Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Wednesday 26 March 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Wednesday, 26th March 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
My name is Michael job, and I'm chair of the committee
I
Will now call each member's name
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance
once you've done that
Please remember to switch off your microphone and might I suggest as I always do that you
do something to stop your phone interrupting the meeting and embarrassing yourself.
So I start with Councillor Belton.
Good evening, Chair.
Councillor Owens.
Good evening, Chair.
Councillor is Northcote Ward.
Councillor Osborne. Yes. Good evening everybody Councillor Osborne
Mark Dodgson the Balham Society. Good evening
Roger Armstrong Clapham Society
I believe that Francis Radcliffe may be arriving late
Good evening, Pamela.
Edward Potter from the RABA.
Good evening.
Libby Lawson, Tooting History Group.
Good evening.
Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society.
Good evening, everyone.
And Peter Farrow, Wandsworth Society.
Good evening.
Do we have any other apologies? No, only from Francis, Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. Perhaps this would be a good point. Oh no, let me go on to the following officers
are also present. Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair.
and Oliver Taylor. Welcome to his first meeting I think. Thank you, good evening.
And the Democratic Services Officer Callum Wernham. Good evening. Perhaps this would be a good point
at which to report that the River Thames Society has decided that for the moment it does not
wish to continue membership of this committee.
I think that it would be appropriate if we were to minute, thanks to Chris Rice, who
served in that capacity for a number of years.
and if we could write to him to that effect, please.
Okay.
Declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of interest, financial or of any other kind?

2 Minutes - 28th January 2025

If not, let us then move on to the minutes of the meeting held on the 28th of January.
First of all, are they a correct record or are there any amendments?
In that case, after the meeting, I will sign the record copy of the minutes.
Matters arising. Let me go through page by page. On my copy of the papers for this meeting,
they come up at page three so any any items on page three on page four I don't
think this will arise otherwise on on the agenda can can Lauren way report on
the progress of the local listing process which has now now ended. Thank
you chair. So yes, so the public consultation came to a close on the 28th
of February so offices with my team are just correlating all of the responses
now. So we've got two projects running concurrently so we have the historic
street signs project whereby we're looking at all of the nominations and lists have been
sent through from the societies to put together a single list that will be sent on to the
highways team to inform the potential works for restoration of the street signs project.
So that's ongoing and in progress. And then the other line of work is the local listing
enhancement project, which is looking at the nominations for the local listings.
We're putting together a full list that we can take to a transport committee at a future
date to add them to the local list.
So that's just being correlated at the moment.
And we're also looking at all of the information that has been provided by residents and societies
to enhance the existing list locally list entries.
And we're working with the – with our GIS team to find ways in which we can actually
show that on the webpage.
At the moment, it's not particularly good mapping system, so we're working with them
to improve that so that things like the images that were provided in 2018 and this public
consultation can now be shown when you hover or click on that locally listed building or
structure.
So it is in progress at the moment and I'll keep giving the committee updates for each
committee on how we're progressing, but we have got dedicated officers in the team that
are progressing those particular projects.
Thank you.
Any questions on that?
Let me just underscore the importance of getting all the information publicly available on
the website, getting rid of the absence of links and the broken links, of which I think
there are some still.
Thank you very much.
The other item just further down that page, Fersdown Lodge.
Can you give us an update on the position there, please?

4 Applications (Paper No. 25-131)

Certainly. So an application for change of use of Fersdown Lodge was submitted to the planning authority.
This has since been withdrawn on the basis that concerns were raised regarding the change of use
and its impact on particularly the metropolitan open land.
So at the moment, the applicants are putting together
a package of information to support
a future application for the lodge that
seeks to address some of the issues raised by the planning
department.
And they will engage with pre -application engagement
with offices prior to submitting the application
so that any issues can be ironed out at that stage.
I think that's all we can say at this stage.
I guess the obvious question which people will want to ask,
so I'll ask it, is whether that means that the deterioration
of First Down Lodge will continue.
I don't believe so, no, because I think as part
the lease they have to maintain the building in a certain condition while
these engagements are taking place. It's not in their best interest to allow it
to fall into further disrepair I suppose because that's just additional cost for
them when it comes to the actual works taking place.
Understood. I hope therefore that the council also will keep an eye on that issue
Which had never as everyone around the table will will remember that's been a major concern for us
Okay, are there any other matters arising I'll go on to page 5
Page 6
I just
Mr Armstrong. Yeah, I understand that an appeal has been made in respect of
Waterfall House, the advertisements.
That's correct. Yes. So they've submitted an appeal for that one. So
it's just being put through the process at the moment and is with
officers to put their appeal statement together.
.

3 Terms of Reference (Paper No. 25-130)

Great.
Thank you. They're not intended to weaken our position, but rather to strengthen it.
I think the clue to our position is in our title. We're the Conservation and Heritage
Advisory Committee. Conservation and Heritage is the focus of what we do. And we are advisory,
we are not a decision -making body. The best that we can do is to make
recommendations which
either are or are not
accepted either at officer level or at the Planning Applications Committee subsequently.
I think it's important in this context to recognize that
the planning regime
in which we operate and which has operated in this country for the last 70 and odd years,
requires everyone in the planning process to take balanced decisions based on policies
which are now set out in three key documents, I suppose, at national level, the MPPF,
at London level, the London Plan, and at borough level in the local plan.
And so everything we do is in the context set by the policies set out in those plans
in which conservation and heritage issues are covered more or less satisfactory.
There is room for disagreement or not on those issues.
I think we've always been aware, and I think member societies are aware,
that there is always a risk that conservation and heritage issues are not taken as seriously
as we take them by other people involved in the planning process, whether they are some
planning officers and sometimes councillors who have to make decisions
in this borough, it's called the Planning Applications Committee.
So there's always a risk that what we say is ignored and I think we need to
And I think the discussions that took place in November in this committee were very much
about trying to find out how we could avoid that risk or mitigate that risk, at least
to some extent by strengthening the advice and the recommendations that we make.
So when we do that by presenting more evidence and by formulating our advice in the light
of the policies set out in those three documents that I've mentioned.
