Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 28 January 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 28th January 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Okay.
Welcome everyone to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
My name is Michael Jubb and I'm chair of the committee.
Members please, I will now call your names.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance
Once you have done, so please remember to switch off your microphone
In order councilor Belton good evening chair
councilor Owens
Good evening chair
Mark Dodgson, I don't see here from the Balham society Roger Armstrong
Good evening everyone.
Roger Armstrong here.
Andrew Catto.
Good evening chair. Yes, one more here.
I don't see Chris Rice from the River Thames Society.
Or Edward Potter, I think, maybe, maybe here later on, but we don't know.
Libby Lawson from Tooting History Group.
Good evening chair.
Pamela Greenwood.
Good evening all.
And we have John Dawson standing in for Peter Faro on behalf of the Wandsworth Society.
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you.
Are there any apologies?
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Osborne is double booked tonight so he may join us later but we'll give him
as an apology.
We have also got apologies from Francis Radcliffe, Edward Potter and Peter Faro.
Thank you.
And the following officers, Lauren Vway.
Good evening, Chair.
Barry Sellers.
Good evening, Chair.
And David Andrews.
Yes, good evening.
And our Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham.
Good evening, everybody.
Okay, can I remind everyone to
ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking
and also
not to embarrass yourself by leaving your phone on or
at least turning it down to silence.
Declarations of interest, are there any declarations in which, I mean, applications in particular
that you have, in which you have an interest?
No?
Thank you.

2 Minutes - 12th November 2024

Okay.
Can I ask whether the minutes of the meeting of the 12th of November are correct?
Perhaps I should, before I do that, report that Francis Radcliffe has suggested a couple
of minor drafting amendments, which relate to the discussion on the glass mill on the
fourth page of the minutes.
I'm trying to find where she is.
Against the harm would have on it surrounded.
is. Oh, that can we agree that at the end of the first paragraph, we in the penultimate
line towards the end of that line, we delete the word against so that they did not negate
the harm. Is that agreed? And where is it? In the paragraph at the bottom of that page,
to delete in the first line, hugely sympathetic of the need to,
sympathetic to the need.
Can I make that amendment?
And finally, that at the top of the next page, that those two sentences at the top of that
page should be deleted on the grounds that they're repetitive of what has been said already.
I have to confess that it was my suggestion that those two sentences be added, so you
might think I have a conflict of interest.
But I introduced, I suggested that they be added simply as a summation of our views on
that part of the issue.
So, I know either you agree or you don't agree with Francis' suggestion that we should delete
those.
Does it...
It's a bit sort of logical then, just, yeah, for a reason, why not?
I don't feel...
They were intended, as I say, to be summative.
Keep, raise your hand, keep.
I'm afraid I'm a bit less, I must confess.
The.
I'm not sure what you were talking,
which, when you said a next page,
and the next page, where is he just thinking
he's gonna find his number?
Sorry, on the copy I'm reading from,
I don't have a page number.
It's the final page of the minutes.
And at the top, there are two sentences starting, however, instead of accepting the limitation,
the obvious limitations of...
Are those...
Could we keep those sentences or delete them?
Show if you want to delete them, as Francis suggests.
No?
In which case, we keep them.
In that case, I will sign the minutes after the meeting,
if that's acceptable.
Now, before we move on to matters arising, can I just add a reflection on particularly
the latter end of the last meeting, which those of you who were here will recall got
rather heated.
And I have to accept responsibility
as chair for allowing that to happen.
And I must apologize for that.
Actually thinking about it immediately afterwards,
I thought that much of the discussion and much of the heat
arose because people were essentially
talking at cross purposes.
but never mind. And the longer term reflection was that our discussions obviously and inevitably,
I think, focus on matters relating to harm to conservation areas, listed buildings, registered
of parks and gardens.
And those are the matters which are reflected
in our terms of reference, which refer
to the effect of development proposals on the character
and appearance of conservation areas, listed buildings,
and so on.
They don't mention anything else.
And it seemed to me that it's obvious,
I'm sure to all of us that actual planning decisions
have to take into account other things,
many other things, other than the effect
on conservation areas, listed buildings, and so on.
Indeed, the whole planning regime,
it's been set up since 1947,
of involves weighing harms and benefits in individual cases.
And that has led me to wonder whether our terms
of reference might benefit from some amendment to recognize
that protecting the character and appearance
of conservation areas and so on,
It is not the only factor that we have to at least have at the back of our minds when
we discuss individual applications.
That's not, of course, to say that that issue, the protection of and the effect on conservation
areas, listed buildings, and so on, has to be the focus of our discussions, but there
is a wider context.
And I discussed that briefly with the officers this evening.
And if you accept that it might be helpful to make some amendment to the terms of reference
to allow for that. I'm not suggesting that we attempt to do that now, but I would work
with the officers to see if we could bring back a slightly amended set of terms of reference
to the next meeting. Is that acceptable? Thank you. Sorry.
But I briefly asked, Chair, that in that case, could the terms of reference, as they're now
set out, be circulated with the minutes for tonight?
Okay.
Having said all that, are there any other matters arising from the minutes of the last
meeting. Let me go through from item three. Item three, the Northcott Public House, the
mill, item 4, decisions, and some important issues raised under AOB, including, if I find
my right set of minutes.
Excuse me.
The progress on the local listing exercise,
is there anything to report on that this way?
So the local listing public consultation is still running. We've got quite a lot of entries
that have been added to the mapping, which is really positive. And we are looking to
close that at the end of February. So we actually have still another month to go on that public
consultation to be running. So please do send through any further nominations for local
listing and also any information you have on the existing entries that we can
add to enhance the local list. I know some societies are at work on this.
Councillor? Yes I think I might have sent you quite an extensive list that from
one of my residents in the Northcote ward, I don't know, might have sent it across to you
Michael just for Christmas because I caught up with, I'll check it because I'm
quite a lot of work looking at different buildings, I think, prior to the pandemic.
So she created quite a list.
Yes, and I know there's been a fair amount of discussion with officers about ensuring that the
all the data from the previous exercise
will get
posted on whatever arises from the current exercise.
How that's to be done, I think,
is still not quite resolved,
although I might be out of date on that.
Yes, we're still looking at how we actually showcase
the information that has been provided from this public consultation and the previous
2017 public consultation, but it is work in progress. We will then progress post -public
consultation, which will be an enhancement to the existing mapping that we have, which
is called Aurora, within the existing website. That will then be enhanced to a similar way
that Common Place is now showing, where you can click on the building and then it will
pop up with a description, which is a full description.
At the moment, it gets truncated in Aurora with those images
that have been provided.
So it is something that we are looking into as an option.
And there's a wider review of the website
and the conservation and urban design pages
to enhance them and improve them visually and textually,
and that will form part of it.
Thank you.
I'm sure that's welcome.
Mr. Catto.
Sorry, once again, to intervene.
On a very related topic, I was on the council's otherwise
excellent interactive map earlier today
and discovered, as I found before,
that if you click on the entry for a listed building,
the purple blocks, it all comes up,
resource not found or worse of that effect.
