Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 26 February 2025, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 26th February 2025 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.

to keep people at home if they're watching, waiting,

not knowing what's happening.

Where's Councillor Govindia?

Okay, I'm starting in any event.

Okay, good evening ladies and gentlemen.

This is, and welcome to this meeting,

the February meeting of the Planning Applications Committee.

My name is Tony Belton.

I'm a Councillor in Battersea Park,

surprisingly, I am also the chair of this meeting. I am asking members of the committee

to introduce themselves as they wish to speak, but I will start quickly by introducing the

people on the top table here.

Good evening, my name is Nick Calder, I am the head of Development Management.

Good evening, my name is Duncan Moore, I am the External Legal Advisor.

I am Ruth Wright from Democratic Services and I am clocking.

We have viewing councillors over here on the left and planning officers on the right and

public galleries here as well.

First issue is to ask everyone if it is OK if I sign the minutes of the last meeting.

Secondly, I ask that any members have any pecuniary or other personal interests in any

of the applications.

No interest at all on this occasion.

Good.

Now, just before we move on to the paper,

we have a number of councilors here to give presentations.

Can I remind members of the committee in particular,

I think once or twice, this has slipped a bit recently,

that the people giving, representing their constituents

are representing their constituents

and not planning experts.

What you may wish to ask them

about what they think of the application,

you can do that afterwards in your own time.

It's not relevant what they think of the application.

They're here to present what their representatives

have talked to them about.

So let me just make that very clear in the first place.

They are here to present their constituents' views, not their own views.

I am not saying they disagree with their constituents, but not their own views of the applications.

The first application is, I want to change the order of the agenda very slightly.

take the first item first, which is fair enough,

but also take the fifth item, Mayford Road second,

and that's because I think the public gallery

are here for one of those two applications.

So first of all, the application at Whitnell Way,

and ask Ms. Molloy to present it.

It is an application for 32 new properties and council development in

item which I'm going to present is the application at Whitnell Way, the Ashburton -Chartfield

Estate. Just a quick overview of the proposal. The site is located within Putney and in terms

of the estate we are bounded by Chartfield Avenue which forms part of the West Putney

conservation area. The Ashburton South estate is located here and the Whitnell Way, Chartfield

Avenue, which is part of the application site, is here where my arrow is. The sites are three

sites within the estate. We have one here which is known as WT1, WT2 at the front of

and then WT3 which is located near the central playground and that can be seen

again here in terms of the where the sites are located. Just in terms of

context the the estate itself varies between three and five stories in height

and so we've got more five -story buildings towards the north of the site and

as we go further south and to the east and west they become lower so

three and four stories. This just gives an overview again of the layout and the footprints

of the proposed three sites.

And then we move on to WT1, which is located basically on existing car parking area. And

We can again see its location with surrounding properties,

Mid -May House and also Stanhope House

and the various other surrounding properties.

And here you can see some of the distances.

So we've got 28 and a half meters between the properties

going down to 17 meters, kind of an oblique angle.

And then again, just to remind ourselves

in terms of the proposal and the heights proposed,

WT1 is actually the highest point on Whitnell Way, so there is, as you can see from that

section, quite a site level change there.

So that's its relationship there.

WT2 is again, as I say, at the front of Chartford Avenue.

the conservation area directly butts the site and again we can see some of the

distances between the existing properties we've got 14 meters here and

then 25 meters a bit more there and then 10 and 13 meters to the east and again

just some images to show the the heights there and in relation to the existing

residents and also Chartfields Avenue there and some visuals to show the kind of materiality

and the kind of scale being proposed.

WT3 is located within the centre of the estate and again is on a kind of car park, hard standing

type area.

The playground is located and forms quite a central part of the estate and again we've

We've got a building here of five stories and the distances of 16 and a half metres

there going up to 21 metres to Jelly Co House and then Humphrey House at an angle of seven

metres.

And again, just some visuals.

Just to note on that one actually, the playground, the existing playground will be upgraded and

slightly increased in size to 25 square meters.

And then as part of the overall estate, there's also additional landscaping proposed across

all the estates.

So there's additional trees being proposed, some ecological enhancements like bee lawns,

seasonal planting and again some just further improvements to the existing playground.

Just in terms of summary, the application is providing 32 affordable units all for social

rent with a range of unit sizes. There is a loss of eight trees including a category

A tree and four category B tree and you'll see in the paper that the arborculturist has

raised concern and objection to that and you know tree loss is always always

regrettable on these sites but we've had to weigh that up against the the kind of

proposed tree planting across the wider estate and the other benefits which are

being put forward and then in terms of the the overall development it would be

sustainable it would meet the home quality mark and with good carbon

savings so the recommendation the officer recommendation is to approve

subject to the completion of a legal agreement.

Thank you, Ms Molloy. Now, Councillor Austan has written and asked to give a presentation

of some of the residents' views. Mr Austan.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, you are aware you have five minutes, aren't you?

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You are probably fed up with me coming to talk about

planning in West Putney, but I make no apology whatsoever.

It is our duty as councillors to represent our residents,

but Mr. Chairman, I thank you once again

for your indulgence.

Now we officially branded as the listening council,

I'm sure all members, but especially the Labour whip

will want to live up to that billing

and allow members to turn down this application.

I was elected to serve West Putney

and listen to their voices and to fight for what is right.

and I can tell you absolute certainty,

this proposal is not right for our community.

What Wandsworth desperately needs is more family homes.

32 new homes being built here, only 27.

27 of them are one and two bedroom apartments.

Where are the family homes?

We all know that Wandsworth has a severe shortage

of larger family homes,

yet this development barely provides any.

No four bedroom homes, a handful of three bedroom homes,

and an overwhelming focus on smaller flats.

In short, the mix is wrong.

This application threatens to irreversibly damage

the character of Whitner Way.

It sacrifices vital green spaces

and it negatively impacts the day -to -day lives of residents

who have built their homes and families here.

They should not be forced into an impossible choice

between new housing and the wellbeing of the community.

We can and must demand both.

The developer here isn't a rapacious,

greedy offshore developer.

It's far worse than that.

It's the council being asked to grant itself permission

and we can and should be held to a higher standard.

One of the biggest concerns is the loss of green space

and matured trees.

This estate was designed with open space in mind

and those green spaces are just not aesthetically pleasing.

They are essentially the quality of life.

So we are constantly told how important urban greenery is

for air quality, biodiversity, mental health,

climate resilience.

No amount of replacement planting can undo what we lose here.

The design of this development is fundamentally flawed.

The design review panel itself raised serious concerns

about block WT3, calling it land hungry and destructive.

Instead of responding by improving design, the Council has made WT2 even taller,

further increasing loss of light, privacy and space for existing residents.

This is not thoughtful urban planning, it is simply overdevelopment.

It prioritises numbers on a spreadsheet over the needs of local people.

The parking and transportation situation is another disaster waiting to happen.

The estate is already under pressure when it comes to parking,

yet this development proposes to remove 35 parking spaces,

10 garages and 35 storage units,

replacing them with only 15 new spaces.

Their so -called solution is to exclude new residents

from obtaining CPZ permits,

but we all know what is really going to happen.

People will still own cars and they'll be forced to park elsewhere,

putting strain on the surrounding streets.

Then there is the impact on existing residents. The developers in their reports tell us that

the loss of daylight and privacy is acceptable. But for whom? In mild May, some windows will

lose up to 46 % of daylight. In Jellico House, some will see a light reduction of up to 41%.

How can we call that acceptable?

We are not talking about minor inconveniences. We are talking about fundamental changes to

how people live. A bright, comfortable home will become darker and more enclosed, forcing

residents to rely more on artificial lighting, increasing their energy costs and affecting

their wellbeing. Only three of the 32 units meet the required outdoor space standards.

The excuse? The larger balconies would block light to the lower units. Instead of designing

smarter, they are cutting corners, leaving future residents without adequate private

outdoor space, and families need balconies. Older residents need

acceptable places to sit outside. We all know that communal open

space does not replace the need for personal outdoor areas.

Let us be clear about what this development really offers. There

is less green space, more parking stress, darker homes, less

privacy, a housing mix that does not meet the real needs, and in

return we get a handful of new affordable homes, many of which

are not suitable for the families that need them the most. This is not a fair deal. Neither

I nor the residents here are anti -development. To call them such is a smear rather than to

listen. We should not be forced to choose between more homes and a liveable community

where we can have both. I urge the committee to listen to residents who live here, who

know the estate better than anyone. I urge them to reject this flawed, poorly designed

proposal and demand something better. We deserve housing that meets the real needs, development

that respects the character of our estate and the future that enhances then diminishes

our community. This is what I will fight for and I hope you will join me.

Thank you.

Councillor Austan, I don't think I have ever said things like this normally. I think most

people would say I'm a reasonably fair chair.

That just completely ignored what I said before.

It was a lot of your personal opinion, highly political.

I'm sure very few of the members of the public

has mentioned to you that the chief whip was

a member of the committee, or mentioned anything

about once as being a listening council or anything

of that kind.

That was highly political.

you've got one more opportunity if you want to do a presentation in front of me of doing it,

but only if you keep to what you are asked to do. You don't even go through the process of saying,

the residents have asked me to say, it was your personal view and that limits very much the

questions I'm going to allow people to ask because it was so much, I don't want to do this,

It's really not my style, as I think most members of the opposition will know, but that

was so political, I just have to say that.

Now, there's opportunity of members to ask questions of Councillor Austan in the presentation

that relate to the application and residents' view of it.

I was given the member for East Putney Ward.

You mentioned, Castle Austin, you mentioned the tenure mix

in the sense you mentioned the lack of

three and four bedroom house.

