from someone else.

We're looking at it purely from the planning perspective,

and not from, with respect, a lot of what you spoke about,

because that's a licensing matter.

Can I answer the question though? May I?

Yeah, let's be open about it.

Thank you very much. Well, I serve on the licensing committee and I was part of the team that looked at the gambling policy just recently.

So, I understand the difference. My point about the licensing issue there was it's mad for this council to approve an application.

Okay, it may well be mad, but we don't write the rules. The rules are we are not the licensing committee.

This isn't a betting shop in the sense of where you go and watch the horse racing while

placing a bet. This is like Mercure, which is obviously you can't see in from the high

street at all, but once you go in it's just banks and banks and banks of slot machines

with a bar.

Councillor White, if this is a question of the officer's reaction...

I think it might be for officers really.

If there's no more questions, can I say, like Councillor Ayers, I've got a lot of sympathy

for where you're coming from.

I've been through this discussion many times.

We will move on now to the question of the officers.

Question of the officers, Councillor White.

I was just wondering if these gaming centres are allowed, is there any reports or anything

about the negative impacts that these have on communities?

Is there anything that we can point to to say that this is probably going to have a

negative impact on the partner community?

Thank you. There must be some statistics somewhere about a national impact of gaming and gambling,

but that is not information that we would have here or necessarily relevant. What we

have looked at here is in land use terms, is the land use acceptable in this location

based on whether or not there is no concentration. I understand that Councillor Brooks has drawn,

or not drawn a distinction necessarily between the difference between a betting shop

and what this is offering. A betting shop has a very different experience I'm sure and a different

thing that you are gambling on, animals, horses, football, whatever, cricket games.

This is very much a gaming centre. You go in, you choose to play a particular game of your fancy until whenever.

24 hours if you want. There is no alcohol proposed on this site at all.

The people who, and as far as we were concerned, sorry, when we were assessing the policy in terms of the concentration of uses,

we could only identify one similar gaming centre within Putney High Street

and having discussed it in consultation with our policy officers as well as with

the economic development officer, we all concluded that one other in the

street could not be considered an over concentration if one more was introduced.

However we are very aware of the fact that if another one came along a third

Now that would perhaps tip the balance here slightly in terms of this kind nature of use within the street

because it is less active than a public house or a bar or a eatery would have been.

So as officers perhaps we would prefer to see it being more of an active retail based activity but we have no control over that.

we have to consider what's before us. The applicants have submitted a very detailed

security and social responsibility statement that sets out quite clearly the sort of training

they do with staff and what kind of methods they have in -house to ensure that people are

safe while they're in there. And if it's an evening, they usually have security on the

door anyway or staff that are used to working at night time. That's another thing that comes

into the policy as well now is the nighttime economy. So again that is an

element that is very much a high street focused policy that's been brought in to

encourage that because I think a third of Londoners work at night so you know

or use that those nighttime facilities. So officers completely understand

and the view of residents as Councillor Brooks has set out.

But from a pure planning point of view,

the policy has an element in it

that avoids an over concentration.

In this case, officers have considered it to be acceptable.

Now, while in thinking about this,

I am as unhappy about this as many people might be.

But just think, if we were to say something

like no, Mr. Calder alongside me would be immediately saying

you've got to give reasons, planning reasons.

Are there any planning reasons?

And I just don't see it.

So we've still got quite a lot to do.

So, Councillor Coelkeel and then let's wrap it up.

I make a quick, I just hasn't really been many comments

about Councillor Brooks' point of it being particularly

close to a library and that be potentially in conflict

with our plan so could we have some thoughts on that?

I think the police have been very clear about it and there's one in Clapham Junction, it's

so silent, it's more dead than any threat I would have thought frankly. That's slightly

unfair of me, the biggest Councillor Justin had his hand up as well.