I might add as a writer to that that the Battersea Society,
which I represented here, almost invariably when it comments
on applications, makes reference to policies at one or more
of those levels because we believe
that that strengthens the kinds
of representations that we make.
Now, some of you may be aware that a publication called Putney News has issued an article which
alleges that the proposed changes to the terms of reference represent a plot by the council,
a plot to make it easier to demolish historic buildings, to encroach on conservation areas,
registered parks and gardens, and to disregard community concerns.
I can't believe that anyone sitting around that table,
this table, would accept that interpretation
of what the changes are attempting to do.
And even if they did, of course,
they would not accept those changes.
I also find it very difficult to conceive
of a committee made up of representatives
of civic societies who would willingly accept
a risk of making it easier to demolish historic buildings,
to set aside concerns to encroach on heritage assets and so on.
But if you read, those of you who've seen it, the article more closely, actually you'll
find that it's concerned above all with the mention of the three documents that I cited,
the MPPF, the London Plan and the local plan, which are described as highly political documents.
Legislation, white papers, of all kinds, of course, are the result of a political process.
I think we have to accept that.
But it argues that it would be OK if the amendments that are proposed were restricted to, and
economic impacts of the proposals that we consider around this table. I have to
say I would be strongly opposed to any reference to the social at the wider
social and economic impacts because I think that would drive would would
really risk driving a coach and horses through through what we do. So I think
So on all kinds of levels, this article
is barking up a completely wrong tree.
Now, having said all that, the amendments
that have been put forward, which I, in the vein,
represent what I suggested, I recognize
that there is room for people to disagree, for good and honest people to
have good and honest disagreements about the changes and I shall listen very
carefully to what people have to say about them. I do believe that the
objections are at best overstated and at worst based on complete misunderstandings of the
way in which the planning system works in general and the way in which this committee
works in particular.
But I've said my piece on it. I want now to hear what other people have to say. And I
see first for Andrew Catto.
Firstly, thank you, Chair. I had a conversation on Monday evening because it was the Department
Society's AGM, the editor of Putney News,
his own publication.
It's only online.
It has a readership of about 400, he tells me, was there.
So I went up and introduced myself
as the Putney Society's representative on this committee
because I thought I ought to.
And basically put him straight, I hope.
Whether he listened, I don't know.
I'm afraid he is one of the very large number of people
who have fallen for the spin, dare I put it that way,
that comes from DHLUC, or whatever
they're called these days.
Sorry, local government.
The Department of Local Government
and whatever it's called these days, communities.
Yes.
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government.
Yes, anyway, them.
that planning, but changes to planning policy
can get stuff built.
Actually, we all know that planning policy
is entirely about what you can't do.
And I had to put him straight on that very clearly.
And that therefore, in my view,
the more things we have to take,
we are allowed to take into consideration,
the more we can find something that says
you can't do what we don't want you to do.
as officers are very keen to do when it's appropriate for them.
So I very much think we should keep this and indeed, if anything,
after the local plan and the local plan, add and other published policies.
Other points. Mark Dodgson.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm afraid I wasn't at the last meeting, unfortunately, and I'm not sure if I was at the previous
one.
I'm slightly unclear what is the problem we're trying to resolve by adding this into our
remit.
Is it that we're being criticized for mentioning other policies that aren't directly impacting
you know, don't, whose subject matter is not conservation areas and listed buildings, or
what?
I'm not quite clear why we need to actually have this addition to our remit.
Let me answer that first and before other people come in.
The problem that I think arose is that we were being asked to provide more than straight
conservation advice to provide ammunition, if you like, to counselors and others who
were concerned that conservation advice alone would not carry the same weight if it didn't
refer to other kinds of issues that are raised in policy.
That was the concern, that strictly...
restricting the remit of this committee to advice on conservation matters
meant that there was a risk that the advice would simply be ignored.
And of course, I mean, there is plenty of evidence that that has happened in the past.
That, I mean, anyone who has sat around this table for any time will be able to recall
cases where this committee has recommended refusal of an application and it has been
accepted, the planning application has been accepted either by delegated powers by office,
under delegated powers by officers or by the PAC. Of course those officers taking
decisions and PAC inevitably has to take other issues into account
because as I began by saying the whole planning regime in this country
for the last 70 years has been based on balancing of arguments relating to a whole series of
spatial planning and other planning issues alongside conservation. So why should we simply
restrict ourselves to commenting on on conservation and heritage issues and
thus potentially opening ourselves to the risk of being ignored.
May I just respond to that because so we it's picking and choosing the the other
policies that suit us to support our case for conservation.
Is that really what we're saying?
Because there'll be plenty of policies
in the armory of the planning department
where our view on a particular building or area
might be at odds with their intentions
to fulfill certain planning criteria.
Of course, when balancing arguments about harms against benefits, which is essentially
the essence, as in my understanding, of how planning decisions are made in this country
and have been made for the past 70 years,
then the weight that one gives to conservation on the one hand,
to transport issues, to housing issues,
to a whole host of other issues covered by those policies,
those are matters of judgment.
and the weight that you or I might give to them around this table would be, could be
quite legitimately different from the weight given to different parts of the policy frameworks
by other people.
That's all I'm saying.
If I may, I think we shouldn't be too burdened by the Putney News comments on the proposal
because I think they do misunderstand the principle and the purpose of what it is that's
proposed.
But I do think they're probably right in thinking that we shouldn't include the proposed changes.
The National Planning Policy Framework, the London and the local plan, have excellent
sections on conservation and heritage and how to deal with them.
and we could and should be guided by what they say,
but they are only a part of the overall planning policies which those documents contain.
I think our job is to advocate for heritage assets, listed buildings, locally listed national conservation areas and parks and things like that,
And that's what we should do.
I cannot see that adding something other than the heritage aspects of the three levels of
planning policy documents, I can't see what we can do when we come to make a comment on
application because we say that on the basis of our view of the heritage assets
it's a good scheme or a bad scheme but if we then say for example if we're
trying to oppose a scheme oh it's it's about it's it's a jolly good scheme but
taking into consideration the need for affordable housing we think that the
application should proceed I don't think that's our job I think that's a job with
Planning Applications Committee and those that formulate policy if we're considering
conservation areas.