In your interaction with local residents,

how many cases have you come across

where people on the estate

say they would like to downsize?

And how many cases have you come across

from the interaction with residents on the estate

who want a three and a four and possibly even larger flats.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

As I think most wards in the boroughs,

especially wards like mine

with large amounts of social housing,

overcrowding is one of our biggest issues.

The last count, which I have to say was in January

that I got this out, not February,

There are 178 people in West Putney looking

for larger homes and there were 18 people looking

on the current downsizing register.

So there is a significant disproportion

between those wanting to upsize

and those willing to downsize.

Any other queries?

Okay, questions of the officers about the application.

There must be plenty, I would think.

Any, Councilor of India again?

Thank you.

Ms. Maloney, I used to pursue the area of parking, really.

So the application reduces the amount of parking.

The application report also says that the parking survey

suggested that there is not enormous parking pressure.

I get that.

But what I want to understand is how much of the estate is covered by housing's own

parking scheme and how much of the estate is affected by council run CPZ.

And so what will the relationship be between residents being able to, residents of the

estate, old and new, being able to park on the estate and off the estate?

Because I also note that there is not a condition asking for the new development to be

car -free and and people being barred from

applying for CPZ

Thank You council committee I'll pass to mr. Tiddly on that but in terms of securing the

permits and the CPZ the actual

Not the housing permits, but the CPZ that's within the unilateral unsakings the legal

So that's how that would be secured.

Sorry, Mr Tiddley might want to answer now.

Thank you, Chair. David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.

So the public highway is, just to give you the names, probably the easiest way to do it.

So Chartfield Avenue is public highway,

it's part of the control zone.

And Westley Avenue is, and the roads

that link them effectively, the public highway.

So Whitnell Way is the estate road

managed by the housing colleagues.

That's probably the simplest way of putting that.

As Ms. Malloy has said, the new developments

the park.

The park is being located in a

relative, you know, in the

area would be expected to be car

free in any event.

So the new occupiers of those

units would be excluded from

parking on the, from the CPZ

permits, from parking on the

public highway.

The management of the estate is

the responsibility of the

housing colleagues who would

assume also seek to exclude them

from parking on the estate.

The loss, as has been identified,

is that the developments themselves

result in the removal of 35 parking spaces.

So any demand on those spaces could potentially then

be displaced onto the street outside.

The surveys that were undertaken indicated

that that was possible to be accommodated

and to be accommodated relatively comfortably.

What I normally do in these circumstances is just use my own experience, almost like

add even worse case scenario, what if it was double as bad as predicted, if you like, what

if the issues were significantly more problematic than the surveys indicate and the analysis

would still suggest it would be perfectly acceptable.

and then to use our previous experience

that the building on such sites like this

in council estates has been,

and elsewhere in the borough,

has been sort of undertaken quite significantly

over the years.

Thank you.

Use the microphone.

That clearly you will have a situation

where some residents will have rights to park

on the estate and in the neighbourhood,

and some residents will not have the same rights.

I recall a similar situation in a development

just off Sutherland Grove, where this council gave permission

and made that development car free,

or no right to park in CPZ parts of the borough,

creating an enormous conflict in the local area.

So what is your view about the kind of disparity

between some residents' rights and other residents' rights

and how easy is it to kind of manage and police at that?

It can be problematic as you've implied, Councillor.

I think in this case, there are a few things

that work in the development's favour.

One is that the new blocks are clearly identifiable.

So it's not a case of, sometimes it's a case of adding flats

to an extra story, if you like, on an existing flat.

And then it's extraordinarily difficult to say flat one

can get a permit, flat two can't.

But in this case, it's more easily to identify

the excluded properties.

And the second element is it's a council development.

So the council has the control over this.

And where we've had problems before,

where they tended to be where private developers

have been sort of excluded from the CPZ

and then they haven't told the people

who have moved in and things like that.

So that wouldn't be the case in this particular case.

I have a question in another area,

but I'm happy to come back

if people want to pursue parking at the same time.

I'll just pursue it very briefly.

This is not an original problem in this particular estate.

And it hasn't happened elsewhere, is it?

and the departments have managed it elsewhere

perfectly successfully.

Yes is the short answer.

Councillor Apps.

Thank you very much.

I know Whitnell Way a little bit,

so I can picture the blocks within it.

I wanted to ask,

following consultation with residents,

is anybody able to comment on changes

that were made to the plans around the playground and also following feedback from the design

review panel any changes that were made around WT3 block which is obviously the one that

is the one that's closest to the playground isn't it so that would be good to know and

and also in terms of the trees obviously a lot of trees is always regrettable, deeply

regrettable. I'd like some reassurance that where we're looking at planting new trees

that we'll be looking at climate resilient and resistant trees to make sure that they

endure over the longer term. And then I suppose finally if I can cover a lot of points rather

than covering in lots of times if that's okay. My other question would be obviously I represent

one of the most densely populated wards in the borough I would say in Shaftesbury and

and we have had quite a lot of new social home developments in Patmore and Gideon Road.

So for example in Patmore, how would the scale of development compare to say the scale of development in Patmore in terms of density? Thank you.

Thank you. Just in terms of the, this also covers Councillor Austins point about the changes that have happened over the last few years in terms of the proposal.

We have had various pre -apps on this. There have been lots of changes to the scheme following

advice from officers but also advice from the design review panel. One of the main blocks

that has changed is WT3, which originally was going to totally eradicate the existing

playground and I've got actually I've got a plan of what it was like at DRP

just because I know the the comment about being land -hungry was in within

the DRP comment, but that was the WT3. That is how wide it was originally proposed. That

has really reduced in size and scale and we have now got the retention of the existing

playground broadly in its same location and slightly larger. Officers do feel that this

particular block has come a long way from the original proposal

and view. There have been lots of discussions on that point.

In terms of the trees, again, we have worked hard with the

applicant and also the arboriculturist to see if we can retain

as many trees as possible. Unfortunately, just where the location

of WT3 is, there is no other option to retain those trees. I

been discussing. So they are looking to you know substantial you know

replacement 85 new trees. The other thing to note really is the estate is really

green anyway there's lots of mature trees so in terms of the impact again

you know we understand the concerns but we've had to balance those up with the

other benefits of the scheme. In terms of density, although within the London plan we

do not look at densities any more, there was the information within the proposal. It is

22 dwellings per hectare and 65 habitable rooms per hectare, which is fairly low density.

In comparison to Patmore, I have looked at that and it is less than that density on that

estate.

You have understated a little bit. You wrote me a letter in the last week, I am sure you

you can recall, 65 habitable rooms per hectare here.

I think it was 500 there or thereabouts in the Patmore,

but not that I'm in a competition with my colleague here,

Councillor Apps, but in Battersea Park,

there's one rather more dense than that.

So, round or close in Battersea Park,

so considerably more dwellings than in this particular area.

I've just found the email, so it's 210 on Patmore,

habitable rooms per hectare,

and 316 habitable rooms on Rabbit Hill.

Nonetheless, 210 was four times, yes.

You're right, I got the figures wrong,

but I've got it at home to prove it.

Thank you.

Any other?

Councillor Colkley.

Thank you, Chair, Councillor Colkley, St. Mary's Ward.

Going back to the playground, I saw in one of the resident letters of support that they

were asking about firstly whether the springs in the existing playground are going to be

maintained or improved and then also I wanted to ask could we do it so the playground is

the first bit that gets developed so the residents have a noticeable improvement to their area

first before then we start construction on the other parts of it would that be

at all possible and what could we predict condition in to recommend that

just just on the play space details I did read that also in the letter from

the residents so condition 8 requires details of the play space I think we

could flag that up with the applicant about the existing swing. I am sure they are aware

of those comments.

In terms of when it can be delivered, we have raised this with the applicant because I know

on other sites they are looking to bring forward the play space before. It has not been confirmed

on this particular site but it's something that we can flag up but in terms of the condition

at the moment it's prior to occupation of any of the blocks.

Could we maybe put that in as an informative then just to say that it's the will of the

parent applications committee that we'd like to see that happen first to bring some noticeable

benefit to the residents?

I'm not sure that I approve of your literalness, but there's nothing wrong with that, I guess.

I see Mr Granger laughing a little bit. I'm sure Ms Malloy, the first thing she'll do

when she gets back to the housing officers will be to say, try and make sure you get

the play space up as soon as possible. But we can put it in writing as well. No problem.

On that, I suppose the difficulty with this site is that it is right beside W T3, so in

terms of whether there is a health and safety issue there, opening a playground when construction

work is going on. That is why it might not be possible in this case.

So that is why.

Councillor De Mindy again.

Oh, I am sorry.

Can we take Councillor Humphries first, as we go yet?

Thank you, Chair.

I do not mind, whichever order you like.

Councillor Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfield in Putney and opposition speaker on this committee.

We talked about it a little bit, Ms Molloy, where there have been changes to WT3, but

I was getting slightly mixed up but perhaps you could work it out for me.

So in those changes, yes, Wt3 got shorter, but one of the blocks got taller, didn't it?

Was that Wt2 that got taller?

Or Wt... just get the right one with the right...

So we lost a bit on one but we stuck it back on another one, so it was kind of nice to act the same, really.

Yeah, we had quite a lot of discussion on the block to Chartfield Avenue, which is Wt2.

and again following design review panel,

they felt that there could be,

because it was at design review panel stage,

it was about three stories,

but they felt that given the existing blocks

and also that it's on a frontage,

that it could take a bit more height

and then if there was units being lost on WT3,

that they could be put into that there

without too much of an impact.