I just want to know, through the change of use from back to when it was the Horseshoe

pub through to it says various outlets. Has the square foot of this unit changed over

that period or is it still the same? Because what happens, people talk about the death

of the high street, especially in Putney, all over London. This is exactly the type

of development that you lose so that once it's become this gaming, it will never become

anything else because what you see is what you get. There's no stock room with a gaming

place. There's no back room. What you see is what you get and that's why we've got so

many nail bars and coffee shops which we don't need and this is another and I'd

just like to take issue with the officer saying in her opinion you know one

gaming place two maybe three is when she would think it was unacceptable I mean

you know it depends on what you think you can have lots of hairdressers lots

of coffee shops maybe you wouldn't have more than one abattoir in a high street

you know it's it's purely your opinion I think one is one is too many two is

definitely too many. I would just like to say that this is policy -based in terms

of our assessment it's not my own personal view. Mr Gorder. Two things

firstly I'm just a little bit concerned by Councillor Brook's discussion

about wilful negligence by officers. I hope that he does not interpret that, that we have

not fully assessed this against planning policies. What he meant was wilful negligence in terms

of the town centre, because if he is having to go to a particular office, I might have

to take that up with you separately.

We will go with a latter interpretation then. Thank you, Mr Carter.

In terms of, as you mentioned before, the next point is sort of related to knowing that

there would be a concern if there's 600 objections and it's an unpopular use.

I thought I'd take the liberty of looking at other appeal decisions that have been in

the last couple of weeks.

We've got access to ones nationally.

I just looked at ones in London.

And there's an appeal decision which was last week in Greenwich,

which the inspector, well it was recommended by officers for approval, refused by committee,

so it was sort of thinking about similar aspects.

It was allowed by the inspectorate.

The first point was that he had a clear definition or distinction between an adult gaming centre and a betting shop,

So he didn't take into account existing battery shops, just looked at our double gaming centres.

So quite a similar situation.

He felt that there was one or two other ones in the Eltham town centre, but it wasn't

an over concentration, so it's quite a similar situation.

And the second point was that there were concerns from the members of committee regarding antisocial

behavior and he said he and he felt it was would be less than would be

established in a normal town center from from pubs and other late night

establishments so those are the sort of aspects that we were talking about here

and also issues in terms of the community and the obviously the members

in this one were raised concerned about youngsters underage people going in but

it's over 18 zonally so it's limited in terms of the impact on those sorts of

sides. So not drawing too many distinctions but I know that those are

the sort of concerns I'm sure a lot of local residents have and I sort of just

sort of highlight them to you now.

Not sure I like some of that but I don't see that we've got any choice.

I'm trying to keep things to a conclusion.

Councillor Apps.

Thank you.

I actually, it's a specific question.

I hope Mr Calder can answer it.

I realise it's slightly stepping into other remits,

but will this ...

I mean, I've sat on licensing as well,

and this is something that I presume would go to licensing.

I'm assuming it hasn't gone to licensing yet,

that that would be a later stage,

but I don't know if you could clarify that.

I don't know but normally you'd establish a land base and when you had an operator,

which I don't think this has, then they would get the licence and I'd ask Mr Moore to confirm

that.

Yes, Chairman, that's correct.

I don't think there's anything that mandates in which order a premises licence or a planning

consent is obtained but I think I agree with Mr Calder's view that normally you would get

planning consent in place first and then make the application under the Gambling Act.

It is very clear in terms of planning law that you should not impose conditions or try

and merge regimes. They are two separate regimes. They may have overlapping considerations,

but they are both requirements of the applicant here to firstly get a consent and then get

a licence under the Gambling Act.

There are two people who want to speak. This could go on for ages. We have all got views

about it. I do not think we will get anywhere.

The question to Mr Kouldy, you set out this wonderful example in Greenwich but you never

ended it. What was the decision in Greenwich?

It was allowed.

It was allowed? OK. You never did actually say that.

Yes, my point was that various applications have been refused by councils and they have

all been allowed. There have been three in the last couple of weeks.