So I don't think there's a need to add this into our objectives.
I think that reiterating our job is to advocate for heritage assets.
It's the job of others to do the weighing and the balancing.
if we say at the end of any comments that we make yes we are aware of other
planning issues I mean that's not adding a great deal to what it is that we have
said I think also that well I've said enough for a while I'll happily late I
I see you hovering.
Councillor Belton.
Thank you, Chair. I think I must confess to a bit of guilt in this.
I was at this meeting two meetings ago and I was making a particular point about a particular application.
And I think after many years on the Planning Applications Committee, I could hardly bear to tell you when I was first on it,
but it was a long, long time ago.
And having seen many applications go through,
or indeed being thrown out, with some comment
from Jack or its predecessor about what they thought,
I am very used, if I may say so, to the planning committee
members being pretty dismissive of what this committee
or its predecessor thought, dismissive in the sense of,
oh, that's all about heritage, they would say that, wouldn't they?
And what I was really trying to get at,
on a very particular application that we needn't talk about now,
but lots of people will know which one I'm talking about,
which has things to be said for it
and very serious heritage things to be said against it,
The comment that was likely to come through to the applications committee was likely to be,
and I'm being very crude here after the detail you guys have given, I feel weak in presenting this,
but the comment would come through that the CHAC were against the proposal for a couple of reasons.
And it's so easy when, in my experience, it's been so easy for many years for planning applications to give you members,
not all of them, but some members to say, well, Heritage always said that sort of stuff.
That's what you always get.
and they're not necessarily terribly aware of how very, very planning -oriented this committee is.
I mean, I think that would surprise many of them.
So I, in a way, just wanted to say, and I totally take your point, by the way,
about this up to the Planning Applications Committee to make the assessment,
But I'd just like to comment, and maybe this is a way the report is written and nothing
to do with this committee at all, maybe.
I'd just like it to say, whilst it was drawn to, whilst CHAC were very aware of all the
benefits of this scheme, for this reason or that reason and all the other, putting all
that to one side from a heritage point of view.
So it just gave an acknowledgement that this committee knew about these other issues.
I think without that, planning application committee members are meant to think, meant, sorry, tend to think,
oh, we're under pressure from government to provide more housing, we're under pressure to do this,
we've got a housing waiting this long, we must do this and that.
They don't fuss about all these other problems.
And that's all I wanted really, was to make the committee aware that the decisions of
this committee are made in a very much broader sense, sorry not a broader sense, with a broader
knowledge of the pressures, I mean which you two have both been expressing actually, you're
both very well aware of it.
It doesn't come over to the Planning Application Committee members, and that's really what
I wanted to do.
And I think what I'm really intrigued about is being
somewhat responsible as the chair of the planning
applications is, I'm very intrigued about,
is where this came from.
The actual term, was it you, chair, may I ask?
Because it wasn't me.
And it wasn't any committee that I know of.
And there's no name on the bottom of this.
It just says on the item on the agenda from the chief executive.
Now I've got a lot of time for the chief executive's capabilities and so on,
but I doubt whether he got to this.
So I was very intrigued by where it came from.
It came essentially from me.
Oh dear, OK.
Fine, fine, that's OK.
Are there any further comments from people who haven't made comments up to now?
No, in that case I'll take, okay, Mr Dodgson and then Mr Catto and then I think we need
to come to a decision.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm a little nervous that the phrase taking account as appropriate could be read as taking
into account as appropriate by others.
In other words, it could be read as saying that when making our comments or advice, we
have to take into account all these other policies, which is the very reverse of what
I think our role is.
So I am very nervous of that wording.
Thank you.
The rest of what I would like to say, Chair, sir, small points of text and what have you.
B and C, I think conservation areas and statutory listed and locally listed buildings should be or, not and.
And that in E, I think possible suggestions is tautological and we just need suggestions.
Tiny points well taken.
Could I just comment on Mr. Dodgson's comment?
Would where appropriate meet his problem?
Where appropriate of the full range of policies.
Sorry, I don't understand how that would work.
Taking account?
But it's not the appropriate.
It's the fact that it's taking account.
It sounds like taking into account to me.
Okay.
Sorry, I thought I saw a relatively straightforward way, but perhaps not.
I mean, how about something more neutral, like whilst being aware of all the other issues,
something more like that, whilst being aware of the considerable benefits and the complexity
of the scheme, whatever it is, something that just recognizes that you're actually aware
of a bit.
I can only repeat what I've said before, really, that I am impressed after a few years on this
as well, fundamentally how much more members of this committee know about the planning
process and theories than many of my colleagues on the applications committee who may find
themselves there, not by choice, but the party has to put it in someone there, as it were.
So I just wanted to make the committee aware of that.
I think it's difficult to do drafting round a table. And I think there probably is a way,
you know, using words like being aware of,
or being aware as appropriate or whatever.
There is a way of making it clear that
our terms of reference are different
from the terms of reference of the PAC,
which has to take decisions,
taking account, that do take full account of all the policies. Would it be acceptable
for me in concert with the officers to come back with a slightly revised form of wording
of that kind?
But if I may addendum, you just said that we're not the planning applications committee
and you've also sort of said that we are going to do what they do by taking into account
all the planning policies.
I really don't think there is a need to add this to our terms of reference.
If what is required is that we try and get the Planning Applications Committee to take us more seriously,
we have to put in better comments.
I don't think simply saying we've taken into consideration all the other planning issues
is going to add much weight to an argument about the value of a heritage asset.
If planning applications committees and others don't take heritage very seriously, I'm afraid it's the nature of the beast.
If you are advocating for heritage, there's a tendency to see it as regressive, reactionary, not very progressive.
We have to live with that. What we have to do is make our comments more powerful and more forceful.
I don't think a kind of, forgive me, a token remark or aside that we have considered all
other planning policy issues is going to be terribly effective.