Thank you, that reminded me of what we said. It's ironic with the DRP that say, oh yes,

you can stick more on there when they don't have to live there themselves, but that's

a different point. It is true, we haven't actually said that yet, but it is contrary

to our own local plan LP 4, isn't it, with two out of the three blocks here at five storeys,

because it's designated as not a mid -rise zone. So it is a fact in the spirit of that

that's contrary to our own policy already as Councillor Austen is referring to the fact

that it's bigger and taller.

I think what the residents are mostly concerned about,

from what I hear from him and what I've heard from myself,

is the bulk and mass of what they're getting,

and the imposement on the existing residents

are already there, so that is unfortunate.

You mentioned it briefly in your presentation,

thank you for that, about the level changes

and land changes as well,

and I noticed in one of the slides you put up,

again, I struggle to see the logic

in one of the five -story blocks

is on the taller part of the estate,

which makes it even more imposing for the residents

in the next block of the existing one there.

So do you know what the rationale for that is?

Putting it on a five -storey on the tallest part

rather than putting it on the lower part

where it might not be so obvious?

Just in terms of the existing estate,

there is already five -storey blocks there.

So as I said, there is a level change.

So that I think is about one and a half metres.

So it will be higher than the existing.

But again, going through the design process

and the various amendments and variations to the angles and locations of these blocks,

it was felt that, given the distances between those existing blocks and the new proposal

and the angle, that five storeys could be accommodated there. It will be higher. Within

the officer report, we shy away from that. We have said that there will be an impact

here.

Thank you, that is helpful. As Councillor Austin again said, every story you put on top of

course has an increasing impact on the loss of daylight and sunlight to the existing residents,

doesn't it? That is the reason why I am concerned about the extra height. It seems like it is

just another story, but that again has a knock -on effect relatively pro rata. The one story

up you go does increase the losses to those existing residents again. I am concerned that

we're putting new blocks in, it always seems to be the expense of existing residents.

Councillor Humphries, you're not going to ask me to go to the effort of going through all the

recordings of the last seven years of this and four of which you were in the chair when you said

about heights, they were merely guidelines and every application had to be decided in its own

merits. In this case, one story, I think on many occasions you said that to me when we were in

diverse positions, it was a lot more than one story and judges' cases had to be judged

on their merits. I ask you to judge them on their merits, okay?

I'm more than happy to do that, but as you yourself were comparing this to the Patmore

and the numbers of density in one and the other, it's kind of the quid pro quo, isn't

it?

Okay, fair to. Councillor White and then Councillor Kilminder.

Thank you, Councillor White from Tooting Beck Ward. I wanted to ask two questions and the

The first one is what is the local plan policy LP 24 identified on page 34 .1 that shows the

preferred ten year mix of one and two bedroom homes should be 70 to 80 % of a development.

What is that based on?

I have another question.

Could you repeat the paragraph?

It is page 34 and 4 .1.

And it is local planning policy LP 24.

Sorry, I just could not see the reference to 80%.

Just in terms of that, that would be,

so we've got the local plan and as part of that,

there is a local needs housing assessment

that forms part of that and that's also forming

an updated version, it's forming the new local plan review.

So that is, there is background to that

and data that assists on that.

What I would say in terms of the housing mix and the tenure,

this is a mixed tenure estate,

So there is a range of property sizes across the existing estate.

There's five family units proposed here out of the 32.

And just for a kind of comparison to Kursfield,

which isn't the Kursfield estate, which isn't too far from from here,

which are now being occupied, that was 41 social rent units.

and we understand that 16 of those units were people that downsized within the borough and

actually not within the ward but the adjoining ward. So in terms of even if there's not a

need for downsizing within the estate itself, there is the opportunity for other people

to downsize and free up family units more borough -wide.

That is brilliant. The 70 % to 80 % was based on those two figures being added together.

Is it OK if I go on?

The second question is why did the council need to build council homes? All of the homes

on this estate would once have been available to the council to allocate to our homeless

and to our waiting lists. The population of London has changed considerably since the

estate was built. I suppose these types of factors would have impacted the need to build

on these estates which have large brownfield in grey areas to build on.

In terms of the view of the loss of open space, the three sites are mainly hard -standing and

car parking spaces. The estate is made up pretty much 50 -50 by council -owned properties

and freeholders. By increasing that, it does not tip the balance in terms of leaseholders

to social. It only goes up to 57 % from 52 % in terms of leaseholders.

And what counts it would have been 100 % of social and

We're getting a bit to council to India

Thank you, and this question perhaps

Miss Malou or somebody else the petitioners

Against this development

Mention the issue of Covenant now I recognize that

Land Covenants are not a planning matter, but the report itself

is completely silent on the issue of covenant.

And I wonder whether the report should have

at least addressed the point,

even if it was to dismiss the point,

because clearly the residents of a part of that estate

are very concerned that they will be losing a right

which was written into their leases.

So I just wonder whether the report is inadequate

in that sense, if somebody knows what the answer is to the covenant point residents

have raised.

Mr Moore, whether the part of the estate is covered by the covenant is wholly owned by

some foreigner we have never heard of, or anything else, does not stop the Councillor

having the right and ability to put in the planning application. Is that right?

The Prime Minister is correct in saying that it is not a planning

consideration. My view is that the report is not deficient in

not ruling out everything that is not a planning consideration. I

did not pick up on the covenant issue when I read the report. It

is quite often the case that covenants can be cited by

objectors to a scheme and summarised in the representations part

of the report, but there is not normally much more commentary on that, unless it is something

that is brought to members' attention at the actual committee. Then, obviously, the

advice then follows that it is not a matter that members ought to consider when looking

at the planning application.

My understanding is that the covenant in this case relates to the previous ownership, which

which when the council acquired the land,

the land came with a covenant from the previous owner

of the land and the current lease holders

are the beneficiaries of that covenant.

I think that's the situation.

It was just the fact that that was not addressed

in the report which concerned me,

that residents, 140 odd residents,

were sufficiently concerned about it

to raise it with the council.

This is a council's own application,

Council's own development and the paper does not address it.

Well if that is the case then it sounds something that the local councillors, Councillor Austen,

Sutter, Ambash, should take up with the council in a completely different context. Are some

legal opinions of the relevant officer in the council but it does not affect this planning

committee one way or another?

I did in fact say my contribution.

I just wondered whether the paper was inadequate

in that respect.

Councilor.

Thank you, quite a different topic I'm afraid.

So I noticed that there was a look at the air source

heat pumps that were going to be used for this development.

And I was interested to know whether or not ground

source heat pumps had been considered and ruled out. They can be extremely efficient

in open environments like this, so I was keen to know whether or not that was one of the

options that was looked at.

Ms Molloy, any idea?

I will have to look at the sustainability report, which normally goes through the options

in terms of renewables, but I am assuming that they did. I have not seen ground source

heat pumps on any developments recently. Air source heat pumps do seem to be the preferred

option, but I can check.

I have personal experience of ground source heat pumps, and they can be incredibly effective.

They normally would not be possible in a borough like Wandsworth, but on a site such as this

they might be, so perhaps we have overlooked them. I would be interested if we could explore

it when possible.

Perhaps you should raise it with the Chair of the Housing Committee.

I just have actually.

I haven't heard anyone move anything against acceptance of this recommendation.

So, Councillor Owens.

Thank you. I just want to hear a little bit more if possible about the size of WT3.

and it's a relationship to the block in front

because obviously there's been a lot written about

and heard quite a bit about the loss of daylight

and privacy but we know that in for example

a wild May house some windows will lose up to 46 %

of their daylight and some will see daylight reductions

of up to 41 % Angelico house.

So just wanted to hear a bit more about that

because we're not talking minor inconveniences,

we're talking quite fundamental changes, thank you.

Anyone else on the same point? No. Ms Malloy again.

Thank you. I'll just share, it might be worth sharing the daylight and sunlight just so we can see where the areas of concern are.

So in terms of T3, WT3, we're over here.

So in terms of where the kind of main impacts upon daylight, it's going to be here in Jellicoe

House, kind of at the ground and first floor of these windows, and their bedrooms, living

rooms in terms of the, according to the daylight.

sunlight and then, in terms of house health, there is also a row of windows that go along

that flank wall, and they are bedroom windows. The daylight and sunlight report, as I have

set out in the committee paper, has concluded that, whilst these would result in some non -compliances,

they still retain an acceptable level for a location such as this.

In terms of the number of windows, I think it is 11 Angelico House and then the row of

windows on the flank wall which are most affected.

We have set that out in the officer report based on the daylight and sunlight assessment

which has been carried out and again we have weighed that up against the other merits of

the scheme.

Did Councillor Justin and I put your hand up?

No, we wouldn't.

But Councillor Owens is still coming back.

Sorry, I forgot to say that I am Councillor Owens, but I am the Northcote ward.

On the models, there do not seem to be balconies on those buildings.

The new buildings have balconies sticking out.

That is just the angle.

There is an orientation that shows the balconies.

Which will make it worse in terms of privacy.

and such.

Thank you.

Just in terms of the privacy, again, we have set out the report the distances and again

they were found acceptable and not uncommon within locations such as this.

Any more comments?

Right, in that case, no move against.

So the recommendation is accepted, is it?

Those in favour?

It's one, two, three, four, five, six.

And those against, four, thank you.

Move on, thank you, Mr. Le Maloy.

Move on to, as said before, to number five,

which is a potential development of three units

on a garage's site in Mayford Road, Ballum.

Mayford Road, Ballum.

Is anyone introducing that or?

Yes, good evening, I'm Wendy Milab, principal planner.

Sorry?

Good evening.

I'm Wendy Milab, principal planner for the East team.

It's not sharing, okay.

I'm trying to share the screen.

Perfect.