The link seems to have gone down.
Thank you. We will have a look into that with our web team to make sure that that is updated.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Mr Armstrong.
First down lodge has slipped off the minutes. I know the lease has been signed but I wonder
if there is a further update.
Yes, you forestalled me. I was going to raise it.
So, First Town Lodge, an application has been submitted. Two disability and consent applications
have been submitted, one in 2024 and one very recently. They remain invalid at this stage
as there's information that needs to be provided by the applicant to allow that to be valid,
but they have been submitted. We were hoping to have that valid so we could bring it to
this committee, as soon as it has been made valid as an application, then it will be brought
to the next committee in March. The planning team are working with the applicant to try
and get that additional information to make it valid.
And could I just raise finally, thank you for that, I think Councillor Osborne's intervention
at the end of the last meeting about street signs, street name signs. What progress is
there on that? And are they now, are the historic ones now being recorded on the interactive
map? So, Councillor Osborne did provide an update
on the basis he wasn't able to attend tonight.
So the budget has now been identified
in the works we're looking at progressing.
We are gonna send him a list that can be pulled
from the commonplace public consultation
that will be all the identified street signs
that have been put onto that map
and they will be sent to them as an idea
of what the historic street signage are.
And I know that Mr. Catto has also sent an email
with lots of information as well,
which has already been sent on to Councillor Osborne
to inform the works that are progressing.
I don't have any more information other than that,
but if Councillor Osborne is able to join tonight later on,
he might be able to give a bit more detail than that.
Thank you.
Just have a question on the street signs.
So obviously, I think we were told in the last meeting
that if it just has SW, then it's sort of pre -World War
or something.
But it's not just the cast iron ones, is it?
It's the enamel ones you're more interested in,
which are the ones that are white on blue.
Is that right?
White letters on blue?
That's that way around, yes.
And I also noticed in my ward recently
that we have an ER post box, which is obviously rare,
because it's Edwards, not E2R.
I'm sure you've got that somewhere.
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, I know a large number of these historic streets signs
are fixed to buildings and certainly ones in Battersea
off Webbs Road have been disappearing of late.
And I don't know whose property they are.
They seem to be, it's assumed by the owners of the buildings
that they can be just taken off and sold.
So I think that is a concern and there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that happening.
I'm certainly aware of signs that you can tell have been removed quite recently because
you can see the mark on the side of the house.
I don't know what the legal position is on that.
I leave that to the officers perhaps to pursue.
Thank you.
We're just in discussions about who to go to on that matter, and thank you for bringing that to our attention.
We will tomorrow go to the relevant department to look into that further and find out what steps we can take to try to avoid these being removed
and reinstate them where possible and look at our powers within planning enforcement
where we do have them for this sort of matter.
And can I ask also about parish boundary markers? Because I'm aware that the parish boundary marker
in Petergate has been removed by want of contractors in
Again, I think we have to leave that to officers to report back on what can be done in the
If I may, if I may.
Sorry.
Since my name was mentioned, I asked our panel to keep their eyes peeled when round -partly
after you asked for some signs, and they certainly did.
Mr. Sellers thought there might be 50 in the borough.
We found over 180 in Southwest 15 alone, and was gratified to find on several occasions
in answer to one of the earlier points.
Old signs refixed on modern building extensions
where that building had been extended towards the highway.
And yes, a few of the blue enamel ones,
I think we've got about five.
So there's quite a lot of them out there if you really look.
Okay, can we move on to item three,
the
applications in front of us this evening and

3 Applications (Paper No. 25-27)

first of all
the
Star and garter on lower Richmond Road who's going to lead on on this for the officers? That's me
Who do you mr. Andrews?
You'll probably remember that this site came to the panel a couple of years ago when we
considered the previous scheme, which was ultimately approved.
So this is an amendment, but this is a new revised scheme.
I was all ready to go there as well.
I've already seen it up on screen this evening.
Almost as if it knows, doesn't it?
Right, okay. Can everybody hear me? Right, so this is the Starr and Garter in Lower Richmond
Road. This is the half of the building which is nearer to Parnie Bridge. It's not the
residential or the mansion flat part of it.
As I said, this came in front of the panel,
can't remember what I think, a couple of years ago now,
for a series of alterations, internally and externally,
to convert the building into a hotel,
retaining the bar use at ground floor.
Subsequent to that, the same owner, applicant,
has come forward and has said that they've looked
at the hotel use and that they just can't find
and a way of making that viable in today's climate.
There is also nominally, I think it's lapsed now,
but a consent for the former White Horse Hotel,
which is very near to this site.
So whether they were looking at that,
I'm not entirely sure, but we have given consent for that.
So if that came forward,
there would be another hotel in this immediate area.
So they've decided that they can't make it work
as a hotel. And this building is quite restrictive internally. It's never really worked properly
as a bar. The ballroom on the first floor wasn't particularly commercially viable and
I don't think operated for very long. I think it's been unused for quite a long time. It
was used as a function room for the bar, particularly on boat race day. But it's not used very much
which certainly doesn't recoup a very substantial commercial return.
So we've previously given consent for the ballroom to be converted into two floors of previously hotel accommodation.
This new scheme would be entirely residential, apart from the ground floor bar, which is retained.
And there's scope for using the, depending on what happens with the street,
whether it gets pedestrianized in the future,
there's an idea that it might then become
sort of pavement seating and all that sort of thing.
But at the moment, it's the retention of the bar
at ground floor.
A similar set of alterations to the windows,
the fenestration on the river side elevation
to extend the windows downward.
So I don't know whether you've ever been in that bar.
You sit in it and you really,
Once you're sitting down, you can't see the river.
So it's really trying to improve the connectivity between the river and the bar when you're
actually in it and you're a customer and you're using it.
Above that level, we have previously consented the removal of the oval windows, or the round
windows on the first floor, which are the ballroom windows, the high -level ballroom
windows and the re -fenestration of those to provide in the previous consent it was windows
to the hotel rooms, this would be windows to the residential units.
So internally it's similar in terms of conversion to previously to the hotel now to the residential
use, it's locally listed so we don't have any jurisdiction over the interior.
So most of those have been previously, the concept of that has been previously approved
and found to be acceptable.
The principle difference between the previous scheme and this one is that there's going
to be an extension to the brickwork at the current top floor to extend the brickwork
up by one story to make that another full story for residential use.
And then on top of that, to then put a roof extension.
Now the roof extension or a roof extension was consented in the previous proposals along
with the reimagining, because it's not a slavish copy of what was there, but a roof structure
which replaces the twin almost turrets that were lost
as a result of bombing during the Second World War.
So they are putting back a roof feature to sort of
finish off the end elevation of that building
because it currently looks a bit sad and a bit unfinished.
But then filling in the roof structure between
the central roof feature rotunda and the end elevation.
So there will be quite a change.
As I say, we've previously consented some of the
elevational changes, but the principle change here
is the elevation to the Lower Richmond Road
and to the river, which will, the brickwork will be
extended by a full story, and then a new extension
put on the roof.