Thank you, I appreciate your generosity. It is a technical point again, so back to you

chaps over there. This fund's change of use to the sui generis, does that mean they

have to have an application for a licence to serve alcohol because it was a pub before

or would they be able to do that automatically anyway?

Do they still need to get a license for gambling?

But what about the alcohol part?

Can I, sorry, I just want to say that in their statement

that they've submitted as part of the application,

they don't serve alcohol on any of their premises.

That's, it would appear to me

that it's not part of their thing.

So we just heard there wasn't an operator designated,

so how do we remember there was no operator?

How can they make that assertion?

It is actually luxury leisure.

The same operator that Councillor Brooks was talking about over the road.

Is the recommendation however unwillingly agreed?

Have you got reasons to objection?

I would like to abstain.

If everyone is abstaining, it goes through my vote.

This is the penalty of being in a committee which is subject to the operations of the

law.

You have to have reasons for objection and reasons that stand up.

So, sorry?

Well, you try reasons when it goes to appeal

against the express advice of the officers

and everyone else, what are you gonna turn up

and fight the council's case on it

because they're saying there's no case?

We have to test out the reasons

and in order to test out the reasons,

officers might guide me.

I just think that at the core of our planning policies for decades, the vitality of five -town

centres has been fundamental.

And I know the EDO thinks that an operating premises is better than an empty premises.

It's a judgment he makes.

I'm not sure he has any basis for that, other than saying somebody occupying is better.

It could be any one occupy.

I think that this goes against the continuing recovery

and vitality of Patney High Street,

and therefore it compromises a core bit of Council's policy,

which has sustained the borough for five decades.

Any other?

Right.

Right, would you care to be precise about the wording?

That the operator, by the nature of these,

will affect the continuing recovery of Putney High Street

and undermine its vitality.

There's a similar establishment or two in Clapham Junction

and that seems to be being fairly lively

and living at the center, so I'm not sure about that.

But any, is that seconded?

Seconded by Councillor Humphries.

Those in favor of refusal on those grounds?

Those against?

It loses by four votes to five, I think.

Right, now, I think there was that one abstention,

which is.

No, no, no, there's two abstentions to the whole.

But on that particular point, you're.

On that particular point, no, I'm not backing them.

So four to six, okay.

So we're still left with the application,

and I, however unwillingly, like everyone else,

I'm fully in favor of the officer's recommendations

for technical reasons.

So can I move that we have a vote on it now?

Those in favor of the application as it stands now.

Those against?

Chairman's casting vote passes through.

Yeah, any abstentions?

Yep, yep.

So that application is approved.

Move on to number one.

It's me, the rectory, which I think is pretty good in all details, particularly planning

details.

I'm not sure how much of an intro we need, but I also know, and so do the officers know,

that Council Ayres has a fundamental problem with the design of two or three of the properties.

and I encourage urgently that Mr. Granger talks to her

and listens to what she has to say

and puts forward to the applicant her comments,

which I think have a lot of justification and justice,

but are not reasons for refusal.

So I just say that.

Apart from that, any other comments on this application?

Councilor Givindia.

It is a small point. There are quite a lot of units here for disabled people and I just

don't think there is adequate amount of parking. It is not an area where on -street parking

is easy to get. You would have to park on Rectory Lane, which is always heavily parked.

I just think it is ill thought out provision for disabled residents.

Mr. Cidrud, any comment?

Not specifically.

The development provides one single disabled parking bay.

The clear intention here is that the property would be occupied by disabled people who do

not own or otherwise run a car.

and I can think of many disabled people who fall into that category.

Sorry, let's not get into that debate, Mr Titley,

because it does talk about wheelchair accessibility,

and wheelchair accessibility generally implies

that current occupier or a future occupier will need mobility aid,

and often that is a car.