So this site is garages to the west of 79 Mayfield Road.

So it is the site that you can see highlighted in red on the left picture.

It is located off Mayford Road through Mayford Place.

To the south, it is surrounded by residential properties.

To the south are the two -story terrace properties on Calborne Road.

To the east, the three -story properties on...

Callum, you're disturbing people here. The lady's got a quiet voice.

For those in the public gallery who perhaps can't see, there are a few people from the

part of the gallery downstairs who are obviously here for the last item and caused a little

bit of noise down here.

Not much, no complaints, but just a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms Millard.

Could you start again?

Of course. So this is the garages to the west of 79 Mefford Road. So on the

pictures to the left you can see the site highlighted in red. It comprises

garages and a fort called Garpark at the front. It is surrounded by residential

properties, two -story terrace properties to the north on Airdale Road,

three -story properties on the east on Mayford Road,

and two -story terrace properties to the south

on Calvin Road.

It is accessed via Mayfair Place,

which also comprises a car park, and off Mayford Road.

You can see different pictures of the site

on view one to four.

The application is for the demolition of the garages

and the erection of a part one, part two story building

to provide free new houses.

So there is planning history on the site

with a previous refusal in 2008

and subsequent appeal dismissed.

So this is the proposed ground floor plan

of the previous refusal just to have an idea

what was there, what was proposed and refused before.

It was refused because of the impacts on the character

and appearance of the area,

impacts on neighboring amenities,

especially loss of outlook and loss of street parking.

As part of the current proposal,

the original proposal was version one,

which is at the top of the screen,

and version two, which is the revised proposal

that is subject to debate tonight.

So in terms of difference between the two,

there is a setback of the ground floor element to the north

that is set back from the dotted red line boundary

with number 33 and 35 Airdale Road.

This is the refused proposed first floor

where you can see that the first floor element

was extending almost across the entire site.

This is current proposal version one and version two

I can see the difference in terms of size of the two

proposals with a significant reduction for version two

in terms of depth and width and gap between the two first floor

elements.

So this is the proposed south elevation of the refusal.

You may be able to see a white block projecting

above the boundary walls, which represent

how deep the first floor was supposed to be in 2008.

And as part of the current proposal,

version one included a pitched roof form

that was well, very well,

considered too high by officers

in terms of neighboring impacts.

So we are presenting the amended version to an idea

version two which now consists of two pop -up first extension that are significantly reduced

in size.

It's a proposed north elevation of the previous refusal as well with once again the white

block that represents the first floor element and the current proposal with the difference

in massing that you can see from version one to version two.

So, there's some aerial view now to the top left with the existing sites and the CGI of

what is proposed tonight.

And at the bottom you have the proposed massing of version one with the dual pitched roof

form and the version, the revised version with the two flat roof version of the proposal.

So this is an interesting one, well view as well,

proposed staff elevation, sorry.

So you can see the two pop -up first floor elements

in timber cladding, but you can also see

in dotted green line, which is the refused scheme,

and on blue, the blue dotted line was the original proposal

as part of the application just to illustrate the decrease in mass along the history of

the site. The planning application is recommended for approval subject to condition. Thank you.

Thank you. We have all three ward councils said they wanted to present on this, but two

Two of them happened to be away and wrote in.

And I, in a week moment, and I confess it now,

just for future reference, in a week moment,

accepted the written, but also it could be read out.

I have absolutely no reason why I thought

that it could be read out by Councillor Humphries,

because other people put things in the papers,

and no reason why there should be an exception, mate.

but I said you could do it so I will stick to my word but I'm not doing it again.

Okay. Just so that Councillor Hunt for the public's benefit as well as my benefit and his,

Councillor Humphries is wearing two hats. One representing talking for the ward Councillors,

so I'm asking him to move place and actually talk for and then he can come back as a member

of the committee and talk about the application. He's not talking about the application now,

he's just talking about, as I said before, what the public locally think about it. So

then after he, there'll be Councillor Rigby.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the ward councillors, other ward councillors that are able to be

here tonight, I'm very grateful for the opportunity. I know you just wanted another chance to hear

my dull sit tones, but if you could all cast your minds back and imagine I've got a cardboard

cut out of Councillor Hedges on my face it might make a little bit more sense

but this is on behalf of Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton who can't

be here tonight. Thank you for the time being given to represent residents of

Calborne Road, Airdale Road and Mayford Road who are against planning

application number so and so so and so which relates to garages west of 79

Mayfield Road. Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Hedges represent those

residents in our capacity as sitting councillors. Notwithstanding the distress

this application has caused those residents of Calborne, Airedale and Mayford who are

situated either adjacent or close to the garage is earmarked for demolition and

dwellings erected, here are a number of points we would like to highlight on the

residents behalf. Chair and members of the Planning Committee we believe the

application should be refused on the following grounds. One, policy LP 34 of

the Wandsworth local plan, our own local plan, the applicant has failed to

demonstrate through the submission of adequate evidence that there's no reasonable

prospect of the site being used for industrial and related uses.

2. Policy LP 2 of the Wandsworth Local Plan, again our own. The proposed development will

result in an undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity spaces of

numbers 60 to 62 Calborne and 52 Calborne and by reason of the proposed

buildings height, scale, massing and siting would have an overbearing effect

impact on the neighbours. Again, policy LPC 2. The proposed development will

result in unacceptable levels of overlooking between the first floor windows of House 1

and House 3 due to inadequate separation distances.

Number 4, LP Policy LP 56 of the Local Plan. The proposed development does not provide

adequate justification for the removal of the on -site protected trees.

Number 5, Deliverability of the Scheme. Reference to the site location plan, the red

line application boundary, includes land within it that is in the ownership of 35 Airdale

Road. While Certificate B ownership certificates were completed for the planning application,

records with notice were not served on 35 Airedale Road and therefore the application

is considered to be invalid. It appears that the scheme as proposed is not currently deliverable

in that it relies on land outside of its ownership to deliver it.

As per the judgement within the Council of the City of Newcastle -Pontine and Secretary

of State for levelling up, the deliverability of a scheme can be a material consideration

in the determination of a planning application irrelevant to the planning merit of the proposal.

As such, the likely undeliverability of the scheme further indicates as to why the application

should be refused. For the above reasons, we are asking the committee to refuse this

application. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hedges.

Over to Councillor Rigby.

Yeah, I don't need anyone pretending to be me because I've shown up.

So thank the committee tonight for reading the numerous...

Shush reading the numerous objections to this development.

Councillor Givindya.

Shush, I'm speaking.

Councillor Rigby.

I am speaking.

Councillor Rigby.

Can you leave this to me?

Councillor Givindya, please.

I appreciate that, but it was gratuitous to insult councillors who were not present.

That's all I was reminding the councillor.

You can keep that to yourself or afterwards. Do not interrupt in that way, please.

Councillor Rigby, you can start again.

I'm going to start again.

So thank the committee for reading the numerous objections to this development.

I'm not going to read out all these objections because we've just heard it and you've read them.

What I will say is this is a very valuable piece of land.

Its value can be calculated in terms of the desired profit from development and there's

been an attempt before to extract that profit from the land.

But for several hundred people it holds a non -monetary value in its role in their environment

and what they call home.

and your job as members of this committee is to decide if this particular development is the one that should be built on this land.

We've heard from a lot of the people who already live here, but I actually want to focus on the people that would potentially be living there,

because they're not here right now, they can't object to it, but I think we need to understand what it would be like living in these homes.

The plans look okay, they'll look okay when they're built,

and the three families who buy presumably off plan

will be pretty happy until they move in

and they realise what exactly they have bought

because they are going to experience what it feels like

to have spent upwards of a million pound

and then be feeling overlooked,

to have taller buildings around them

with people always looking down on them.

And the problem with this development, it is designed to maximise profit.

There is nothing in this plan that works for the existing community.

And we know that schemes built on the premise of pure profit at all costs do not deliver

homes that work for the people who end up living in them.

The people making this profit will not be here to deal with the aftermath.

And what is that?

I invite you to consider it from the viewpoint of the new community. They will feel overlooked.

They will feel squeezed into too small a space and without adequate outside space of their

own. This plan is claustrophobic in design. It is claustrophobic for those who are already

living here and for those who will live in them.

So I say to this committee that this scheme needs to go back to rebalance the need of

owner to profit from their land, the existing community and the future

community. This plan has a real problem and this fails to consider

the community in any real depth. It has been forced upon the community

and it has failed to consider how that community will adapt to living

with it, but mainly those people in the middle. It just reminds me of

encampment whenever I look at the plan that you're just like in tents

surrounded by homes. So I ask you to refuse this application on the grounds

that it at the moment only benefits the developers while reducing the homes of

our long -standing residents and providing squeezed housing for future

residents. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Rippey. To be absolutely fair to both

sides, I do think that you, if I may say so,

indulge a little bit in being a planning expert yourself,

which you may be, but that's not what you're here for.

You're here to represent the residents' views.

I doubt whether too many of the residents said some of that.

I have to say this just in terms of future presentations,

some other councillors as well.

They've got to stick to what they're meant

to be sticking to.

Nonetheless, thank you.

Any questions of the President?

Councillor Boswell.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tootingbeck Ward.

Thank you, Councillor Rigby,

for your very passionate presentation

and laying out all the problems that you could see there

and that might be for future residents

and residents that are already living there.

I did pop down there this morning to have a look at the site

so that I would have a really good idea

of what we would be talking about here.

So you talked about future residents,

but could you give me, if you picked one issue

that your residents are telling you why

this application will impact on them in a negative way,

what would it be, just one?