So if we could have a look at that now,
because that's the principle change that we haven't previously consented.
So that's the existing north elevation.
So that's the one that you see from the street.
And that's the proposed.
So you can see that they're very carefully copying what's there at lower level
and just extending that up by a full floor.
and then at roof level between the two roof features you will get a lightweight extension,
modern extension just to sort of finish off and give definitions of that roof structure.
So that's what you'll see from Lower Richmond Road.
If we can have a look at it from the river where you've got that pediment there at the
If we can see what the proposed will be,
they're just popping that up by a full story.
The oval windows and the fenestration below that
has been previously consented
as part of the other previous application.
So it's essentially just popping it up by a full story
to get some additional accommodation in that
and just to make it viable.
Because this building has been left for a long time,
It is in need of a lot of cosmetic improvement.
The cabling and pipe work rationalization needs to be done.
There's a lot of plaster work repair needs to be done.
And internally, obviously, the fit out is going to be very expensive to do.
So it's really trying to make this project viable and to make this building work in a way
that it arguably never has throughout its history.
But as I said, the bar is remaining on the ground floor.
On the north elevation, there are additional entrances to the residential floors, which
again, the principle of that was consented at the last, during the last scheme.
So it's really what you think about this additional alteration to the building and the additional
height.
Okay, thank you.
First of all, are there any factual questions that members are not clear about?
No?
If not, then can we move on to comments?
and I will give first dibs to Mr Catto.
Good evening.
We have been consulted, I should say, the partner society has been consulted by the
applicants ahead of this application as we were ahead of the previous one for which we
thank them.
We understand the financial logic as to why it doesn't make sense as a hotel.
I was able to check that fairly directly with a client of ours who is the proprietor of
the launch hotel, the only seriously operational and profitable hotel in Putney.
And it's true.
But you need to look in the societies in general in favor.
We would like to see this building brought back into a viable use and have all the rubbish
that's accumulated on the outside of it, in particular painting it the wrong colour, very
much sorted out.
So in principle we're in favour, we've got a couple of detailed points about oval windows,
do they need to go now, they're on a lift landing, and it occurs to me tonight that
There's a canopied entrance on the Lower Richmond Road
that isn't the main entrance,
and then an entrance that is of the flats
that isn't got a canopy.
It's just something that perhaps you might ask them
to dare to suggest they change.
And we have also did look and realize, of course,
the elevations are slightly misleading
because this is half of a bigger building.
The mansion block on the other end,
which doesn't show on the drawings,
remains at the height that the hotel is now. But on the whole, speaking personally, I think
actually making it a bit grander is a good idea.
Thank you. Ms Greenwood.
Could I have some more details about what's happening with the basement? Is it just refurbishing
inside or is it actually enlarging it or changing it or whatever?
The basement I think is going to be partly used by the bar, but also I think that's where
the bin stores and a lot of the cycle storage is going.
If we can look at the basement, I think we've got the basement plans here.
Yeah, so existing, because the existing one is used as a store by the bar.
So yeah, we've got plants, we've got resident amenity, bike store, yeah.
Because it's basically reusing a current space and not enlarging it or anything.
It's not being enlarged, no.
So there won't be any light wells or anything else like that on the pavement.
And I should, sorry, you have one of the, reminding me, one of the things I didn't say is,
yeah, obviously this is half of a much bigger building,
and you will notice that discrepancy both from the river
and from Lower Richmond Road
when you pop half up by another story.
So there's that consideration as well.
From the river, for a lot of the year,
that will be hidden behind the trees,
and you'll get that in long view.
And from the street, from Lower Richmond Road,
it's quite a narrow street,
so it's not like you're ever gonna see that in a long vista.
You will see it from the end of Waterman Street
That's probably the most prominent place if you see it at all
Where you would appreciate the fact that some of the building is higher than?
the rest
But as I said, you know, they have quite carefully considered that
And it's whether you think that that it's not a symmetrical building
Anyway, although it is on the same level in terms of the brickwork
So it's whether you think that that would be a problem, popping half of it up by an
additional story.
Mr Catto again.
I've just got a factual point to add about the basement, because having talked to the
applicants, they explained that one of the things that delayed the previous application
getting in at all and all sorts of things is that the Environment Agency insists that
There is absolutely no opening from that basement to the embankment because it's got to be a completely walled in against floods
So you you're they're stuck with a windowless space that is wholly underground in effectively
That holds the building up. So they've just got to find a use for it
Okay, are there any other comments
Yes, just a couple.
The mark made by Mr. Catté just now about the oval windows is certainly one I was going
to raise.
They are the charming and certainly if you have to, if you think that the oval window
is not suitable for one or two of the bedrooms
that are proposed, they're certainly quite sensible
to be retained and would cost substantially less to do
and just leaving them alone for the lift
and the vertical circulation,
particularly on the south side.
This may have been discussed before,
I've got my next point, is that it did bother me
that the building's going up probably another 20 foot
or so in height.
Or put in modern terms, more like six meters,
which is quite substantial.
There's no section to actually show how high
that building's going to be raised
that I could find on the planning application.
So we don't know how high it's actually going to go.
I would have thought there's a case
for dropping the height of the new modern extension
at the very top slightly,
because it seems to be more pronounced in height
than the new fourth story,
which is going to be done in brick.
But if we have not a section, we don't actually know.
The last point I'd like to raise
is the question of the impact on any neighbors
that's facing the building's south face,
who have rooms facing north from their own properties.
I haven't been down there to have a look,
because I only picked this up today,
and I wish I had got down there,
but I'm not quite sure what is opposite the building,
but I have another couple of large height stories
added to a building can make quite
a substantial difference to people.
That's it. Thank you.
Okay. So unless there are any other comments, what I'm hearing so far is agreement in principle,
but some concerns about the oval windows, about the entrances on the lower Richmond
Road, one of which is Canopied, the other not.
The height of the very top story and any potential impact
on neighboring properties facing the north side
of the building.
North people who live in properties facing,
people who face north across the Lower Richmond Road
will be to the south face of the range.
Sorry, I've got it, yes.
So, are there any other points that people want to raise
or have I got that basically right as a summation?
So, agreement in principle,
but we would welcome further discussions
by officers on those four issues.
Okay.
Can we then move on to number 73rd Road?
Number 3766.
Okay.
That's me, Chair.
This application came in as a pre -application, initially,
and it's a building that's in the Nightingale Lane conservation area.
Probably designed and built around about the 1920s.
It's rather later than some of the other buildings,
certainly the adjoining terraces, which are mainly Edwardian Victorian.
It's slightly smaller than the other buildings, either side of it.
It was used as I understand it as like a yoga centre for a number of years.
It hasn't been that well looked after in terms of the interior.
The United Kingdom conservation area appraisal is quite dated,
so it doesn't distinguish between positive buildings and negative buildings,
but I regard it as a positive building, although the garage itself is rather negative.
there's only one other garage in the street, so it has a negative influence on the building form.
The replacement building that came in was wider than the one that's being shown on the application,
and it also had twin gables and a pitched roof rather than a hipped roof. So there was a number
of things I was talking about with the applicants about what they ought to try and move towards.