And there would be space for vehicles to be able to set down

and pick up disabled people on site,

and as we did discuss earlier any disabled person in the development that did actually have a

Blue badge would be able to park in any control zones in the surrounding areas. I

Think that's worth noting but apart from that is the council council white

Yeah, just wanted to note that

a question of value of viability reports. This says that they are

going to show a deficit of £645 ,000. Their own viability reports

say that they are going to have a deficit of £710 ,000. Why the

hell are they building? They are doing it for charity. They are

obviously going to make a profit here, but these viability reports

aren't really reflecting the true nature of these developments.

So, yeah, just wanted to make a note of that.

Mr Granger, there's an issue about timing here, isn't there?

Tonight or...

Oh, sorry. I got this completely wrong. I do beg your pardon.

It's timing it, sorry, in what regard?

I thought this application was originally put forward

before the current viability rules.

I got that wrong, am I confusing that with something else?

Viability rules?

That's what, repeat.

Councilor Wight is saying that... Councilor Wight, let me not...

OK. You mean the Regulation 19, the emergence of the Regulation 19 plan in affordable housing?

No, look, Councilor Wight, start again.

No, just that the development is going to go... They want to develop, even though our

Our liability report shows £645 ,000 deficit. Their one shows £710 ,000 deficit.

There is also a contribution of £150 ,000 here. By their own reckoning, they are probably

going to lose £1 million by doing this development. It just does not make sense to me why they

would do it. They are not a charity.

In that regard, we have seen many schemes that have been brought forward where they

have indicated deficits and taken a market speculative decision to proceed and see what

could happen with the market over the three -year life period of the application.

Market conditions could change, they are obviously of the view that market conditions would improve

and that the scheme would be deliverable.

So them agreeing the figure of 645 ,000

is obviously the figure that we've arrived at

in terms of our independent liability consultants

along with our in -house liability team

that have been specifically put together

to assist our independent viability

scrutineers to really examine these figures,

go deep.

They've challenged every single input

into these financial viability assessments

put forward by the applicant,

which is why it's taken so long.

It's been months and months of ongoing meetings

and exchanging of documents and evidencing

why certain percentiles,

certain costs per square metre. All of these things have been challenged throughout the

journey. It has produced this deficit out of 34 units. Nearly half a million pounds

in the development industry probably is not that great, but they still believe that they

can deliver it.

I will follow up and make a comment that the market conditions could go in favour, but

it could go against them as well. Does that mean that they will just sit on it and that

condition of three years will come back for another planning in three years' time?

They certainly could not come back and water down any affordable housing offer. Ultimately,

speculatively, if it does, the market conditions do deteriorate, then they would be looking

at operating at a loss on that project. And that's part of this particular process being

speculative.

Can I just add, if they end up making a profit, we have got clawback mechanisms set out in

the section 106, so if they do make more profit, then we would have a bit larger contribution

of affordable housing for other schemes.

So there is an ability to get some back

if it proves more successful.

Produce is more successful.

Thank you.

Okay, having heard the comments of the officers,

is the application approved?

Approved with one abstention, Councillor White.

We've done item two.

Item three is back extension in Fersdown, Woodknock Road.

I think fairly simple one.

Agreed, is that agreed?

Agreed.

And then item four, similarly in similar -ish kind

of application in Fersdown again, is that agreed?

Can I ask a quick question, Chair, sorry.

Yeah, go on.

Any objections? It mentions a log burner, whereas in the report it doesn't mention

anything at all about a log burner.

You don't need planning permission for a log burner.

Is that approved?

Item 5, Lydon Road, this is about an industrial development in Lydon Road between Lydon Road

and the Bentham Valley.

Councillor Humphries has got something to say about it and Councillor Ayers.

You have to leave the room officially.

I'm very keen on that.

Sorry?

It's item five, I'm item six.

Sorry, I thought you were on item five.

What was that then?

Just getting them out.

We're on item five, aren't we?

Right.

Okay.

Any issues on item five?

Councillor Ayres.