Yeah, so the main one is that this is a small piece of land

and it's too small to have three homes pushed into it and it doesn't matter how

the different ways it's being cut up, it's just because you can squeeze three

homes in doesn't mean that you should and it's just not, you can't tell from

the plan how close this is going to feel but it's going to feel super close for

everybody.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Ayers and then Councillor White

and at the moment that's it.

I'm Finna Ayers from East Patney Ward.

I'm normally in the position of making criticisms

on detailed levels and then in the end

supporting the scheme for overall reasons.

This time it's completely reversed.

I will not support this.

I will reject this, but I think it's incredibly impressive how the planners and the designers

have managed to squeeze a pint, a gallon into a pint pot.

It looks more like the design for boats, where you've got very restricted space.

It's a very clever scheme, but not for this site.

It is greedy.

I am very interested that Councillor Wrigley has brought up the point of future residents,

because that is entirely true. It is the sort of thing that you would long for push the

walls away from you. Although I am impressed with the work that has been done by the designers

and the planners, I will not support this scheme. Thank you.

Thank you. I presume the applause was not for me to start speaking.

You never know. Thanks very much, Councillor Rigby, and thanks

for showing up tonight to support your residence. I was quite interested because, like Councillor

as I share, I think the design is absolutely fantastic

for this house.

That's not suggesting I'm gonna support it,

I don't know what I'm gonna do yet.

But could you tell me what is there currently?

Did any resident say that aesthetically, visually,

this is a lovely sort of setting that's there now?

No, I mean, that wouldn't be genuine to say that.

It's old garages that wouldn't fit modern cars in.

I don't think it's what they're looking at.

It's the space.

Like, you don't really notice what's there

until the space has been filled.

I think that's a perfectly valid piece of local knowledge,

but don't stray onto getting planning advice

from Councillor Rigby.

she's not there to give the planning advice.

Councilor Gibb India.

Thanks, Chairman.

I got a couple of questions perhaps of officers

because reading through both the report

and a lot of the correspondence,

the residents have a bit of a beef with the department.

Excuse me, interrupting Councilor Gibb India.

Are you now genuinely,

and there's no reason why you shouldn't be,

onto the questioning of the officers, essentially,

In which case, any other questions specifically for Councillor Rigby about her presentation?

If not, thank you, Councillor Rigby.

Thanks for representing your residence.

Sorry, Councillor Gibbins, you've done again.

Thank you.

Reading through the correspondence from local residents, it's very clear that a lot of them

are very concerned and have a bit of a bone to pick with the department that there was

no site visit to their homes to have a look at what they see and how their views would

be hemmed in by this development.

They who feel that they are already in a very tight place know that their place is going

to get tighter and they feel let down, that department didn't send anyone to have a look

from the rear of their property.

I just want to understand why that was the case.

The second thing is that, and that's alluded in

Councillor Hedges' comment,

that whilst these garages are inadequate

for the modern car parking use,

that doesn't necessarily make these garages

utterly useless for other uses.

And in fact, one resident, not immediate neighbour,

but who uses those garages has written saying

And he uses those garages because he doesn't use them

for car parking, but he uses for storage.

That's exactly what happens with a lot of garages.

So has an adequate case been made that these buildings

which have a new purpose, because they can't park a car

because cars are bigger, has acquired a new purpose

and it's a valid new purpose, and that whether there was

any engagement with the residents about how their views

and a revised purpose for this land could be negotiated

to the benefit of all.

Whether any of that has happened

and whether the department knows if any attempt

has been made by the applicant to do that.

I have one further question on it later on.

If I may just muse on that myself,

I'm happy for the officers to reply,

but in a sense, as you know perfectly well, you've been a member of this committee for so long,

the fact that something's being used doesn't stop someone putting in a planning application.

For it, even if it were to be approved, they've got to buy the properties, have the properties,

and decide how to use it, as I think you know very well. The council didn't actually originally

build them for the benefit of storage. Perhaps they should have done, perhaps there wasn't

and a storage built at the time.

They were built as garages and they're no use as garages.

We can't just protect them in any sense,

I wouldn't have thought,

but what have the officers got any comment on the question?

Mr. Grainger.

Excuse me.

My name is Nigel Grainger, I'm the East Area Team Manager.

Did you want, are we responding

on the point of the garages first or the?

Well, as counts are given, it is originally, yes.

Fine.

Yeah, I have them written down.

So the garages would have to materially change their use,

and it would be an unauthorised change of use.

So there would have to be a situation where there would

be a demonstration of 10 years continuous use for storage

purposes for it to actually turn into a lawful B8 storage unit.

These are garages associated with residential properties

and the use of residential properties around there.

If anything, they by association have a class C3 use,

which is residential.

Or if you wanted to really trawl

through the planning encyclopedia,

you could look at examples of them being a nil use, in fact.

So there is no policy premise on their existing use

in order to protect them

for either industrial or employment purposes,

as has been asserted for the council to assess it

under policy LP34.

That's just simply not accurate.

But the way that the garages have fallen out of use,

it's just yet another indication of the fact

that this is a Brownfield site.

And Brownfield sites and the opportunities

to redevelop Brownfield sites is supported

by the London plan which has a specific policy

for small sites in LP7 and our, well, their own D something or other, but which our local

plan mirrors in LP7 and obviously the very strong support for the effective use of land

within the revised NPPF.

So we can go into that later, but certainly there's no case to consider refusing this

on the loss of garages in that regard.

On the issue or the point about visiting neighbors,

myself and my colleague earlier,

we tottered up roughly about how many properties

are surrounding the site.

There are a lot.

This is a classic backland site.

They exist everywhere in any urban borough

and there's an excess of over 25 properties.

Now that doesn't preclude the fact that offices

could go to some of those sites,

but the urban grain in that location

and the actual conditions are quite similar

for the properties fronting the front and rear of the site.

Case officers have been to the site

and it's a common principle that if you can make

an assessment of the application from the site,

then there can be a scenario where there's no need

to visit potentially 25 individual properties.

If an adequate assessment can be made, then that's how we make these assessments.

Councillor Comendia.

It seems to me that 25 is probably an exaggeration.

There are six properties on Calborne which have the most egregious impact.

The impact on them is the most egregious.

And there are sort of 60 to 52, I think.

It's not 25 you are to visit, just two would have done,

even one would have done to get impact.

But my question now actually slightly different.

That Ms. Miele in saying that the previous refusal

and upheld on appeal was about the impact

of the second floor of the then proposed development

on the views of properties in Calborne Road.

The new plan here then seems to me as I see it,

smack in that area where the impact is the greatest.

So it is the Calborne Road property,

I think if I'm right in my reading of the plan,

is that the 62 to 60 Calborne Road will have a bit

of the pop -up behind their window.

And similarly, it'll be 52 Calborne will have

the second pop -up.

So in a sense, the four properties have a great impact

of this pop -up obstructing their view

and making them feel hemmed in.

Has that been considered in coming

to the approval recommendation?

Yes, in detail in the Amenity section

and the distances and separation distances

in terms of outlook have been gone into

and those distances have been calculated

for both Airdale and Calborne.

And we've arrived at the conclusion that as officers

that those separation distances are adequate.

Sorry, Chairman.

It wasn't adequate last time, which is why it was refused.

Now it is adequate because less properties are impacted

than last time.

Is that really the reason?

This proposal is incomparable to the refuse scheme.

The refuse scheme had mass that stretched through the entire linear area of the site at first floor level.

This occupies in a clever way the ground floor to have no impact at ground floor level

with two very distinct and very separate elements of pop -up.

and that is just vastly, vastly different

from the refused scheme by the council

which was upheld, dismissed at appeal.

Clearly it's a judgment of yours

rather than that of the residents

that you're defending here.

Well, it's a planning judgment based on planning rules,

but residents, certainly some residents

will be affected by almost any application

or in any development,

some residents will be affected more than others.

And we can understand residents react to this.

I think Mr Gray just clearly made the point, which is right in fact,

the last time the pop -up was across the whole site.

Indeed.

And so it affected lots of properties.

Now the pop -up is in two places and affects less fewer properties.

And because it affects fewer properties, it's now okay.

I don't think that's true at all.

I think wherever you are, even if it...

I understand what you're saying, obviously,

But if the site is more open in a general way, even those most affected will get some benefit from the change.

There's no question whether it is sufficient is a matter of our collective judgment.

Councillor Kelkley.

Thank you, Chair. I would say that I agree with Councillor Govindi on this point about this in the residence

because while I don't doubt that the officers judgement is still sound without visiting

the properties I think it's good for giving a reassurance to the residents regardless

of whether they've managed to come to that conclusion in a way that I'm sure is just

as accurate but I think it'd be good if that's also considered in the form of like we're

still seeing their concerns and listening to them even though we could have found the

that's been another way, it's just a comment to reflect on.

Secondly, what was it?

I did see some resident claims about the,

how the landlord was not allowing residents

to access the garages and you said earlier

about how the getting rid of the use of the garages

is not a valid planning consideration.

So I was wondering if you could have a comment on that and whether if the landlord hasn't

adequately proven that the garbage is not all in use and still needed, is it still valid

for the application.

And then finally, a reflection on Councillor Rigby's point about how it seems like the

main resident concern was trying to cram in the three units in that very tight space.

and was there attempts in the engagement stage with the applicant?

Were there any conversations about could you possibly reduce it to two units

or just try and reduce slightly the sort of overlooking and the massing?

Yeah, so that's one statement and two sort of questions.

Can I just, I'm trying to get a very clear distinction.

Can we delete Councillor Rigby's comment from that?

Because actually Councillor Ayres made the same point.

So you can say what Councillor Ayres said

rather than a view from a representative

who's not strictly giving his planning advice.