At the same time, as I said, obviously, the building's
protected.
It's in the conservation area.
But also, we've also got another policy, LP 10,
which talks about embodied carbon.
And therefore, it's very important
to, if you're going to justify any demolition of the building,
not only address the conservation area
aspects of this, but also the embodied carbon,
which they have done as part of their application.
And so they come in with this revised proposal, which has a hip groove.
They've gone through the energy aspects of it, and they've called them their consultants.
The restoration of the existing building uses up much more carbon than just demolishing and rebuilding,
which is wise to me, but I'm not a consultant in that sort of aspect of things.
So we have to sort of just take that as it is, I suppose, really.
The pre -application also had much white...
They had extra windows on the side of the door case,
which I think the proportionality didn't seem quite right.
So they've adjusted that.
So they've looked at the buildings next door,
so they've almost copied that, I think, to some extent.
But you'll see the difference between the front and the back,
because the front, they are looking at a revival of the sort of Victorian Edwardian revival,
whereas the back of the building is rather contemporary and modern.
So, I call it a Jekyll and Hyde appearance, really, because, you know, one side, one on the other side.
But we'll have to wait and see how that goes, because, you know, I've made comments on both aspects of that
and whether they'll make any further changes or not,
we'll have to wait and see.
But it's really, I think, the other aspect
that I disliked as a pre -application
was the fact they were putting in a car
ramp in the front garden.
Because not only you've got the association of possible noise
to the neighbors up and down of the ramp,
but also the loss of any trees.
Because there's some big trees, there's some whole moaks
in the front garden.
And there was concern about the loss of trees
to that part, because it's quite, you know, they're quite
problem trees in that part of the conservation area.
So there's a number of issues there to look at,
not just the building, but also the landscape as well
as part of the site.
And also he talks about the front boundary wall,
because the existing fence actually looks fairly original.
There are other fences to that street frontage as well,
although I accept there are a number of wall,
front walls for that area.
And in terms of car parking, well, most people in the street seem to be acceptable to having
cars parked in the street, and there aren't that many.
There's a few, but there aren't that many.
There's only one of the garages I mentioned, but there aren't that many cars parked in
front gardens.
And they had two cars parked in front garden initially.
I think they've gone down to one now with the fact that it's – one goes down below
while the other one stays above.
But you know you may have views on all these things really so I think perhaps it's just over to you
We'd see what what your your views are on
Just before we do that are there any factual questions things that are not clear
It's not mr. Armstrong
Yes, thank you um
This building was the existing building,
which has been used as an ashram for many years,
very by a yogi, I think,
so which is why it painted that strange color of orange.
It's a substantial house.
It was designed by the architect developer, Edward Evans,
It was a local well -known Bassey architect and developer.
And it was built in 1926, 27.
And the garage, because it's a 1927 built,
large, detached, five bedroom house,
the garage, which was built at the same time,
is part of the original development
and certainly does not detract from the conservation area.
And the house is slightly smaller than surrounding houses
in height and general appearance
because architecture had changed a bit.
Houses were more low -built in the 1920s.
But it certainly is a very important building in the conservation area
because of the way, in local history terms,
the way that area was developed.
It was developed piecemeal over a number of years.
It was originally allotment gardens,
and that development took place over a protracted period.
And it's part of the history of the area.
The building that is proposed to replace it
is a monstrosity.
I don't understand how it can be argued by anyone
that it has a lower carbon impact than renovating
the existing property.
It is more than twice the size and bigger
than the substantial Edwardian turreted house number
68 on its right.
And it has this swimming pool, car lift,
and all that sort of thing.
Substantial basement.
It's ugly at the rear.
The rear is bland, modern.
It's just a facade, really.
A sort of Victorian, a pseudo Victorian facade
slapped onto a very insensitively designed modern house.
The other aspect of this application
which has not been mentioned
is the destruction of the trees.
The garden on both sides and to the front.
If you look along that road, it's well treed,
but most of the trees are on the boundary
or in the rear garden or the frontage
of the existing building, number 70.
And I think almost all of them are due to disappear in this development.
And the front boundary is very pleasant.
It's, you know... The whole thing...
is absolutely fine as it stands in conservation terms,
and it would be an absolute disaster in conservation terms
to see this application, this development take place.
Because it would blight the area for two or three years.
These huge developments
involve massive amounts of construction,
lorry visits,
but the site would be a complete tip for many months.
And I just think this is absolutely appalling thing to consider even.
Approving this scheme would be contrary to anything that I consider to be worthy of conservation.
Okay, other comments?
Mr Catto.
Well, I'm going to second your comments about keeping the existing building, because I think
there's seriously nothing wrong with it, that can't be sorted out with proper conservation
and insulation.
And I noticed when we were talking embodied carbon, not only are they knocking down a
substantially built building and no doubt hauling it all away, then they're going to
hole in the ground and actually that's why they're finding the current house inconvenient
is because they want to dig a whole basement and a swimming pool below. I mean Gilt is
charged for building one myself 30 years ago somewhere around that area but that was then.
Both the front elevation attempting to imitate the neighbours and the back elevation with
too much glass, fail to be environmentally conscious in any way, don't let them pull
the wool over your eyes.
There's no reason to take down this thing that marks, as you rightly say, Mr Armstrong,
how the conservation area evolved.
Other comments?
Councillor Owens.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I've just been looking at it on Google Maps as well.
It's not actually in the Northcott Ward,
that's the boundary there, so it's in Balham.
Yes, concur with everything that's been said.
I mean, I can see how obviously it is very different
to the other houses, and I can see why the plans are
as they are to bring it in line with them.
But I think the history is interesting.
It is the history of the conservation area,
and if it had been allotments, that's why it was built,
as it was 100 years ago, and that's why it started
is different.
And as you rightly say, a basement is not exactly,
I mean, that's the reason they're doing it.
They're knocking it down for that reason,
not for environmental reasons.
OK, unless I hear anything else of Mr. Dawson.
I had a couple of points which I made in my notebook here,
which haven't been touched on.
But I do think I support largely what Roger and Andrew have said.
But what flummuses me is
that you can knock a perfectly reasonable house,
and quite a large one looking at it from above,
to knock it down and then build a house with a faux front,
sort of imitation front, which never, they never quite
come off to the imitations.
And then you've got what presumably the owners think
is going to be a modern real.
It can't make up its mind what it wants to be.
And in the area of Thirlley Road and some of the side roads
between there and Nightingale Lane,
there are some very good examples
of modern infill design houses.
Ones I can think of straight away were designed
by an architect who no longer lives here now, Martin Hewitt,
who designed several really nice houses
that were built by Randalls,
who were one of the local contractors at the time.
I'm not sure if they still exist as such.
I thought the car parking arrangement was quite bizarre.
You park one car and it drops down into what seems
to be an area, a room below with an access onto the area
in front of the window.
And presumably someone can come along.
I think they've got an application in for two cars.
So the second car can only be parked on top.
And I can't see how there won't be a row or two
about who's going to get their car out first
to get to use them.