I'll vote for this, but I'm really intrigued that they want to put art

and they sound quite excited at the idea

of putting art on it.

I don't know what you put in your conditions about the art,

but it would be good if there was some competition

or some public face to this art.

If someone, do you have any control

over what happens with the art?

I mean, it could be.

I am absolutely certain that it cannot be a matter of planning control what kind of art they have and whether they commission

John Constable or Leonardo da Vinci, but they may have practical problems with that, but I'm absolutely certain we have no

Planning powers we could suggest to them they might open it

So can we suggest to them they open it out to the local schools or whoever in a competition

I suggest we just add an informative asking them to engage with local residents in terms

of the art.

Yes, yes.

Just a suggestion.

Yes.

Well actually I had Councillor Colle but I'm not sure.

Councillor Govinda.

Just following on from Councillor Ayers' point, I mean more importantly can we make sure that

art actually happens because I do know one situation in Ballym High Road where in fact

I judged the supposed art that was going to go on. It never went on.

And we don't want any clever comments later about you call that art or something for other

people to have views on it. Councillor White.

Just a couple of comments. First of all, it's good that the full workspace

expectations on that. But, yeah, just a little bit worried that this is a mid -rise zone and

we have gone over the height for that. So that is a little bit disappointing.

I do think we ought to keep to what the public sees as our plans originally and going over

occasionally by the odd floor here or there

for additional benefits, I guess is justified.

I don't like it very much when it's 10 stories over.

So I do think you have a point.

What do we say about it being just one floor over?

We were of the view that quite clearly.

Sorry, can, can, can Councillor, sorry,

Can't Miss Richards talk without being interrupted,

Councilor Winder, yeah.

Thank you.

In the report, actually, it's acknowledged

that this is a story higher than what is identified

as site allocation.

However, it is adjacent to a building of a similar height,

which would only be one story less.

So it's not completely out of context in this location

because there is a taller building next door to it.

And I think in this case, what we're looking for

is an uplift in the actual industrial floor area

that we will get that will increase employment opportunity

and so on.

So overall, we're happy with this

and it doesn't have any implications

on residential amenity either.

If I can speak on Councillor White's behalf, I wonder whether I have got this vaguely right.

I guess that if local plans say one height and there is a justification for being another

height, fair dues. But if it is just because it is not too bad, then I think we ought to

get them to stick to what they said. It is hardly worth it in this case, the amount of

cost of effort and so on.

But I think as a flavor for planners to take note of,

committee members on the whole want to stick

to what the local plan says unless there's a real benefit

like more affordable workspace or more open space

or something else.

But so is that fair enough, Councilor White?

Yeah, okay.

Very much so, Chair.

With that comment added.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

College Road, remember, long memories we've all got,

but we've had issues on Lydon Grove before Lydon Road with the industrial units.

It's quite a popular cut -through for families going to the school on Garrett Lane in the mornings

and at school trafficking hours.

So I just wanted to do this probably for Mr. Tiddley, actually.

Are there any restrictions on vehicle movements, deliveries, such like,

which are obviously going to be quite extensive.

It's off -site, so they're going to get back into the building.

I just wanted to make sure that officers taken that into account and maybe perhaps do an exclusion for school hours coming and going

Which we have done before in the area because it is quite an issue with cutting through

That place for pedestrians during those school hours. Yes. Thank you cancer. Yes, we would try and ensure that the development was

Appropriately constructed. I'm imagine there is a construction management plan again placed on this one

Yes under service and delivery plan

Okay, subject to that, agreed.

With the informative.

Agreed unanimously, yes.

We've done, we're going to rattle through now.

No we haven't.

We've got the Enwith road.

I am quite happy not to vote on the next election.

Okay, fair enough. That is very reasonable of you. Thank you.

I ask Mr Moore to introduce this one, because for reasons that will become obvious.