I think what we do is we maintain our advocacy for heritage assets on the basis of the principles
in the three plans that we've discussed and leave it at that.
I don't think there is much to be gained by this and I think we do open ourselves up to
misunderstanding as has happened if we leave it in.
Obviously I think it would be better not to come to a decision tonight and perhaps we
can brood upon it before our next meeting.
Okay, thank you.
I think we have two options in front of us.
One is to take this away and attempt some word crafting.
The other is to abandon the proposal altogether.
And I think I'm prepared to take a vote on that.
I mean, I think the issues have been fairly clearly aired.
So, could I ask for a vote on whether we should proceed on the basis that some further work
is done on the wording, which we will bring back to the next meeting?
All those in favor?
or should we abandon the enterprise altogether? I think the majority is pretty clear there.
I don't want it to be taken that simply because we've agreed not to abandon it,
that a reworking is going to finish up being acceptable?
Of course, that is, I mean, that is,
the committee, it will come back to the committee and the committee will decide.
Okay, I'll take one more comment, Mr Catto.
It's not a comment, it's just a report that obviously, ahead of this, I reread all of this,
I stumbled across item seven about representatives of other bodies, which has prompted me to
contact the Victorian Society because one of their board members is also on my panel,
but I haven't had a reply yet.
So I think they're the most appropriate one of all of those, given the age of the building
stock in most of the borough.
If I may say, when I was considering what to think about this, I looked up the issue
of statutory consultees in the planning system.
And we've got a variety, Victorian society,
20th century society, SBAB, Georgian group, and others.
And I looked at all their objectives
in terms of reference.
And they focus on what it is that I think is alcohol policy.
They don't distract themselves by the need
to reference other policy.
There is one other issue which I confess I hadn't spotted until Ms Greenwood pointed
it out to me, that the Wandsworth Historical Society, which she represents and has represented
around this table for a considerable time is not specified in the list of members and
I think that needs to be rectified forthwith.
I was going to say thank you and also perhaps we should include other boarder organizations
like Richmond Society and Merton Historical rather than just Streatham and Wimbledon because
there other people that share bits of heritage around the edges? I'm not averse
to that except I think we should guard against getting too many people around
this table and my understanding is that we have asked for representatives from
Wimbledon and from Streatham without success, is that right? My understanding
chair is in the past yes we have reached out to them I don't think we've reached
out to them particularly recently at least since I joined the council I'm
happy to do so again if we feel that's valuable I have reached out on a
separate matter to as you mentioned earlier the River Thames Society and the
yeah the Royal Town Planning Institute who have put a note out in their
Bulletin to try and get a member back to the committee, but I'm if members want to I'm very happy to write to other societies
The gap that we were talking about for Wimbledon is
covered in part at least by both the Sutherland Grove Residence Association and the Southfields grid
But neither of them really covers a big enough area, but they might be asked
That area is also part of what I would have thought was Wandsworth Society's remit as well.
The Wimbledon Society lists the streets that they actually cover in planning
and those are all in the borough of Merton and not in Wandsworth,
which I think SW19 might have been added at the time of,
once was originally in the LCC,
and then in 1964, London expanded,
and maybe there was already part of SW19 in the LCC bit.
I don't know.
I was rather young at the time.
Not concerned with planning.
So I think that might be one of the things,
just like I live on the edge of that,
and some of the phone numbers are Putney numbers.
There's a complete mishmash of things going on
that I think developed from that time.
I think it was Battersea within the LCC.
I think Wans was outside the LCC.
Was it the ILEA?
Outside the ILEA, anyway.
I don't know the boundary of our interest,
but I think we'd have trouble getting someone to deal with matters close to women.
I think, can we leave it for offline discussion, you know, which other bodies might be added to?
But bearing in mind, we don't want, I think, to...
I mean, we don't want to be exclusive,
but adding half a dozen new members
would just change the nature of this committee,
and I'm not convinced it would be for the better.
Can we move on?
OK.

4 Applications (Paper No. 25-131)

Let us move on to item four applications and first of all 2025 -065.
First of two applications relating to 3 Edna Street.
Thank you.
So we actually have two items relating to 3 Edna Street, but they've split them up into two.
The first one is demolition of existing garage, alterations including erection of two -storey
front -slash -side extension and single -storey side -slash -rear extension, including removal
of the existing chimney stack to the front and reconfiguration of the internal layout.
And there is the site within the Three Sisters Conservation Area.
It's not a locally listed building.
It's not statutory listed.
You can see there are no other similar assets in its setting, it's just the conservation area.
And that is it within its context. You can see it's part of a series of semi -detached
villa -style houses really. I think they date to the 1860s, 1870s. Quite a consistent pattern of
development in this part of the conservation area, but if you look in the bottom right
along Edmond Street you can see there has been some infill but mostly it's pretty well preserved
and again that's just from the rear and again you can and you can see that pattern of
villa development and there is the site and so there's quite a generous gap
with the neighboring building that's a fence it's not a structure i don't think
Yeah, and that's just a bit of a context photo from further down the road.
And that is looking from the side street.
I can't remember the name of it, but you're looking towards the site.
That house just right in the front is part of the pair and the chimney you can see, which
is probably more relevant to the second application.
It's just the top spine of the outrigger.
Yeah, and that's just another example of the type of buildings along Orball Street.
So that is the existing ground floor plan on the left and the proposed on the right,
which just gives you an indication of the scale of what they're proposing in terms of
the extension.
It's worth noting in the bottom right corner of the proposals where they are wanting to
bring the building line forward, they did note in the application that they had included
a setback, but I think you can see that generally speaking they're coming forward.
Just there.
And that is at first floor.
You can see the rear extension and then again it's a two -story side extension.
And that is the existing front elevation and then that's the proposed. So it's
more or less infilling really. They've left a little bit of space and there is
a very small setback but generally speaking yeah they would they would be
bringing it forward to the building line. And that is the existing rear. And then again
there is the proposed rear. And that is everything for item one.
First of all, are there any questions relating to this?
Anything that's not clear to members?
Mr Dodgson.
Could we be told a little bit more about materials?