Anyway, that's neither one thing or another.
I think it's a disappointing scheme for an area
which has got a lot of interest,
a lot of good houses there,
and a lot of good infills if they want to go and do something slightly different.
Okay.
Unless there are other comments, can I summarize that I think we are opposing this application
on the grounds of loss of a perfectly decent house, which is an important element of the
history of the development of the area.
That we find that we're concerned about the loss of trees.
We're concerned about car parking associated with that.
We are not persuaded by the faux Victorian front, late Victorian front of what would
be basically a modern building.
And the arguments about embodied carbon simply do not stack up.
Have I got the key points?
Have you got all that, Mr. Burnham?
OK, let's move on.
Waterfall House, well known to this committee.
Right, this one's me.
Yeah, as you say, you're not strangers to this building.
Originally a Georgian house, it's been much altered,
but retains the Georgian themes
that were in the original building.
but what we have now is largely Victorian.
Its orientation to the street has been changed,
but it does retain a carriage drive,
even though it's not in the precise original place,
but it does have that external space,
which is the only bit of amenity space that it now has.
And the proposal is, there are currently
lots of, quite a few uses on this site.
There's a dentist, there's a nursery.
This application is for banner adverts for the dentist.
And they would, there are six in total,
and they would be around three sides of the site
as it currently is.
The existing banner adverts at the front
on the Tooting High Street elevation didn't have consent,
and I think have been taken down now pending this application.
But you can see from the application, the location of this advert that we're looking
at is the red one out of the six.
So in total, the yellow and the red, there will be six adverts, banner adverts, on the
external street elevations of what's the site elevations of this.
This great to list the building.
So you can see what a lot of advertising has been proposed.
And where it would go if we can just scroll through.
There's quite a lot of text here.
There's a huge QR code.
Obviously photographs of people grinning attractively into the camera.
So this is what you'd get when you move around the site.
This is what you'd be presented with, obviously the house forming the backdrop to this.
And it's really whether you think this is acceptable or not, quite so much advertising
or what you would like to see instead.
Okay.
Questions.
questions, factual questions.
Could you say something about the size of the proposed boards?
There's not.
It's pretty sketchy information, I'm afraid.
We don't have any elevations for the site, so we don't have any indication what this
would look like in terms of a street view.
So this is really all we can give you.
But you can see the size of, well,
you've all seen the previous advertisements
that have come down, so you've got an idea
of how big they'll be.
And the fact that there are six of them around the site.
So it's quite considerable.
We're not talking about the sort of signage
you'd associate with a church, for example.
You know, a sign board, these are quite large banner adverts.
Okay, Miss Lawson.
Thank you.
We do know what it would look like because these banners were erected in November and removed promptly.
And I've got some pictures of what they look like in situ.
Presumably these are the same measurements, because these are the ones now that are attached to the fencing of the building.
So they've been lowered. Some have been removed, but some have been lowered.
So I've got an image of what that might look like.
We really, can I continue this one?
We were really pleased that the banners that were attached to the buildings were removed.
And I suppose this building, someone commented today it's never really been loved.
And it's certainly true that recently it's not been well respected.
and perhaps you should go back to the sort of old fashioned thing of ownership of the
custodians of an important building, caring for it for next generations.
And these banners perhaps are temporary, but they do something quite harmful to our sort
of consideration and our appreciation of what's a really attractive building.
The banners – yeah, so talking about embodied carbon and things, these banners are supported
by huge uprights that have been sunk into the ground in massive concrete blocks that have been
dug down. Ironically the nursery is called Woodlands, but all greenery was removed and
in the removal of the green the very nature of the building and how we regard it has been entirely
changed but that's not to then allow these banners to do further damage to how the property is seen.
So, yes, so for example, the banner that was attached,
perhaps in readiness for the newer banners,
a dental thing that was attached directly to the building
obscured a rather nice architectural feature
to the north flank, the arched window,
which is complete with its iron,
the iron cover on the fenestration there,
which is mentioned in its listing,
which is really something that once revealed should remain.
and rather than perhaps you can see it
through a security street,
but if you're walking down that road,
or if you're on a bus coming down to Yuting High Street,
High Street, the banners just block out
that view altogether.
I mean, I don't know, I haven't measured those banners
and what's proposed, but we can get a fair,
I imagine they're not going to reprint these.
I think that's what they're asking for.
And that they haven't even suggested,
there were no images in the application to give that kind of idea it might be
done I think it's just a lack of regard for the whole building so it seems to
speak volumes really and perhaps why we should resist it as a committee.
Mr Armstrong. Yeah I've known this building since the early 1970s when my housing
and association that I worked for,
developed the adjacent site
with a little set of Georgian cottages
to match the Georgian frontage of Walthall House that was listed then.
And it's not been Victorianised or modernised to any great extent.
I think the porch may be slightly later,
but it's a building of 1825 to 30,
very fine building with a reliving arch facade. And at the time that I
knew it, it was dental stroke doctor surgeries. Doctors Christie and Eggling, I
think, and they were content with a nice little brass plate attached to the door
or porch, and it remained like that until now.
It doesn't have a history of large advertising signage
whacked onto it.
And I don't, you know, it's a listed building.
It's an important building.
I don't think it should have great banner advertisements
attached to it.
I mean, there might be an advertisement.
It could go on the fence somewhere or something.
But to have all this signage attached
to an important listed building right
at the boundary of the borough, I think is outrageous.
So I don't want it to happen.
Is there anyone who wants to make any additional points
about this?
Councillor Osborne.
Yeah, I am the ward counselor for this site.
And I know the building very well.
Indeed, I live quite close by.
And some of you may know that I've been quite involved
in local history societies and so on over the years.
It is an important listed building which ought
to be a landmark listed building because it's in the gateway
as you come up from Collier's Wood into tooting.
And it can't be if it's obscured
by gigantic advertising of this type.
Secondly, it's advertising which I think
just automatically spoils the look of the building
regardless of whether it's a landmark building
as you enter tooting.
It spoils it anyway to throw everything out of whack
in a sense.
everything out of kilter by putting these advertisements there.
Thirdly, I would say that the attitude of the people who occupy and use the building
is from time to time a bit cavalier, and I think it's important that they understand
how significant the building is.
And they need to be given a bit of a message, I think, about what they do with the building.
They've already made alterations which I think have damaged the look of the building in that
that turning space in in front of the building
and
I'm worried about some of the features just inside the front door for example in the building
And I want them to understand that they are custodians of this building and we expect them to be
custodians of this building and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to
do this kind of thing they've got to they've got to be brought up short I'm
afraid I think I think that's the those are three reasons why we shouldn't
really be allowing this kind of advertising to happen it's it's about
the quality of the ward that I represent
Thank you.
Can I try and sum up again?
This is an important listed building on a landmark site for the borough and more particularly
for the District of Tooting, if district is the right word.
And what is being proposed here is to obscure this important building on this important
site.