Members carefully read the report and will have recognised that the disagreement between

applicant as set out in the late items paper that you would have seen and the council relates

to a particular element in relation to viability. So just a very brief refresher on viability

for members before they go on to consider this application.

So how a scheme is considered to be viable, you first calculate what the gross development

value of the scheme is, so you take into account all the sales values and any rents and any

other proceeds from that development.

You then calculate what all the bill costs are, so including within that, the seal payments,

106 contributions, consultancy fees, sales fees, that kind of thing.

And then you calculate what's known as the residual land value by deducting the costs

of the development from the GDV.

And then you compare that residual land value against the benchmark land value.

It's the benchmark land value that is at issue in this case,

this application between the applicants and the council.

So when you get to that residual level

and the benchmark land value consideration,

you then see whether it's in surplus or deficit.

And if it's in surplus,

you see how much affordable housing the development can hold.

So pages 163 to 167 of the report set out how this issue

that has been carefully considered by officers.

The viability assessment was submitted

and then assessed independently

by the council's viability consultants.

Taking you back to 2019,

when two applications were submitted on this site,

they both had significant commercial elements.

So the first of which had retail, office,

light industrial floor space,

storage and distribution floor space,

I'll call that one the commercial scheme.

Then the second application had retail office,

light industrial, storage and distribution,

but also 17 residential units.

I'll call this one the residential scheme.

Both applications were refused

by the Planning Applications Committee.

Both were appealed,

and both were subsequently allowed on appeal

by a planning inspector in 2020.

So, as I said, this application, the difference on the scheme's viability relates to how the

benchmark land value is calculated.

So the applicants are promoting an alternative use value, which is based on what the alternative

use of the site under the commercial scheme would value the land at.

The council's position, and it's backed up by national and local policy, is that it should

be an existing use plus basis evaluation.

Now, if the alternative use evaluation is used, then it's common ground between the

council's assessors and the applicant's assessors that the scheme is significant in deficit.

However, if the existing use plus methodology is used, then the scheme is in surplus and

could provide affordable housing, either on site or a financial contribution.

And that point is made in paragraph 315 of the report on page 164.

Now, previously, in an earlier section 73 application, the council accepted the appellant's

the applicant's argument at that stage,

that the alternative use value approach

was appropriate in those circumstances.

At that time, I think they were still offering

six affordable units and the consent was still live.

We're in a slightly different position now,

that consent has lapsed and the residential scheme,

as I've termed it, is nearing completion.

So that commercial scheme is no longer capable of being

implemented.

You will see in the report, pages 164 and 165, it sets out

what the Government's approach to viability is in the

National Planning Practice guidance.

There is a strong presumption in favour of using the existing

use plus methodology for establishing benchmark land value.

I am not wanting to prolong proceedings because it is fairly

late, but I think it is a very important point to raise in terms

of this guidance. If I may read from the bottom of page 164.

This is the planning practice guidance on viability.

For the purposes of viability assessment, alternative use value refers to the value

of land for uses other than its existing use.

AUV of the land may be informative in establishing benchmark land value.

If applying alternative uses when establishing benchmark land value, these should be limited

to those uses which would fully comply with up -to -date development plan policies, including

any policy requirements for contributions towards affordable housing at the relevant levels set out

in the plan. Where it is assumed that an existing use will be refurbished or redeveloped, this will

be considered as an AUV when establishing benchmark land value. Plan makers can set out in which

circumstances alternative uses can be used. This might include if there is evidence that the

alternative use would fully comply with up -to -date development plan policies. It can be demonstrated

that the alternative use could be implemented on the site in question, if it can be demonstrated

that there is market demand for that use and if there is an explanation as to why the alternative

use has not been pursued. Where AUV is used, this should be supported by evidence of the

costs and values of the alternative use to justify the land value. Valuation based on AUV includes

premium to the landowner. If evidence of AUV is being considered, the premium to the landowner

must not be double counted. In order to be able to use that alternative use value,

then that alternative use must fully comply with Council policies. It does not. Secondly,

it is not capable of being implemented because it was granted consent on appeal in 2020 with a

three -year commencement period, and that has lagged. In addition, there is a national planning

policy framework, which is hot off the presses today, as we

discussed at the outset of the meeting. Paragraph 59, which was

58 under the previous MPPF, is reading the final sentence.