Can I just make that clear at a very pedantic level,

but I'm trying to distinguish between these two features.

Can you answer, and also there's a lot of talk here

about ownership.

Are we talking about one single ownership and one single ownership, full stop?

From what I understand, from the developer in the planning application form serving only

one Certificate B on an occupier not in the London Borough of Wandsworth, then the developer

is essentially has fee simple that the entire title on the site for the purposes of development.

So there's no issue in that regard.

Back to the point about the garages.

It's obvious that the dilapidated state of the garages over decades has from certainly

since the last attempt to obtain permission in 2008

and the condition that hasn't been synthesized

over the years, but that it's a developed,

it's a brownfield site, it's an opportunity

to provide homes of which the central government

sets targets for.

There's no, we don't actually have a policy

to improve garages for private cars.

we are all about private car restraint.

So the fact that they're going and providing homes

of which there is a government target for,

surely in planning terms it's a very logical step.

The provision of the three units,

this has been gone through at pre -application stage

and you can see that officers gave advice

at the time in terms of ensuring that the first floor element

should have the least impact on the surrounding occupiers

as possible.

As submitted, officers reviewed that and were of the view

that even as submitted after the pre -app advice,

that the developer, the applicant,

hadn't listened to how strong officers' view on keeping

those impacts to the minimum as possible. Therefore, officers sought to have the first

floor element amended and a significant 17 .9 metre gap in between these two pop -up elements.

These are pop -up elements. The refuse scheme from 2008 had a first floor. That was just

the first floor. There was no pop -up about it. These two individual elements do just

insert themselves above the ground floor. So in that regard, that reduced the number

of bedrooms for, I believe, two of the units. We are where we are with the proposal, the

description of development. That is before the committee tonight.

Yes, Councillor Humphries, but just before I take Councillor Humphries, rather by Councillor

Boswell, and I saw on the other hand somewhere, oh, right, just before I do, can I point out

that if we get to a vote, and I can see that we might well do so, I'll need some reasons

put down that we're voting on for refusal, if that's what people want to vote for.

I think there is a degree of discontent with the committee with what is before us, despite

Mr Granger's admirable attempt to justify this scheme. Although it is undoubtedly much

better than the previous incarnation, I still think that the impact on those particular

residents where the pop -ups are—if you look at the map on page 109, the plan, where the

pop -up size where those gardens are the shortest. So the impact on them is even

worse perhaps then and I think whether it's imposing on ten residents or one

resident it's too much in my opinion on this particular development and I think

I would like to move that we refuse this scheme and I think the two strongest

grounds are the ones I said before in Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton's

summary which is on items two and three which is the proposed development

results in undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity

spaces of No. 60 to 62 and No. 52, Calborne Road, by reason of

the proposed building's height, scale, massing, and overbearing

impact on the neighbours.

Also point 3, which is a secondary point, but I think

just as important, and it addresses Councillor Wrigley's point,

of the proposed development results in unacceptable levels of

overlooking between the first four windows of House 1 and House

3 due to inadequate separation distances.

but I think the fact of the undue sense of overbearing on those specific houses is enough

to make this not acceptable to committee, so I would like to move that, please.

You said that very quickly and I doubt whether the committee clerk had time. If you can write

it down and pass it or something whilst we carry on the discussion.

Just in terms of your first point, the amenity impact on, we can look at that in more detail

and maybe that will come out a little bit more in the discussions.

I think in terms of the second, the impact on the development itself within, can we just

clarify the distance between those and whether we would normally allow that sort of level?

Is that something, Mr Grainger?

Yes.

So this is between two clear glazed windows there is a separation distance of 17 .9 meters.

Now between existing and development and new developments there is a rule of thumb of 18 meters that has historically evolved or yards I would imagine back in the day.

But that is for a relationship between an existing occupier and a new proposal.

This is a distance between two new occupiers at 17 .9 metres,

100 millimetres away from meeting a rule of thumb that is for an existing relationship.

We've approved blocks in redevelopment sites that have been 14, 15 metres away

in new scenarios that don't meet 18 metres. So I strongly urge members not to use potentially

reason 3 that the future occupiers might overlook each other.

Thank you Mr Granger, that's helpful. If we're talking about specific details, on page 123

a specific difference between the refused scheme and the proposed scheme, on the refused

scheme, the distance from Airedale Road is 1 .9 metres on the refuse scheme. On the current

proposed scheme, it's 2 .1 metres distance, which is 20 centimetres. So we're talking

about minute details of difference between one scheme and the other one. I think 20 centimetres,

which in my old money is 8 inches, is not making a significant difference between the

refuse scheme and the existing scheme.

I'm getting a little bit lost in that frankly but 17 .9 metres to my amateur rating is not

far off the distance between me and the public gallery.

I mean it's in that kind of order.

We all know lots of people who live much closer than that so I mean I think you ought to at

least consider what the officers are saying about the strength of the second part of your

two reasons. Do you need it? Because it might weaken it. I need you to think about that.

Other people I had down to speak. I did move something.

I know you did. I will ask for a seconder. I am sure there will be a seconder. I was

going to go on anyway. Councillor Givens has seconded it.

I think, sorry to interrupt.

Am I asking a question or are we now moving?

Sorry, sorry to interrupt.

But the reason I came back to Councillor Humphries at this point was to see whether it was going to be second on both those reasons or just the first one which I think was the stronger one.

So now I can ask my question. Thank you very much Councillor Boswell.

this afternoon and I note that our report here to committee is littered with the word constrained,

that it's a constrained site, that this is a constrained position and what really concerned

me was looking at the property furthest along. How would you evacuate if there was an explosion

or a fire at that end, there is no exit,

there's no way to get out other than

through the adjoining properties

or where the fire or an obstruction could be.

I do note, I do note that on page 130

it has met the fire safety regulation,

but I would like to hear a little bit more about that.

Any comments on that?

As part of the London Plan policy, the applicant has to submit a fire statement to support

the application.

This is done by professionals.

The muster points and the way that fire tenders could potentially enter the site and the opportunities

to gain water within the site have all been considered and we as officers find that arrangement

for now to be acceptable. That would be subject to additional scrutiny by building control

officers or under the building regulations regime, I should say, whether it would be our own

colleagues or whether it would be an approved inspector. But certainly in the first instance

a strategy to deal with emergencies and first responders

has been put into place that appears acceptable.

But there's a far more complex additional layer

in the building regulations to go through

if this were to be approved.

Thank you very much, Mr. Grainger.

I know I think there was something in the objections

from the residents that the actual fire hoses

wouldn't be able to reach to that farthest along property.

So I was concerned, but thank you.

Council Apps.

Yeah, firstly I think it's really important,

as it happens I've got quite a settled view,

but it's really important that we have a chance to,

after what I've heard so far,

but it's really important we have a chance

to ask our questions and see if we can support it.

So my question is really around 2 .13,

where the officers said that it's a contribution

to the council small site target, 414 homes,

which I accept, but it does seem like a small contribution

in balance with the impact of the actual proposal.

I mean, I was looking at some of the distances,

so from the ground floor, it says it moves from 2 .1 meters

to, from the previous plan as I understand it,

and I want to check up and answer this properly,

to 0 .9 meters or 3 .8 meters to the south,

which is those homes that are particularly 52 to 62,

some of those homes would be affected by that.

I think it's the middle section

that would be particularly close.

I do think that the garages are not a great local amenity,

I accept that, but there is a possibility

of having a smaller scale development,

which would be, given that this is a back garden style,

sort of backyard style development,

it does seem very impactful rather than an on -street

development where perhaps you could deal with that level

of density with less impact on neighbors and their privacy

and the sense of overlooking.

So I think that's my chief area of concern.

So anything the officers could say to reassure me

on those points would be useful.

But I did hear Councillor Humphries thinking

through some possible objections that I'm interested to support.

I'm not sure the officers could say, well, you could just have one house at the end and

that would reduce the number and it would also reduce the number of housing units gained.

But I'm not sure you've got anything more substantial. You may be able to say that more

elegantly than me, but can you say anything more substantial than that?

Well, I'd start with the trotting out the standard line that we're here to assess and

to resolve to make a resolution on the scheme in front of us tonight and not redesign it.

That's the first point to start from.

The proposal, we've been asked through a planning process to make as officers to make an assessment

on a set of proposals.

As it originally submitted, we thought that the first law element was too wide.

It was extended in a linear manner for too long into the site and replicated the impacts of the first refusal too much.

And the amendments that have been sought have greatly reduced all of that.

It's improved the scheme to such a point where,

as officers, we feel that it's in a position

where we can recommend it for approval.

I would ask a few members on the committee

to cast their mind back to give an illustration

of another backland site at Crossland Place.

And if you recall, it's off Lavender Hill.

and that was for nine units and identical issues constrained.

And it was initially refused,

that was done under delegated authority,

but that came back to the committee

and the same challenges were repeated and examined

and that eventually was refused.

These backland sites, they do exist,

it is not uncommon in a location like this. That scheme won a 2023 in our IBA national

award just as a buy. The built envelope as we see it is acceptable.

The Prime Minister's words are not right.

Sorry, I did not catch it. If you said it slightly off the point, I would understand

that comment. Thank you Mr Grainger for that interesting departure.

I was going to say something. I will say my bit in a minute.

Councillor White. Thanks. Can I ask a question first and then

go on to a point? Would that be okay?

Go on. The question would be on page 110 where they

We've got a picture of the new design,

if we can think that the old design is still there.

We've got a picture there of the back space

of the houses on Airedale Road, I think.

Is that a coal room?

Yeah, so opposite there is Airedale,

then it's not in picture.

And I presume the windows there,

you're able to peer into the windows opposite.