And thirdly, that we need to, as I said right at the beginning, it's well known to this
Committee and and to everyone sitting around this table because it's been in front of this committee so many times
It needs to be brought home to those responsible for the upkeep of
An important listed building that they have responsibilities
Which they are not fulfilling at the moment
Is that enough and clear enough
Councillor Belton
What's the phrase that is so beloved of the planners?
It's substantial harm, is it?
I think that's the phrase.
As you know, not for me to suggest what you say,
particularly, but I would emphasize that very strongly,
that it does substantial harm to make it very clear
so that the applications committee is in no doubt
what you feel about it.
Is that generally agreed?
Yes?
Okay.
Let us move on.
Very close to home.
The town hall.
This is me as well.
So there's not an awful lot of information that's been supplied with this application.
The applicant is the council.
And so it could be construed as rather disappointing that it's rather sketchy in terms of its information
that we've received.
But this is for, it's another advert application.
It's for banners on the external elevations of the building to advertise the London Borough
of Culture 2025.
The banners would be fixed, physically fixed, to the stonework of the town hall.
Now we have some information about how that would be done, but as I say, it's a bit sketchy and we're asking for more.
And if we could actually go to that information, these are the sort of clamps that are proposed.
Now, in the submitted information, there is a bit of discrepancy because it doesn't tell
us exactly where they would go, these clamps.
Some of the information appears that they'd be fixed directly into the freeze on the front,
ones with high street elevation.
So we're asking for clarification of exactly where they're being put.
So, bringing this to you and putting this in front of you, it's really to say that
there, it's the information that we've got at the moment is indicative only.
So we're looking at the general principle rather than the exact nature.
But you've got an idea of what it is.
These are the types of banners that will be fixed temporarily, although there's no such
thing as a temporary list of building consent application.
But the idea is that they will be there during the borough of culture year.
But they will be fixed into the stonework, which will then require making good on the
– if we were to consent this, would require making good when the banners are removed.
I'm going to leave it there and invite comments.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'm not going to start by asking if there are any questions because I think, as you've
said, there are so many questions that could be asked that you won't be able to answer.
Okay, one then.
Just the one.
There's a picture on screen with three banners.
The text description says two.
Yeah, that's one of the descriptions.
So when I said this was sketchy, I then said...
I presume we're being asked about the ones on either side, in which case, why isn't there
an application for the other?
Well, I'm not going to put it that way.
But I presume we're being asked for the two on the flank in this question.
Yeah.
And the other question is, you say temporary, but is there an indication in the application
as to how long they want to keep them and what happens afterwards?
There isn't, no.
And given that, I mean, there is a parallel application for advert consent because it
needs it.
But, as I say, you can't give, there's no such thing as a temporary list of building
consent application.
If we approve this, there's no saying that some other banners might not come along, oh,
well, let's advertise this, let's advertise that.
and the clamps stay in the stonework.
We can't, obviously, we'd be fighting ourselves
in terms of our enforcement would be against ourselves,
but yeah, we can't grant temporary permission.
It's not as though the London Borough of Consent,
London Borough of Consent?
London Borough of Culture.
Yeah, it's not as though the year finishes
and then we can then say, right,
we'll get those clamps out of the building
and make them good.
It's not as simple as that.
So we have to, I suppose, in approving this, we have to assume that, well, what if they
stayed there?
Dot, dot, dot.
Councilor Osborne.
Two technical questions.
Does anybody know, is it physically possible
to put a banner like that up on the building
without having to drill into the stonework and so on?
Can you just sort of dangle them from something?
And no, actually I think I'll leave my question
at that for the time being.
Well the answer to that is we don't have that indication
of how far they will need to drill into the stonework
to do that.
There's also the question of, I mean,
we've seen over the last week it's been very windy.
What happens when we get Storm Owen happening again,
which inevitably will, and the safety aspects of these.
I mean, they're, you know, they're just,
we just don't have that information.
But I would imagine that to be fully compliant
with any regulations there would have to be significant drilling into the stonework to
mount these things.
Councillor Osborne again.
Okay, second question.
Do we actually have to decide this now or do we have time to defer the decision?
Because of the London Borough of Culture dates going forward, this is the reason why we brought
it to this committee because by the time we get to the next committee, a decision will
need to be made on this application fairly swiftly. So it may not be possible to defer
it to March committee because we've been given an indication from our arts and cultures
team that this needs to be determined within the timeframes of the application and cannot
be deferred ie extended or given an extension of time thank you and sorry
for calling you miss Lawson I meant this boy
Councillor Belton I'm completely this by the way just as interest but just some
dates the launch of London Barrow culture is February the 27th I think and
the Planning Applications Committee is someone tell me February the 24th 26 as
I said I don't know anything about it but I assume that someone once wants
this, these banners up by the end of the month, February.
Okay, I'm going to pass on to Mr. Dawson.
We're not going here tonight,
standing in for Peter Farrow.
I thought it would be a bit of a breeze,
But I think I've got the hot potato tonight, because there's all sorts of awkward issues to be faced.
First of all, having read the application at least twice in the last 24 hours, it's a pretty poor application by any standards, I have to say.
And it's contradictory in many of the things it puts forward.
I can cite one or two things.
it says, fixings are to be concealed on the roof.
All the fixings shown on that sheet of fixings
are to be drilled and fixed with M12 bolts,
injectable anchors.
So it strikes me that the bolts will be going
into the stonework at the front of the building.
They're nowhere near the roof,
so I don't know why that was put in
as a description of what was going to happen.
and if it's injectable that could suggest
that they're going to fix the anchors
with some special fluids,
which are regularly used now by structure engineers,
and I would have said that once injected into the stone
would not be readily repairable,
except at vast costs, I should think.
So that's those points.
To get to the dates that have just been touched on,
the application was made on the 20th of December.
The actual report that goes with it
says that the banners are going to be mounted in November 24
and they are going to be taken down on the 31st of March in 26.
So someone's dropped a clang at me here
because November 24 is now two months ago.
And this application, I would suggest,
should have gone in in the late summer, early autumn,
if they wanted the banners to be hung
and shown by November 24th.
I'm going to quote Peter Farrer
when he sent me a note about this,
because he's very careful how he puts it.
I think you'll understand why.
He says, I'm not overwhelmed by the design of the banners.
And I think that probably sums it up
without going into too much more detail,
except I'll give it one anecdote.
I used to work here many, many years ago.
And at the time, the BBC had a series of films
made called Secret Army.
This room and the face of the building, et cetera,
was wrapped up in all the paraphernalia of the secret army.
And I must say, these banners are somewhat reflective
of the fullness and rather fierceness in appearance.
I would have thought banners, and this is just a personal view,
not a wonder of sight, necessarily.
But as I'm here, I'll say it.
I think to advertise the borough of the culture, it should be joyful, it should be colourful,
it should be something to attract people, but I must say, I do go along with Peter Farrow's
description of not being overwhelmed.
They are very big and I think our society would say straightaway these banners and none
of the photographs that you've been showing tonight or were shown on the preview photographs
by the officers show the side elevation which is a huge banner.
That is the one facing Wandsworth High Street, it's not Wandsworth High Street is it, but
the facing the fountains on the side.