All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the

plan -making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in

national planning practice guidance, including standardised

inputs and should be made publicly available.

The MPPF says that in dealing with viability you should follow the National Planning Practice

Guidelines.

That is what I just read from the report.

Also in the Council's planning obligations SPG, there is a part that says to ensure that

the Council's approach is consistent with the London -wide approach, then it should be

existing use value plus basis on assessing benchmark land value.

In summary, I direct members to paragraph 3 .36 and 3 .38 on page 167, which says that

in summary the viability has been tested and verified using the AUV methodology, whilst

Council accept that it was appropriate to use under application 2019 -1426, which is

the commercial scheme. That permission has now lapsed. Under the Council's planning

SPG and national planning policy guidance, the correct method of calculating the benchmark

land value is the existing use value plus method. Carter Jonas has advised the Council

that on that basis the development would yield a surplus of £1 .66 million and is able to

support affordable housing provision. As such, the proposed development would fail to provide

an appropriate level of affordable housing contrary to policy LP 23 of the local plan

and the objectives of policy H4 of the London plan.

Mr Speaker, despite the perhaps slightly threatening letter that some members may have read, your

legal opinion is that we are solely on the ground refusing this application and going

along with the officer's recommendation.

That is my advice to members. If members follow that advice and refuse the application, then

I suspect they will appeal. It will be down to a planning inspector to determine whether,

in his or her view, it would be appropriate to use the AUV method of benchmark land value.

I do not believe it is.

We can all see that they are trying to avoid a certain level of affordable housing and

we are being told that our position in refusing to let them do that is acceptable. I would

suggest that we just accept the officer's recommendation to refuse.

Has anyone got any comment?

Agreed.

Agreed. Everyone agrees on that?

Agreed.

Just to add to the disgraceful act on behalf of the developer.

I think one has to remember that developers, people in commercial businesses operate to

make a profit.

What they do, whether you think it is moral or not, unless it is illegal, it is what they

do.

Okay, the next three items we've done,

and over the page we've done 10 and 11,

leaving as Brett House, Putney Heath Lane,

which is a conversion of one flat into two,

which will not be seen outside of the actual flat,

and is perfectly acceptable, I think.

So, Gansukh of India has got something to say about it.

Thank you, Chairman. It's just that I have had representation from residents within the block

and their concerns are about, in a sense, additional pressure on what they consider to be a very

under pressure area in terms of parking, in terms of waste collection and disposal, and they have

concerns about the quality of the accommodation that comes. I did say to them that I would be

making this point to you. One specific issue they are concerned about is that by providing

cycle storage in the garage, they effectively make the garage unusable for parking, adding

to additional parking pressure.

Thank you for making the point on behalf of your residents.

The new boiler has been put in and I presume that is gas. It is not a progressive or sustainable

conversion in my mind.

Again, we do not have control over everyone's boiler, but noted.

Is the application agreed?

Agreed, thank you.

With one abstention.

Two abstentions.

So that finishes the application.

So, going onto the closure of investigations file, which is for information, is that noted?

And closed appeals noted.

Tree preservation orders agreed.

Decisions paper noted.

And that concludes…

No, no, no, no, no, no, sorry, sorry.

What do I got?

In the late items, I'll put the statistics, it wasn't able to be run at the time, but

I'm going to change them from the next ones because they go monthly rather than between

committees and I think it might be more sensible for everybody to know.

That concludes the committee.

I'd like to say if it's finished and closed down, I'd like to say if anyone's still got

the stamina.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 12 December 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 12th December 2024 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 12th December 2024 at 7:30pm