It will be in brick to match the existing.
I don't think we've had any detail on what they're proposing with the windows.
We would expect it to be timber to be appropriate to the conservation area
with slimline double glazing if that's what they want to go with. I think with
the rear extension again it's brick somewhat less concerned in terms of
Materiality to the rear but yeah, I believe it's it's primarily to be matching
Okay, if there are no further questions
Can I invite comments on on this application?
I see mr. Armstrong
Yeah, I think the most controversial aspect is the removal of the chimney stack, the front
chimney stack, if that's the main front chimney stack they're referring to, because that's
quite a prominent feature and Victorian house without chimney stack just looks wrong.
So I quite like the way they've designed the side extension with a sort of flat
roof and continuing the eave sort of detailing but I do also think that
should be set back and maybe a bit further into the side.
Other comments on this application?
Mr. Katter.
Yes, I had a look on Google Earth, as I always do on these occasions, to check what the context
is.
Discovered that there is a side extension for a two -story side extension of a similar
kind on numbers 1, 5, 7, 11, 13.
In other words, the majority of that side of the street,
as I've already done,
the REITs, coming back to your point about the setback,
they've set back to the same distance as the one next door,
which I think is probably the right answer.
And if anything, I'm going to advocate for slightly more,
because it's that curved notch that is the thing
that shouts at me as being inappropriate in this setting.
Any other thoughts?
I mean, from a Battersea society point of view, we don't like that curve notch either.
but this is, as Mr Catto has pointed out, in one sense a bird that has long ago flown
along Edna Street.
Mean
The trouble is it certainly is looking looks like an extension
Yeah, it's not trying to pretend not to be an extension because it's not the roof hasn't extended
I have to say I do agree with
Mr. Armstrong that I prefer it it was set back further
But I wasn't aware that the one on the other side was not saying back so far
Yes between them essentially they they fill the gap
that originally existed.
So, in a sense, what is happening on Edna Street
is that what was a series of semi -detection villas
is being turned into something more like a terrace.
Yes, thank you.
I mean, they have, a lot of them have been filled in,
but they haven't all been filled in.
Oh, sorry, but I'm just looking now on Google Map.
But essentially, they do seem to have,
the others seem to have kept their chimney stacks.
That's the only difference.
And obviously, they've been filled in,
sorry, most of them have been filled in, yeah, you're right.
But they've been filled in, as you say, slightly set back.
Lucky then that they can create that extra space as well
to the side of a house.
Food.
So what are we saying about this application?
That we are not objecting in principle
to the side extension.
We are opposed to the demolition of the chimney stack.
Otherwise, we are content with this application.
Is that right?
Or is content to...
I see Mr. Doj.
Should we...
I mean, I asked about the materials, but I mean, presumably, do we know it's going to
be the same bond of BRIC and things like that?
Because it would be pretty...
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
Sorry, Mr Armstrong, can I just sort of ask, there are two chimney stacks, aren't there
here?
They were proposing just to remove the front one, but there are two, yeah.
Are they removing also the rear one?
No, just the front one.
In this application?
Okay, is that agreed?
We accept in principle it should be the materials, bonding, et cetera, should be conditioned,
but no removal of the chimney stack.
Okay, let us move on then to 2025 066.
So it's actually the next in the sequence, the number sequence.
Thank you.
Yep.
So also three at the street.
This one is alterations, including erection of a mansard roof extension to the main rear
roof and extension above two -storey back addition. So again, the same site, same heritage context.
This time it's just reserved to the roof. They are proposing to put a small skylight
at the front, which I think is shown better in the next slide actually. Yeah, so you can
see the existing on the left and on the right they're proposing a small skylight at the
front and on the side and then to the rear they are extending the dormer and the height
and once you see it in elevation you'll appreciate that they are raising the height, I call it
the spine of the outrigger, I'm not sure if there's a better technical term, but there's
potential for visibility of that from Orble Street I think it's called.
Yep, so there is the skylight proposed flush conservation style roof light to match existing
character and appearance.
Existing front pitched roof to remain as existing.
No impact to street scene.
And then this is the existing rear elevation.
And then here you can see the extension at the roof.
existing which level to remain as existing to the front main part of the building.
But the proposed rear -mount side roof dormers will be 70 degrees in pitch with slates to match existing.
They've mentioned that there are similar precedents with some mount side roof extensions to be found in the area.
The proposing the lead dormer with sash windows to add a sense of character to the building and match existing appearance
No outlook on to any neighboring properties
and
Then yes existing chimney best stack will be removed
Proposed wall filled with yellow London stock brick to match existing character
Did we have a side?
Okay.
As usual, any questions relating to this alternative proposal?
No?
Everything clear?
Right.
comment there on I seen this drives one with his finger well I would like to
suggest that they ought to be keeping the rear main chimney stack as well
because it's visible widely and it's a important feature of the group of semi
such houses
I think this scheme is better than the last scheme.
It's more in keeping with how someone in my – may have extended it when it was first
built.
Can I accept that point, but repeat on Mike what I said as a – beside just now, this
is not an alternative scheme, this is an additional scheme, so they'd do both if they got permission
for both. And I think we have to be clear about that.
But the one doesn't preclude the other. But I think we're going to say we're not going
to, well, if it's, our recommendation is that they should not be allowed to remove the chimney
stack. So both chimney stacks remain. But are we again in principle accepting this application
with that very significant caveat, as well as the caveats as before about materials,
etc.
Conservation style, roof lights, all that stuff.
Yes?
Okay.
Let's move on.
2025 -03 -7, St. John's Avenue, Putney.
I think this is one where we're probably not going to comment as a society.
In fact, I think we've already looked at it and decided not to comment as a society because
essentially apart from the judgment about whether or not they should have that thing
that's masquerading as a garage but isn't.
There's nothing to see from any realistic angle.
OK, let's go ahead with the presentation.
Is this you, Miss Wade?
Thank you, Chair.
So as noted, 29 St. Johns Avenue.