That is a very, very big banner and that's going to need a series of fixings, quite a
number of them I would suggest.
So I think our feeling is that someone's got to think about this again, which is I find
very difficult to say when we've got a borough that's put a lot of effort into trying to
get hold of its new status as a borough of culture,
but has left this particular issue far too late, really,
and could do better, perhaps.
Councillor Rowins.
I suppose what I'm confused about with the banner,
and obviously I think there's huge issues
with permanently being able to have the banner,
but in the run -up to us winning the borough of culture,
there was a completely different...
I've just had a quick look again at the photographs of Sadiq
with Simon and Marjanev and with the kind of,
you know, we want to be the borough of culture.
It's a totally different sort of banner.
I mean, it's got a picture of Tooting on it.
It's got the usual, the logo.
I know that was originally a conservative logo.
But it's quite a colorful.
And it was used, again, when we won it as Wandsworth is 2025,
London borough of culture.
And it's just very different and much nicer
than obviously what was chosen as the digital design for Web4 after we won.
But just saying, I'm just surprised that something like that couldn't be used instead.
Okay.
I see two, I'll take two more comments on this.
I think I can foresee the result of this, that we're going to object to this application.
Are there key additional points that we want to make is my question.
But briefly, please.
Right.
Rather than the difficult idea of fixing banners to the building, would it not be possible
to have a laser light display reflected onto the building, which is done often in other
situations?
It's a great big blank white building, ideal for that, I would have thought, and it would
not involve any fixings or anything like that, any kind of application.
Someone just needs to get their head screwed on right and get a better idea of doing this.
That's what we asked for.
Precisely that.
Briefly, Ms. Greenwood.
Just briefly to say that that logo and that design is part of what is now called Welcome
to Wandsworth.
And it isn't very welcoming, that's all I can say.
But that's why it's like that.
And now it's black and sort of gloomy.
Okay.
I'm going to say most basically what I said a couple of minutes ago.
I can't see any way in which we can do anything but oppose this application.
It's an incompetent application, it seems to me, in that it leaves so many questions
unanswered.
It involves permanent damage to a listed building.
It's, leave aside questions about the design of the banners for the moment.
Actually we're talking about the possibility, as Mr. Andrews has said, of banners in perpetuity
on the building.
I think we have no alternative but to say no to the application.
Is that acceptable?
Have you got enough?
Councillor Belton.
I see that I get in a slightly hot seat somewhere around here,
sometime in the next month or so.
Can you make sure you've got all the words in?
Can you make sure?
I mean, if I was, I'm not in your position.
If I was in your position, I heard what you said.
And I think you may not be strictly
within your terms of reference,
since the discussion we were having earlier,
I think pointing out that you can't envisage
how the building can be restored to its current state.
And all the things you've said about it,
and the fact that you can't have a temporary,
a point needs to be made to the council
to help anyone who's gonna try to defend this position
with the arguments.
So I think you've got to put in as much as you can.
And we do have an alternative.
Oh, you certainly mentioned one.
Sorry, I don't mean that to be overly coy,
but I can imagine that argument.
But you know, I'm not putting that forward,
but I take your point.
Okay, are we content to leave it
as an outright objection on the grounds that have been specified,
and to emphasise that there is an alternative.
OK, let us move on to the final application,
the Sali Army Citadel,
which I imagine most of us are reasonably familiar with on Ram Street.
Thank you chair, last one of the evening.
So this is the site of the Salvation Army Citadel.
So you see the location plan here.
So just behind us at the town hall.
So in terms of designations, this building does not sit within a conservation area, but
as you can see here, it's wrapped around on almost all sides with Wandsworth Town Conservation
area and also is sandwiched between the listed building or the listed complex of the town
hall, the RAM complex, and then you have the locally listed formal workers' cottages
to the north on Banishar Street.
So the site in particular has come forward to the Conservation and Heritage Advisory
Committee as it is situated within a site allocation, which that site allocation includes
the town hall, the town hall extension, the civic suite and this site as well as the council
housing that surround it to the east and to the north of the site and it extends up to
the south side of Banchard Street. The site allocation also identifies it as a mid -rise
zone so allows upwards of six stories or the equivalent of 80 meters in height. So the
The reason why we brought it to committee is for the very reason that it will be the
first development coming forward as part of the site allocation and given its context
or immediate context in the surrounding or within the setting of the conservation area
in these listed buildings.
So the site as it is at the moment is a single story building that has been built in 2008.
So it's quite a young building.
It actually replaced a previous building, which was quite historically interesting building,
unfortunately was demolished to make way for this building here.
A single story, but probably in terms of height terms, consider it two story building in the
area of the hall.
And what they're proposing to do is to demolish the building.
It's surplus to requirements by the Salvation Army.
They are proposed to move out and the site is then to be proposed to be
replaced with a six -story building as you can see here, so in terms of use you have a ground floor use which is a
combination of
commercial and flexible community use with an entrance lobby for a
50 -bedroom hotel which will occupy the upper floors and
And then you have plant on the roof, which is in some way masked by a rather interesting screen,
which acts in a similar way to like a hipped roof, just to contain that plant and to introduce a much more,
a much less cluttered roofscape for the building.
So this has gone through various iterations at pre -application stage and it's come to us as a full application now.
So if we go through the sections,
you'll see that the ground floor,
floor to ceiling heights is slightly greater.
So it is more than 18 meters in terms of AOD height.
So it is a six -story building, but slightly taller.
But the reason behind that is the ground floor,
floor to ceiling heights is slightly greater
on the basis that it's a better floor to ceiling height
for the proposed use in terms of community and floor space.
So if we go through the sections
and the elevation drawings.
So you see here, we go back to ground floor plan,
you'll see the layout here.
So you've got the hotel entrance on the Ram Street entrance,
overlooking the service entrance for the Ram Quarter
on the other side of Ram Street.
So it's not a very animated part of the town.
It's slightly outside of the town center.
And sort of a transition point between those bigger
developments that we were discussing
in the previous Conservation and Heritage Advisory
Committee in November 2024. So it's got a lot of work to do, but they're proposing the hotel entrance
just towards the north side. There's been a bit of work done on that to try to animate that entrance
with the main entrance to the cafe community commercial space within at that corner point
with Shoreham Close. And then you have all of the plant and back of house that's towards the eastern
inside of the site, just where there's less visual interest
in that part of the site.
So if we go up the floors, you'll see,
so this is just the typical floor plan
for the upper floors of the hotel.
So sort of standard arrangement you would expect
for a hotel.
And then the plant contained within the roof,
which they've sought to try to visually obscure
with the sort of pseudo roof here,
with a green roof as well.
And here's just to show you some of the CGI,
so you're looking at the upper floors of brick.
They have done a lot of work in terms of contextual studies
for this site, looking at the high street itself
and how these corner buildings have been treated
in a way where you have a taller ground floor space,
which is more animated and treated in a different way
with in this case a render and a green brick,
which is, or green tile in fact,
which is becoming a little bit more common
in some of these developments.