If you're standing in a window on Airedale,

you can look into the window of Calborne.

At which level, ground or first?

First.

First, you couldn't because all of those windows

would be obscure glazed.

So anything at first floor level,

apart from the windows that look back at each other,

they're clear glazed,

everything else would be obscure glazed

and fixed shut to 1 .7 meters above finished floor level.

Okay, so what windows then would be able to look into the new development?

There wouldn't be.

Okay, that's interesting.

Okay, can I ask, can I make, oh sorry, yes, yeah sorry.

So I think that's one point.

The second point is, I mean we need houses and in urban areas having to squeeze homes

into where we can and if we're going to do that then let's put in things that are aesthetically

pleasing and I think this has been achieved.

I've been to this planning committee for a while and I've seen some right diabolical

things sort of squeezed into areas but this isn't.

I think the design is excellent to look at and it's very inventive and it's bending into

into the area and it's a big improvement on the garages, that's for sure, that have

outlived their purposes. I think the environmental impacts of the new houses, I mean, in achieving

passive house accreditation, green roofs, solar panels, heat pumps and fabric first,

has a lot to commend it. I think they've gone a long way to use this space in probably

the best way possible. I think if we reject this, I think what are we going to okay? I

don't understand.

Well funnily enough, Councillor Wright, I was going to say something not dissimilar.

You would have said it better, you should have told me.

Sorry?

You would have said it better, you should have told me.

No, not at all. I was going to say that the people objecting to it as the be careful what

you wish for, as follows as a consequence, is what I was going to say. But you know,

Who knows what that would be anyway.

Was there anyone else who, we've had a pretty good whack at this, I think everyone knows

where they stand.

Is there anyone, right, Councillor Humphries, do you want to come back with your amended,

what is it saying now?

Thank you, it's pretty much the wording that we've got in point two of Councillor Hedges

and Councillor Hamilton's statement which is the proposed development will result in

an undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity spaces of numbers 60 to 62, Cowbourn

and 52 Calbourne, just for information,

that's where the pop -ups are.

And by reason of the proposed building's height,

scale, massing and siting,

would have an overbearing impact on the neighbours.

Okay, I mean, I wasn't with it.

So it's quite specific about the pop -up bits

being the problem, we'll leave it with a single story.

Mr. Calder's helpfully given me this late paper

that perhaps you've all got.

It's essentially the same as on the late paper,

page four, Ballamaw, Councillor Hedges and Hamilton

is essentially their comment in number two.

That's it, isn't it?

Essentially, yeah, okay.

Right, and that was seconded by several people

of whom Councillor Gavinda,

now we've honed it down to that point.

We're ready to take a vote.

Right, those in favor of the refusal on the grounds as moved by Councillor Humphreys.

Those in favor of that refusal.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Those against.

Three.

So, it's refused on the basis I've read out and everyone's heard it before.

Thank you for that and I'm sure the public gallery know what's happened clearly.

We're moving on to other things now, so please leave as quietly as possible.

Do you want to have a break for five minutes while they go?

Actually, perhaps we should have a quick break, a couple of minutes.

Five minutes, I hope this has been suggested.

Okay, five minutes it is.

Thank you.

Okay, are we ready for the off?

I think we've dealt with the most contentious, I think, so someone surprise me and spend

a long time on.

Item number two, 45 Lyford Road,

which is a small development,

the back of a terrace, back of Lyford Road, one unit.

Anyone got anything to say about it?

It's agreed, agreed.

Chair, chair, please.

Oh, Councillor White, go on.

Please, we've got till half past 10, haven't we?

Not on this committee, Councillor White.

This committee is, we've got until whenever we like.

Great.

Okay.

Yeah, there's just a few points I wanted to make about it.

One, I don't understand why a new developer would have metal windows.

I know this is high up, so flooding probably isn't a problem up there, but with another

basement, would it be causing problems further down the road?

because I live further down the road, you see, so a little bit of self -interest there.

And not sure what is proposed for sustainability in the heating and electricity, that's not mentioned.

And is what is gained, you know, sort of worth demolition and the loss of carbon thereof.

of. I am not too happy that this just about escapes before our SPD goes through the affordable

homes precepts, but that is something that obviously cannot be much about.

Thank you. I am Ellen Richards. I am the team leader for the west area. I think your first

question was about the lack of windows. Is that what you said?

The metal windows, I mean they're putting metal windows in.

Metal windows, well it's a modern design,

contemporary design building and there's no objection

to that being the case just because it's not a pastiche

of any of the existing surrounding buildings.

So overall the design is considered acceptable.

It's in a flood zone one area,

so there is no flooding issues here

even though there is a basement.

There is sufficient green garden space remaining around it.

There really wouldn't be any implications as far as flooding or surface flooding in

this location.

And I think the conditions are recommended in terms of the water usage and the carbon

reduction for the new dwelling and that's the policy requirement for development of

this nature.

Okay, but they don't have to specify what the heating and electricity is.

Okay.

Councillor Owens.

Councillor Owens, sorry.

Just picking up on the metal windows point, I live not far from this property as well.

Obviously there are several buildings, Routh Road and those houses on Routh Road back onto

the common.

And obviously Routh Road is an extension, is a road that crosses Trinity Road and obviously

those houses there back onto the common sort of facing the bridge over the common and interestingly

quite a few of them in very recent times have had their windows replaced with metal windows and they

face directly onto the main section of Wandsworth Common which you can see as you walk over the

bridge which occasionally residents complain in the Northcote Ward about as their vista but

just on the metal windows it's not uncommon to see them in that section of Wandsworth Common.

Okay, agreed.

Move on to the next item, 157 Forbes Brook Road, which people will have seen the images

in the paper.

Everyone happy with that?

Any comments?

Councillor Colle.

This is probably a very dated argument about viability, but I don't see how losing six

affordable units is only worth £950 ,000 if they were actually building a unit.

Each of those units would probably be worth at least £350 ,000 to £400 ,000 each.

So again it just seems like a big loss and we're not really getting compensated for it.

And I don't like the idea of encouraging this.

and yeah, just sort of more of a statement,

the officers are free to come in on that

and sort of say why that is an acceptable calculated amount.

It just seems like quite a big gap.

You said it was a comment.

I'd say it's a comment too.

I very much regret the fact we sold off so much land

to developers and we could have done this

not being one of them, I don't think, we could have developed on, but I don't think there's

anything we can do about it in this particular instance, is there?

Planning Officer's got any comment?

Mr Granger always has a comment.

Mr Granger, I'm told you always have a comment.

Well, thank you.

I think it's nice to inform the elected members.

It's in the paper.

The applicant calculated the payment in lieu initially is £552 ,000 and through officer's

work over a significant period of time have got that up to £950 ,000.

So there was almost a doubling of the payment in lieu.

But these shared ownership units, they do hold a value but the applicant has a chartered

surveyor, acting for them in viability matters, and we also have chartered surveyors. We have

two sets of chartered surveyors available to us now. We use our external viability consultants,

BPS Stalking, who are chartered viability surveyors, and we have Royal Institute Chartered

RIC surveyors in -house as well now to actually work with them and push BPS Stalking as and

when necessary to challenge their inputs and their various modeling of how they do the

viability and there has to be a consensus agreed at some point and the maximum reasonable

value in monetary terms that's been arrived at is £950 ,000 and that's basically been

agreed between three groups of surveyors so it's had a significant degree of scrutiny.

Council might. And I guess if we wanted to take those, the

council wants to take those six homes and offer them as social rent homes, there would

be again a financial issue around that. I mean, was that examined at all?

It's the first thing I did.

So as part of this process, it's very much staged.

First thing to do is explore whether the council

would want to take on the units.

They are shared ownership.

So for a start, to convert them into social rent

would be at additional cost.

They are pepper potted, the six units,

as approved around the development of 29 units.

So they're not in a logical own foyer location

within the units, some are on the ground at first, they're duplexed, some are on the second

floor, they're all over the place. That raises just ineffective financial viability management

arrangements in terms of just the service charges. So we declined to show any interest

in obtaining these units. Then we go through the process of making the developer come up

with enough documentary evidence that's convincing,

that demonstrates the case that they've gone out

to registered providers and explained to them

what the proposal is, where they are,

and do they want to take them up.

Our nine preferred providers that we use

and then other providers, that took a year

and we've got all of our information.

And then we go on to the last part,

which effectively is getting into the nuts and bolts

of how much money that that translates to.

So, sequence.

That's great, fantastic explanation.

Okay, thank you.

Is that agreed then?

193197 Upper Tooting Road, fourth item on the agenda.

People have seen the images of that.

This is the one I was referring to last.

I can muddle the two up.

Sorry about that.

But this one, any objection to this application?

Agreed, agreed.

We've dealt with the next one.

That's the garage is at Mayford Road.

On to the next, which is 18 Holly's Way

or even Templey Road perhaps,

depending how you look at it.

Small extension, any objections, any comments?

Sorry?

Oh, you have indeed.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah, I beg your pardon.

Go on.

No.

You have to go outside to do this one.

Right, speaking on behalf of.

Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton.

Yeah, I've got the right one.

Not withstanding the distress this application

has caused residents of Holly's Way

who are situated either adjacent or close to 18 Holly's Way,

here are a number of points we'd like to highlight on residents' behalf.

One, access to light.

The proposal would completely block the outlook from windows of number 14 and number 16 Holly's Way

and one window 18 partially.

Because the blank wall is east facing, it will appear dark and looming,

with the sun behind it for the majority of the day.

The overhang of the first floor extension to the south increases the loss of outlook further.

Two, differing aspects and uses of rooms.