So it's one of a pair of semi -detached buildings
within the West Putney conservation area,
as you can see here, with the list of church
towards the north. Here within its context, so you have a three -storey building, mid -19th
century Victorian semi -detached building with a basement. This is showing it towards the
rear. So it has a hipped roof and then it has sort of another wing towards the rear
that has a separate hitch roof. As you can see here, it's quite an Italianate style to
it with the deep eaves and corbels. It has quite an interesting arrangement at first
floor level with the windows projecting like oriole windows, which is quite a difference
from its neighbour. And this is probably one of the best pictures and I didn't include
that in the original presentation that I sent out. We sent out yesterday just looking at
it in its immediate context with its neighbor. You'll see next door there is a side extension
at present, which is a garage -style extension. And then Burston Road, looking at it, so the
front elevation as well as the side elevation, which is also visible from within public areas
of the conservation area. And you see that wing towards the back that she projects out
slightly further than the front wing, which is, I wanted to highlight that because that
forms part of the application in terms of extensions. So as existing you see there,
it has a dormer towards the rear, a fairly modest dormer towards the rear part of the,
the front part of the building, so the rear pitch of that, of that hip with two roof lights
on the front. And as proposed, there's a few proposals that are coming forward for
this application. So the roof light towards the front is being replaced with three conservation -style
roof lights, as you'll see, towards the front. The dormer towards the rear is being
enlarged quite considerably with new windows within it and what appears to be an air conditioning
unit proposed on the rear wall of that dormer. Side extension will be partially basement
and partially ground floor extension which seeks to replicate some of the detailing of
the next door neighbour with an oriole window above a set of double doors. Here you'll
change on that side that's obviously the side that is attached to its neighbor but
the left elevation you see some changes and just to note here so this is the
extension here so so partially at basement level and then at ground floor
level so slightly more than a single storey and then here if I quickly flick
back you have this single storey very small element at this point which stops
area .Tri
Dinner scenario isaneous visits by Council
6B, two main
that are being introduced within the garden.
Here you'll see the footprint of the building,
so it will be flush with the building,
and like we saw with 3 Edna Street,
so there won't be any setback, it will be flush.
And partially a storeroom at basement level,
and then a small section of that being used
as a downstairs toilet at ground floor level.
At roof level, you see here, this is the existing roof plans
and then the loft plans as well.
And as proposed, you see here,
there's quite a big difference in the dormer here.
And that's where you see this extension just peeking up.
So it's a relatively small extension slightly set in,
just in here, which is to accommodate some cupboards
within those upper floors.
And this is just giving you some sections of some of those extensions
as proposed include, you see here this small side extension that rises up just at ease
level which will accommodate just some extra cupboarding and then the dormer at the top
and then these are some cross sections showing that side extension between basement and ground
floor level. So it would be good to get the committee's views on these proposals. The
in relation to some of the front garden works.
I think the last image here does give an indication
of some of those front garden works as well.
There's not an awful lot of information if you see here.
There's some changes with sliding gate introduced as well,
which isn't showing in great detail
in some of these drawings.
So the officers have requested a bit more information
as to what these will look like,
because it's quite basic at the moment.
Thank you.
All right, thank you any questions
Anything's unclear about
Mr. Katter
Yes, just is the clarification is the front garden paving specified as permeable?
Because this is a big concern in particular in that part about me
This is what we're seeking clarification on it's one of the matters that we're asking
because if it's not permeable that there is
It does technically need permission if it's non permeable, so it needs to form part of the application if it's permeable
It doesn't necessarily need to form part of the application
Okay comments mr. Cata I think has
Recused himself from making any comments
Comments from anyone else
Do we really not have anything to say about this?
Mr. Dodgson.
Could I revert to a question rather than a comment?
Would it be possible for you to show again the – that is the proposed on the right,
is it?
So at the moment there is the V -shaped, I don't recall it, pediment.
None of that is there at present.
I have to say, I mean these are very fine buildings and I think despite the fact others
have done this to their buildings, I don't think, I think it detracts considerably from
really high quality architecture.
I know they've done it on the right.
I couldn't get my Google Maps to show that in that way, so that's really helpful.
They are really fine, and I just think adding a sort of really rather awful sort of pediment
like that, which has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the architecture, is inappropriate,
in my view.
Yes, can I just pick up on that?
You can see in Google Maps it's also that funny thing to the right, which looks as if
but was sort of added without thought,
on the house next door, as there's a garage, isn't it?
So it's actually, somebody just built that as a garage,
whereas they're trying to do something
completely different on their house, aren't they?
But trying to sort of have a bit of the character
of the funny addition on the right,
which just to me just seems a bit odd.
I know that obviously they want to sort of keep it in line,
but it's all a bit odd pastiche of a pastiche, thank you.
Mr Armstrong.
I'm agreeing with Mr Dodgson that I don't really think it helps the...
It's a very fine house and I think it rather detracts from it, that sort of strange extension.
I think they seem to be spending a lot of money to achieve not very much space at the side.
I mean that is extremely expensive work to achieve a few little cupboards.
So what is the point?
May I suggest what the point seems to be,
although I can't see that they're getting value for those cupboards,
is that every square metre in a prime site
is worth more than the cost of building it unless you really go overboard.
And for some people that's all that matters.
I think those issues, I'm not referring back to our earlier discussion on our terms of
preference, I think are beyond our remit.
I agree, we do sort of wonder sometimes.
It's also true of the storage and replacement downstairs, Luke's already got one, which
is now beginning to become redundant.
There does seem to be a lot of money spent for no apparent reason, but that is not, as
the chair has rightly pointed out, something we should consider.
We should consider the heritage.
These houses, the rebuild to their left is a rebuild after bomb damage, but basically
these houses are wrapped, the three streets wrapped around that church, and later the
itself represent the very earliest suburban development
of Partney after the arrival of the railway,
which is so they are early of suburban Partney,
I can put it that way, and therefore significant,
more so than you might at first glance realize.
You only have to go four doors down the road
and you're 30 years later.
OK. I have to say I agree about the awfulness of the pediment on garage on the joining house.
And I think I very much agree with Councillor Owens. I can see no reason why that has to
be replicated.
But apart from that, the extension itself
seems to be unremarkable.