We've got the development just behind the church,
All Saints Church as well,
which has introduced that green brick as well.
And then the upper floors treated in a quite rigid pattern
in terms of the window arrangements.
With some detail picked up on in terms of the side panels or the windows but quite an industrial sort of appearance to it
But if you when you look through some of the designer access statement
They have proposed a lot of contextual studies and they've done a lot of design and evolution for this building to try to
introduce a building that seeks to
Works well in its context. So because it is a
a site allocation and so the buildings coming forward
that surround the site, they need to look at that
in a lot of detail in terms of how they future proof
this site.
So on this Ram Street South view,
there was a bit of discussion about how this is treated.
That's gonna be quite an important elevation
in terms of wayfinding coming down from Old York Roads
and Wandsworth Town Station.
So they can't do an awful lot on this on this flank elevation because obviously whatever comes forward on the scheme that you can see in front of it could come forward.
So there's a bit of work in the design access statement as well.
But they have sought to treat the corner of the building with a with a marketed sign which said Rams Ram Quarter just to give it a little bit more of a of a presence on the streets.
and allow that wayfinding, but also to allow an appreciation of that corner where their
hotel entrance is. So if we have a look at the other CGI's, this gives you some of the
views as well. So this is existing view come from Ram Street within the conservation area
at that junction with the high street. So at the moment, the building is very modest.
It's not very discernible when you look down to Ram Street and then you have the building
coming up in the background of the Ram Brewery
and the Ram Public House.
So you can see how they've sought to try to treat
that corner in a way that's complimentary
to the character of the conservation area
and so those corner buildings that you see.
And again, this is one looking from the other side
of Ram Street, looking south towards the site
where you can see the town hall extension
in the background and the new Ramacorta works.
And then that's showing it in its context there,
just that it's coming up behind
or in front of the Town Hall extension.
And I think there's maybe another view here.
There's just the last CGA that just goes,
gives you an idea of wider context
looking from Garrett Lane towards the site
with those listed buildings in the foreground
and the wider conservation.
Obviously, this is quite a helpful CGI to end on.
So it'd be interesting to know if the committee have any comments on this, considering what
it is doing a lot of work in terms of setting a precedent for whatever comes forward on
the rest of the site allocation.
Okay, thank you.
Questions first of all of fact or anything not clear from the presentation?
No comments, then I'll start with Mr Dawson.
Right, we're not objecting to this building.
We've had a meeting with, a very related meeting
set up with Dave Clark, who used to be a senior officer
in the planning department here some years ago.
I'm now an associate director of something called the Terrapin Group, which I think is
the PR, acting as PR people for the developers.
The building is neat, neatly designed, and we don't object to it.
What should be noted, though, is that it's landlocked.
It's a very small site and the building encompasses
the whole of the site area.
It has no immunity space, no parking
or servicing provision at all.
And I think the applicant has tried to deal with TFL
and Wandsworth as to how they could have arrangements
for servicing the building on a daily basis in particular,
which would probably mean lots of vans and several lorries,
but presumably they've satisfied themselves
and possibly the council too, I don't know,
of these arrangements.
The only point we have made is that
the roof is quite interesting, but we think,
and we have made this point to them in writing,
that the screen should be somewhat higher.
For two reasons, one is it's very low pitch and not very tall.
And we think that it could be much more interesting if it was slightly taller.
And the reason that that has come about is because roof plant, as shown on application drawings,
always sort of underplays in our experience
of what actually happens after the buildings
have been constructed and the servicing consultants
start to get onto it.
The plant shown on the section drawing is quite low,
but we did put it to them.
and there's a likelihood there's going to be somebody
wanting to get on the roof of these pieces of plant.
That will mean railings.
That will mean ladders with safety railings and whatnot
going up to the top and over.
And a particular example of this in our experience
is the plant that's been placed on top of
the new Springfield Hospital buildings,
which are quite noticeable, particularly if you're some distance away from them.
They're very powerful and they're just covered in all the sorts of bits of pipe work and fences and that sort of thing,
and lighting, which is of a greater extent than shown on the drawings.
So our view is that the and if we've made it to them, I don't know what reaction they've taken
That the roof could be slightly taller the pitch could be slightly keep the same pitch
But raise it so that it would take into consideration
any
Modifications that may be needed as being built or in the future for the plant
Thank you
Does anyone want to object to this building?
Does anyone want to add to the reservations as to the servicing of the building or the
pitch of the roof or the height of the roof?
Sorry, not the pitch.
Add no additional points?
Okay.
Sorry?
If you finish up more on the six factors, then I doubt you will.
How could I not?
I'm just intrigued. I mean, said in the introduction, it was a bit of old Victoriana, another bit of Victoriana that we wiped out.
I don't remember any argument about it. I'm wondering whether our historians are here.
I mean, there was no battle about it when the old Rand building went...
What was that?
The Sully Army building was...
It never came to this committee.
I mean, that previous building had lots of little interesting stone plaques,
date plaques and things all around it,
which, you know, presumably they hadn't been incorporated into this current building.
Yeah, it was never listed or anything like that.
Sorry, you are indulging me.
I do recognize it's on the,
I mean, bits of Victoria armor are just disappearing.
I know there's still a lot in Britain,
but it is going, and it just went one day,
as far as I was concerned.
Okay.
Can we then move on to the next item on the agenda, item there?
I'm losing my place.

4 Decisions (Paper No. 25-28)

It's the applications determined item 4.
There were a couple of points I wanted to make about this list.
First of all, the 64 Clapham Common North side, we did object originally to this application
on the basis of the height of the roof.
that has now been resolved, I think,
to most people's satisfaction.
And so I think actually we can pat ourselves on the back
in seeing this application through to fruition.
Just to note that item two on, yeah.
I just thought the phrase at the top of page 12
doesn't give the right impression to me anyway.
The committee were pleased to see that the proposal
sought redevelopment as opposed to previously
destructive schemes which sought demolition.
Redevelopment sounds very much like demolition
and redevelopment to me.
I mean, I think we mean sought refurbishment, don't we?
Yeah, fine.
OK.
I'm not, I mean, I didn't write this paper.
If we can move on to the second one, a minor typo there.
It's 94, Bolingbroke Grove, not 95.
And more substantively, as is recorded on page 13, there's an appeal against refusal
here.
I don't know whether the officers have much more to report on that.
I mean, statements are due next month from the applicant and then in March from the council,
but I presume there's been no progress on that.
Okay.
Dial House has been approved over our objection.
And the final two, Wimbledon and, sorry, I'll come back to you, Andrew, and Springfield
Hospital have been approved by Jules Pipe as Deputy Mayor, not by this council or indeed
by a planning inspector for that matter.
Just to note that there are other authorities involved than us.
But Mr Catto.
Just briefly to report back on dial house
Work is thoroughly underway
The extra story is on and is extremely visible in the direct line ahead of you as you go approach to site along the upper
Richmond Road I
Endorse that
Okay
Just to note, item five, future meeting dates,

5 Future Meeting Dates

is there any other business?
If not, thank you, and I declare the meeting closed.
Thank you.