The application for 18 Holly's Way is completely different to one Holly's Way extension,

which is the one at the other end of the wing.

The equivalent two windows of 13 Holly's Way are for home offices,

which are used all day on a west by southwest facing,

enjoying plenty of direct sunshine from midday onwards.

The 18 Holly's Way extension would be a major loss of light issue.

Replicating the number one Holly's Way design,

dating back from 10 years ago and from a differently orientated site,

is not a reasonable design solution

which any great, degrade, sorry,

the Hollis Way development.

Number three, inaccuracies in the assessment

and material information missed.

The report misuses the fact that a similar extension

was approved in 2014 at number one Hollis Way

to justify the new application at number 18 Hollis Way,

which aims to replicate number one.

Whilst the new 18 Hollis Way application may look similar,

it has very different impacts on neighboring flats

and it is made in a different policy context.

It should be considered independently without being influenced by the 2014 approval.

It would block the outlook of primary habitable rooms, home offices and living spaces in neighbouring

flats.

The 2014 application was approved because it impacted secondary rooms in the nearby

flats where light and outlook was less important in bathrooms and bedrooms.

Since the 2014 approval, the new local plan has been adopted, which specifically resonances

outlook as a residential amenity consideration. The application's daylight and sunlight assessment

is inaccurate and fails to capture the amount of harm the extension will cause. The test

for sunlight impact claims that flat 13 will retain 100 % of its annual and winter sunlight

hours. However, residents confirmed the proposed extension would block at least 90 minutes

of direct sunlight each day. In addition, the daylight distribution test covers only

two rooms where the affected windows are sources of daylight for a much larger area of the

flat. For these reasons we are asking the committee to refuse this application. Thank

you. Thank you, Councillor Hedges and Dan Walton.

Right. Councillor White.

I just wanted to ask the chair, is that the last time you are going to allow someone to

I meant that this last time, yes.

Right, officers, any comment about what's been said so far?

All of those questions have been answered

within all of our officers' responses are for you,

starting on page three of the late items,

continuing to pages four and five.

If you want to hear my voice, I can read the items for you.

I haven't had the time to take in those details.

Okay, since I've got the mic on, shall I just run you through those five?

What I was going to say is I've had other members.

Are other members okay about it?

Sorry, I didn't hear.

I wouldn't mind if he runs through the thing because it was in the late items rather than

the bulk of the report.

Well, these are specific responses to those questions that are actually in the report.

I am confused and that is not a good thing from my point of view. Do you want responses

from the officers, the officers say they have been covered in these late items, do you want

to talk about the late items? Let us just assume for a moment we have not taken them

Can you just talk about them briefly?

Certainly.

So the outlook impacts point one.

They've been assessed within paragraphs 2 .4 to 2 .6 of the report.

The separation distance, so this is the application site.

It's an existing single story part.

You can call it.

It is a bungalow, but it's got a flat roof.

It doesn't have a pitched roof.

It's a flat roofed single story bungalow.

and the proposal, as you well illustrated

with the images in the committee report,

is to have one far side of this bungalow

with an additional story.

And the separation distance of that is 7 .2 meters

opposite the main four -story bulk

of the estate of Holly's Way.

And we regard, it mirrors a similar relationship

that was approved at number one Holly's Way.

However, well, within that context,

I must point out that it's been asserted that the 2023 local plan has just introduced

outlook as a new consideration within the local plan. That's just not true. Outlook,

the three main principles of amenity tests in terms of privacy, outlook and reduction of

through a sense of enclosure and daylight sunlight is a thread through plans for decades and decades.

So it's certainly not a new issue.

And those issues were tested

back when number one was approved.

But officers regard that this separation distance,

given the context of it being one additional story

and the openness of the rest of the estate

with no other obstacles due to the grounds

is an acceptable arrangement.

The propose, the assessment of the proposal in point two

hasn't differed in the manner in which that

The impacts I should say hasn't differed with Holly's way for the reasons I explained earlier.

There's been some issue raised about how the existing occupiers of the blocks use their

rooms, whether they're office, home offices or bedrooms or living rooms.

The fact remains is that the assessment for the previous approval and this assessment

and we've regarded as all the windows,

especially facing this new proposal as habitable.

So they get the highest degree of protection

in terms of amenity,

unlike windows to stairwells or WCs and chair rooms,

and we've assessed it in those terms.

On point three, it's been asserted

that we, officers have automatically said,

well, one Holly's Way has been approved,

therefore this is okay. It is far from that simplistic. It is a fundamental planning principle

that each application for this commission is judged on its own merits. We have applied

that principle on this occasion and we have assessed it on its own merits in a degree

of isolation. But what we cannot do is be completely ignorant of the fact that there

is a physical building that mirrors this proposal that exists and has an impact. We have taken

that as a material consideration. We haven't used that as an overwhelming consideration,

but we've used that overall in the planning balance and achieved the balance based on

the merits of this proposal in the context of the approved proposal that this would be

acceptable. And finally, the assertion by the residents

that 19 minutes of direct sunlight would be lost each day. This hasn't been corroborated

by a daylight sunlight study using BRE guidance and their methodologies and formulas, whereas

the study produced by the applicant has used BRE guidance, methodology and formulas and

therefore we have to rely on the data provided by the actual report.

Thank you. It seems okay to me. Does anyone want to give reasons to object? Councillor

I'm going to ask a question, and it might be a bit of a deaf question, so I hope not.

I was very interested that the applicants basically questioned the validity of the BRE

assessment.

Have there been cases where the BRE assessment has been incorrectly administered?

It's a very good question, but the way that BRE guidance and the way daylight sunlight

sunlight assessments are done. Professional practitioners use the same formula. It's mathematical.

It's more physics, mathsy kind of stuff, if you will. And the whole concept of these strange

phrases like vertical sky component, which is, you know, it's where light hits on any

vertical plane and then this daylight distribution, you know, it's all done to the same formula.

So technically, if they're all using the same formula,

then they should all arrive at the same conclusions,

which is why, if you've sat on the committee for as many years

as some other members have,

you won't see another daylight -sunlight engineer

challenging a value of a report.

They'll challenge the methodology, but not the value.

So, no.

It's unlike viability, where one surveyor can go,

that house is worth a million quid and another survey says no it's 800 ,000 so it differs

from that.

Okay, right, I take it it's accepted, move on to the last application, Aldebrook Road,

and this is a change from an application agreed by inspectors and not us I think.

Agreed.

Councillor Whitehorne.

I think it may be a little bit too late as well, because this is

just an alteration to an original planning that has been accepted.

I noticed that we are talking about gas boilers in the context of

renewable energy.

In the last comment on page 164, it just seems remarkable that

were allowing through a gas boiler,

and while earlier in the evening we've rejected

a property with excellent sustainable energy credentials.

Is it too late to stop these gas boilers

being acceptable energy providers at the property?

In short, it's very too late.

This is a government's inspector has imposed that condition.

It's the final assessment of the process.

so we have no opportunity to change that,

to do so with the ultravirus.

So is it agreed?

I agreed.

Now, thank you, those officers involved in the applications.

We move on to the enforcement papers

and introduce our friend here to talk about,

Mr. Raybould, to talk about the enforcements,

and beginning with the one at 54 Clapham Common Northside,

I'm not saying necessarily that you need to talk

about any of these.

Has anyone got any problems with agreeing

the enforcement action on 54 Clapham Common,

Captain, this is Councillor Humphries.

It's not a good screen, but a question if I may,

because I'm assuming a big part of the objective

is because it's solid wood cladding rather than,

we see a lot of those kind of developments

where it's so paint glass and that will be fine.

I'm just wondering if that's the key difference on this one.

Yeah, absolutely correct, Councillor.

And there's actually, we have approved a glazed terrace

a bit from the dam that was set back,

you know, it reduces its visual impact.

This one is built of cedar wood, built on the roof,

kind of not very sympathetic to the building

or the conservation area.

Okay, so the enforcement agreed.

Number two, difficulty turning over the page,

Number two was Tooting High Street.

Is that the exciting one?

Yes.

We're all really excited about that one.

Have you been personally and visited it, Mr. Newbold?

Mr. Raybold, sorry?

I have.

It was very exciting indeed, I must say.

Have there actually been objections from many neighbours?

Yes, actually the noise team received 13 complaints about the venue operating late in the evening

and as you can see it's an extension with a large openable roof next to adjoining residential

properties so it hasn't been able to be resolved by the noise team and then it's facilitated

by this development so we're recommending service of an enforcement notice.

I'm confident that would be agreed.

Agreed?

Agreed.

and that's one is agreed and then there's Sisters Avenue.

Is that one equally agreed?

Did you say shocking?

Oh right, okay, that's interesting that it.

Okay, agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Abord, you've had a long evening for that.

Sorry, I couldn't test you further than that.

We move on to the decisions paper. I think Councillor White had a question on that, didn't

you?

I did. I find it really surprising that on page 209, number 7, the Bruckford Bank Health

Centre comes up on this.

Sorry, I got the wrong one. That is the next paper, isn't it? The decision paper is accepted

for information.

Moving on to the investigation files, back to Councillor White.

I find it very simple.

Number 7, the Brockwell Bank Health Centre, is in breach of planning permission.

That is correct, is not it?

So there is a leging of breach of planning control?

Can the officer respond to this?

Sorry, say again?

I believe it's in the resolved list, so it was a breach and it's been resolved by officers.

Oh, it's been resolved, okay.

No, fine.

Right.

Okay.

So, otherwise, is that paper noted?

And closed appeals noted.

Thank you very much and good evening.

you

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 - Wednesday 26 February 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeWednesday, 26th February 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 26th February 2025 at 7:30pm