So I think we are commenting on this application
rather than saying we're for or again.
Is that acceptable?
OK.
Well, I'm against it
Is that we're not allowed to be against it
Significantly detracts from the from the streets
Is the objection to the
Just thinking of you know what we are passing on to
to officers and to the applicant,
are we objecting to the look of the extension from the front
or are we objecting to the extension itself?
Mr Armstrong.
Well, I'd like to object to the whole thing, really,
especially as I now have heard
These are one of the some of the past the earliest
Development housing development in that part of Putney
Sorry, so our objection is to the extension itself
on the grounds of the damage that it does to a noted example of the very earliest suburban development in Putney.
Is that what we're saying?
Yes, I think the phrase comes to mind that two wrongs don't make a right.
Copying next door's ugly extension is not necessarily responding to the context in a sensible way.
Ms. Greenwood.
What about the landscaping? I mean that paving doesn't look quite with the building as well.
There wasn't much view of what they were doing outside, but it didn't look like it enhanced anything.
Or am I wrong?
I confess I didn't pay much attention when I looked at this to what they were doing in the front garden.
And the sliding vehicular gait?
to use a cliche I have used earlier this evening.
I think it's a bird that has flown a long time ago.
But we are nevertheless objecting to, in principle, to the side extension.
Yes, but I think we should also refer, Chairman, to the appearance of the pediment and that
design, not just the principle, both.
Are we done?
Can I just quickly check, so it's just the side extension, because obviously there's
the side extension to accommodate the extra cupboard, so the committee members are not
opposed to that or the extension of the dormer.
It's specifically the sort of garage style extension that's between basement and ground
floor.
I think speaking personally I find it difficult to get to the dorm.
Okay have you got enough there Mr. Woynam?
Let us move on to the last one, 0603, 14 Clapham Common Westside.
Thank you, Chair.
Last one on the agenda for this evening.
So 14 Clapham Common Westside, as it says in the address, this is within Clapham Common
Conservation Area.
You see it's part of a small terrace of three houses that is situated to the south
of Sumba Road, but overlooking Clapham Common.
You see it within its context, looking from Google Earth.
So we're looking at the building on the southern part of this terrace group.
A typical late 19th century terrace with two -story canted bay windows and a projecting gable
red brick. And then you've got your stock brick elevations towards the rear with the
outrigger, a typical outrigger, two -story outrigger towards the rear. It already has
a dormer extension, quite a modest dormer extension within the rear part of the main
roof. You'll see it's blocked slightly with the marker. Here it is within its context.
So there is a consistency across these three groups. You'll note just in the corner there
there's been some other roof extensions within this part of Clapham Common. You see a glass
box that is just peeking up towards the side, but note that if you look within its context,
you've got quite a kind of art deco flat development further towards the south of the
site, but then you've got slightly taller terraces further towards the north with three
stories and that's one of the buildings at the end that's got that glazed extension.
I see on street view it's difficult to actually see that extension as built because it changes
to 2020 when you start going down the side streets. So here again you see it within its
context looking back down towards the south with a very consistent roofline to these buildings
with those projecting gables being quite prominent and the counted bay windows. And we've included
this view because of the proposals as they are coming forward do relate to that rear
dormer that you see peeking up just towards the rear picture of the building. And then
And this is the rear elevation from Sumba Road. You can see there's a quite consistent
for uniformity of the outriggers here with their pitch roofs. So there is a degree of
visibility towards the rear parts of these buildings because of its orientation towards
So, noting that some of these drawings are not particularly accurate, we've brought
this to committee, but we have obviously raised concerns already with the case officer with
regards to the drawings.
So, it would be just an in -principle view from the committee at this stage, but noting
that these drawings are not particularly good in terms of showing that level of detail.
So a number of changes proposed for this.
So they're looking to increase the size of the rear dormer here.
So this rear dormiture was the rear part of the main roof.
So it's being extended further up towards the ridge line
and further towards the side elevation.
We'll show you the reform to give you an illustration of what that is.
This elevation which will perform largely kind of gable will be fully glazed
But walk much closer towards that the side elevation towards the front
This is where I think the drawings can be a difficult to quite discern
But for what we can see is that there's going to be a cut out in the front pitch that will allow for a terrace
To be introduced with a black frame double glazed door
So it'd be set back when you look if you have a look at when we have a look at the
Internal elevations you can see it's a setback in so there will be a cutout into the roof
Noted that none of these buildings have these but there is historic
Terraces on the other group that I referred to the set of four terror and terraces further north north from this building
But I've looked through planning history and all of these are quite historic. So there's not any recent
examples of these front terraces where you cut out part of the roof. So as we
say as existing on the side elevation and as proposed so you see this is the
new much larger rear dorma what you see in blue is what will be fully glazed
with a metal frame that is supporting that glazing. Here the existing roof
So you see the extent of that rear extension.
And that's, so this is where it will be extended.
So the red is where it will be extended to.
So it'd be quite a bit larger.
Here you see there's a new roof light that will be added very close to the terrace.
And this will be, that's the entrance door to this terrace.
So it'll be set quite back.
So this will all be a flat terrace towards the front.
So a large chunk of that front roof will be taken out for a front terrace with railings
proposed and that door set back close to the ridge line of the building.
And I think that's it.
As I said, the drawings are not particularly great and we really acknowledge that.
So it really is an understanding of the principles of these external works in relation to this
building.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I confess I was the person who drew Ms. Way's attention to this application because it did
seem to me extraordinary that it had got through a validation because the drawings are so poor
and which makes it quite difficult to
Understand fully what they are posing to do
But sorry, that's by the by any
questions to start with I
Hesitate to say any questions about what is not clear because I think quite a lot is not clear
Could we see the front elevation again, please?
The proposed or the existing?
Well, that's... is that proposed?
Any other questions?
OK.
comments. I saw as this presentation went on lots of head shaking going on. I'll start
with Mr Armstrong. Yeah, I have already objected to this, I think, on behalf of Clapton Society.
I mean, I do think I did have great difficulty in understanding the drawings, and I do have
difficulty understanding why they want to do this.
But it looks very poor in relation.
I mean, it's a very prominent building,
because it's the first one in the terrace.
And you can view it from the common opposite.
And you can view it.
You'd be able to see the side glazed extension,
I would have thought from the commons well
And it's just not very
Nice in terms of the effects on the terrace and the building
Councilor Owens I
Suppose for me. I mean grew with everything that said it's just so weird that that balcony on the at the top
I owned a house, more than 10 minute walk from there.
It's Victorian for 15 years that has a,
on the first floor actually strangely,
it was done obviously by the builder in 1910
or whenever it was, a bulk,
I actually had a balcony just like that,
but on the first floor.
But clearly, I mean, I've never seen a house
with that on the loft locally.
And I know that, I think that house is in Ballym
because it's right beside, in the Ballym ward
because it's the other side of 30 Road, isn't it?
But yes, I mean that alone is just so bizarre
and whether it was you could see it from Clapham Common or from any of the roads.
I've not seen that.
Okay, Mr Dodgson.
I think I can answer Councillor Owen's remark.
There is actually one just like it three doors down on the end of the next terrace.
It does strike me that the design process was to walk around the area between the Commons
and pick up all of the show -off glazed stuff
that other people have got,
pile them all into one application,
and here it is.
Because, yes, the president seems to be collecting
everything that this panel might dislike.
And I think I said earlier about the last application
to a degree, two wrongs don't make a right.
The fact that someone else has got one of these,
that somehow, in fact, I can think of two or three
in the area that sneaked through at some point
and doesn't make this right in any way.
Ms. Wayne, you want to?
I just want to add to that.
So I've put this image back on
because you can see just about the railings of these,
what they're seeking to largely replicate on this building.
The pitch is much shallower on this terrace.
So the roof is not as prominent,
So the facades are the most prominent features.
Whereas these buildings, it's quite a nice balanced composition where you've got the
roof is a lot more visually prominent at this point.
It's a very small space as well.
So if you have a look here, that's roughly where that terrace will be going.
Very close to the edge, well that railing's come up at 1 .1 meters to allow for there to
be a safe use of that terrace.
So you'll have railings coming up at this point
very close to that gable.
And then a cut into the roof there.
So it will be quite different from what's historically
taken place on these buildings here, where
the roof is not as visually prominent as this group of three.
Could I ask Ms. Wei, do you know when the planning permission
that the
looks quite modern to me. There's a glass box on the back.
Oh, I didn't check that one. Apologies. I can check that for you.
Oliver can check that.
Not that that will change my opinion of it, but I have views. I think it's wholly inappropriate.
The balcony at the front destroys the appearance of the terrace from the street, and because
of the ability to see on the side, I think the box on the back, which as far as I can
make out, is larger than the existing.
Again, it's too large.
Thank you.
So I think what we're saying is that we don't have full information about this, and it is
essential that the applicant is told that they've got to provide a proper set of drawings.
A. B, we object strongly to the insertion of the access from the roof and the cutting
of this little terrace beside the gable on the front elevation.
And we equally as strongly, it seems to me, object to the box extension at the back
with its glazed frontage to the street, which completely, to my mind,
destroys the appearance of the quite standard rear and side wall.
I mean, it would be so obtrusive and highly visible,
not just from Sunborough Street,
but from the Common, as you can see in that picture.
Does that go far enough? Are there other points that we want to make?
I think there are also more attractive houses in the next session along that has got the
front roof terrace. They are more attractive.
Yes, and they're three -story houses rather than two stories with those gables.
In fact, I think I might make that point, but it's not really one that we should comment
on, but if they borrowed an idea from a house that's a story taller and further down the
road, if they put that glass box on, then you will be in a way, then if you try to use
that as a bedroom, and it is a top floor room, you'll be overlooked in a big glass wall that
I'm curtening from the flats next door.
They haven't spotted that.
No. Okay.
Not to mention...
Is there anything that we want to add to our objection?
Is it worth justifying it though by saying that because it is more visible than other similar extensions on taller properties or something of that nature?
Because it will be more visible.
Oh absolutely it's a corner property facing the common because it's
two stories rather than three stories and so on.
Yeah okay and I mean if we wanted to go to town we would make reference
to various policies in MPPF, London Plan and Local Plan that make this completely unacceptable.
And a whole load of others, I suspect.
Okay.
Thanks very much.
That's the last of the applications.

5 Decisions (Paper No. 25-132)

The next item, item 5, you have paper 25132 on page 21 of your PAC, if you've done it
in PAC form, which is the applications that have been determined.
Just to note that the Waterfall House, which has already been mentioned, was refused and has gone to appeal.
I wouldn't rate, not for minutings, but I wouldn't rate their chances of success at appeal.
The banners at the town hall was rightly withdrawn. The Northcote Public
House was planning approval was given by delegated authority,
but I think they took account of the points that we made about materials,
which I think was the main burden of what we had to say on that application.
And the other, the final one we have, the other Waterfall House application from back in 2023,
was in the end approved.
That was for some internal alterations, wasn't it, Ms Lawson?
And I think, again, our objection was really on the grounds of the awful messing around
with this building that has gone on over the years.
Okay. Is there any other business?
Councillor Belton.
Very briefly, Chair. On the last paper, I found it particularly confusing. I think I
said this before, distinguishing between the committee and the committee. It would be useful
Still from my point of view, if it said PAC and CHAC, at least I know which they are,
the committee and the committee gets, I'm all over the place on some of those.
I think you better have a conversation with Mr. Burnham.
If not the chief executive.

6 Future Meeting Dates

Future meeting dates. We need to get on the 6th of May and at my request I plead guilty
to this. I asked that the 17th of July meeting be changed to the 14th of July. Is that acceptable?
I don't think I haven't heard. I don't know. I don't think Mr. Wernham has heard of anyone
objecting to that. Okay. And then the other dates I think have already previously been
notified in any case.
Is there any other business?
I declare the meeting closed.
Just for Callum's reference, I'm giving my apologies in advance for May.
I will see if we can send somebody else.