Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 27 March 2025, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 27th March 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.

Good evening everyone.

and good evening.

My name is Tony Belton.

I'm a counselor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea

and I'm the chair of the Planning Applications Committee

and good evening to this, the March Committee meeting.

We have one apology, I think,

and that's a counselor, Justin.

That's a working apology, isn't it?

He's not ill or anything.

I think that, working it is a working, I thought it was.

So that's good to hear anyway.

Sound to miss him.

I've got no particular messages from the chair

other than to ask people whether they have

any interest to declare.

But before I do, let me introduce people sitting up

on the top table with me.

Good evening, Nick Calder, head of development management.

Good evening, my name is Duncan Moore, I'm the external legal advisor.

Evening, I'm Becky, I'll be clocking the meeting.

That means she's the important one, she takes the minutes and tells everyone in future what

we decided.

That was roughly right, isn't it?

Now do we have any interest to be clear?

Any member got any interest?

No interest to declare.

Do we move straight on to the, oh indeed, thank you.

Councilor Humphreys, you've seen the minutes

from the last meeting, happy with them as a record.

Agreed, I signed the minutes as a correct record.

Indeed, thank you.

Just before we start, we have one member of staff

watching from home, we've got two actually,

but the one I'm talking about at the moment

is Mr. Raybould who's advising us on enforcement issues,

but he also, I'm told, should be in bed fast asleep.

So if you don't mind, I'll take the enforcement item first

in case we need any of his advice.

and the enforcement item is agenda number four,

paper 25125.

Can I take that first?

I think it's very uncontentious.

We're recommended to take enforcement action.

Does everyone else agree?

Thank you, that's agreed, Mr. Raybold.

you can go back to bed and look after yourself

and make sure you're all right for next time.

The other.

Have a good evening.

So let's move on to the planning applications

and in particular we'll move on to

planning application number one, 2022 -3954,

which is for land alongside Swandon Way,

commonly known as the Wandsworth Gas Works site,

and it's an application for 620 plus residential units

and other facilities beside.

We've got a presentation from Mr.

Here I go, Karim I know him as,

but your presentation from,

and after we've had that presentation,

we'll have representations from two ward counselors,

Counselor Davis and Counselor Sweet,

and they'll have five minutes,

and questions of the counselors,

and then we'll open it out for general discussion.

So to start with, Kareem.

Thank you.

which means the development delivery will have the following order.

First, we'll get the approval of reserved matters applications for A2 and A3,

and then commencement of any block on site can start.

After that, the completion of construction for blocks A2 and A3,

i .e. the affordable housing, the occupation of block A1 can happen.

This is the site allocation for clarity.

This is the Old Town Hall and this is Fairfield Street.

And here is the site sitting along Swandon Way and Smugglers Way.

The land to the south is associated with the ongoing live application at Two Armory Way.

and the site sits in close proximity to the approved and constructed developments at B &Q,

Holm Bay, Ferrier Street, as well as the RAM quarters.

The local plan designates the site as WT4 and all development policies regarding its development are outlined under this policy,

of the local plan.

This policy is aligned with the One Del Delta

supplementary planning document, or SPD,

which provides recommendations for the development

of allocated sites around the One Del Delta area.

The image to the top left corner illustrates

the boundary of WT4, while the dotted red line

indicates the boundary of the application site

inside WT4 only.

The top right image is figure 24 from the SPD,

showcases the aspiration for the public realm framework

and the bottom image here is figure 25 of the SPD,

illustrates the green and open spaces framework

for the area.

The blocks highlighted in red represent the site parameters

in relation to overall WT4.

The SPD proposes six blocks throughout WT4 with the application sites representing the

middle block on the right side and the top two blocks on the left side.

The top block here is the Delta Business Park which currently has no development plans.

The two blocks to the bottom correspond to the Land to Armory Way which has a live planning

application. Can everyone see my mouse?

Can everyone see the mouse?

When it moved. I must say I can't at the moment.

Hold on, please. Here we go.

Ah, that's it, yes.

Sorry about that.

The proposed master plan outlines four blocks of development.

Block B, located on the right, will be constructed

on the side of the historic gas holders,

resulting in a circular shape.

Plot A1 will be on the north side of the site,

between the River Wandle and the railway arches,

while plots A2 and A3 will occupy the middle section

overlooking the river.

The master plan aligns with the public realm framework

and the green and open spaces framework set forth

in the SPD.

It effectively incorporates two east -west link,

a central north and south link,

and an extended wandle trail throughout the site

in addition to the riverside park.

It's worth noting that the location plan

for the development or the red line boundary

extend across the river to incorporate the Causeway Park

beyond boundaries of WT4,

which reinforces the commitment of the development

to realizing the green and open spaces framework of the SPD.

The images on the left are the SPD layout

and public realm strategy,

with the application sites representing the central section.

The main image here illustrates the proposed master plan

within the application site,

along with site plans for the remainder of WT4.

The application site is designed to enhance public realm

and connectivity including east and west link

that terminates at the Riverside Park

and connects with the Wandle Trail extension

and the new bridge leading to the causeway and beyond.

The applicant confirmed working with the developers on the downing site for the continuation of the central spine

and which will stop at the boundary of neighbouring site to the north.

Block A1 is strategically set back from the eastern boundary here,

providing active frontages overlooking the future gas holders way extension.

And the proposed master plan facilitates development of the Delta site to the north

by allowing sufficient separation distances and preventing traffic movement

on their space to give them flexibility in site layout options in the future.

The public realm strategy for the proposal focuses on creating hierarchy of movement

spaces and separating vehicular and movement from dwelling spaces. The proposal includes

seven main public realm areas, Gasholders' Way, Gasholders' Garden in the middle of Block B,

Gasholders' Way serving as a north -south link through the site, and the Wandle Trail and Riverside Park

along the length of the site facing the River Wandle, Kingfisher and Wandle Wharf streets separating the A blocks,

Wandle Trail play spaces here and here,

and Smuggler's Yard located between block A1 and the arches.

These are some of the images of the Gas Holder's Gardens

and sectioned through Gas Holder's Way.

These are some illustrations of the Riverside Park

and the Wandle Trail, as well as the Causeway Park

across the river.

These are sections through Wandle Wharf

and Kingfisher Street, and the Wandle Trail play parks,

an image of Smuggler's Yard showing the conduction bridge

across the river and the interface between Smuggler's Yard

and the Wandle Trail.

Regarding play spaces, the population yield calculation indicated a total of 264 .8 children

between the ages of 0 to 17 years old. This calculation suggests a requirement of 2 ,648

square meters of play space. The proposal includes 2 ,525 square meters of play space,

which will consist of a mix of industrial themed play areas

for younger children at the Wandle play parks

and to the south of Block B.

Additionally, there will be rain gardens

with incidental play on Kingfisher and Wandle

and on Cat's Holders Way,

as well as the Riverside Park,

which will offer extensive natural play opportunities.

Officers consider the shortfall of 123 square meters

of play space across the site acceptable

due to the provision being secured for children up to 15 years old and provision

being secured for 69 % of those aged 16 to 17 years old and the fact that the

development includes sufficient amount of commercial and leisure activities

across the site as well as the ample provision of private communal spaces for

residents. The detailed of the play spaces will be secured by condition. The

Landscape strategy will affect the public realm spaces

with each area designed to have

a distinct landscape character.

For example, the Gasholders' Garden will feature

shade tolerant plants chosen for their sensory qualities

and seasonal interest.

Gasholders' Way will include a shade tolerant

sustainable urban drainage basin

and by diverse planting with broad walks

creating quiet spaces at the heart of the master plan.

In Riverside Park, they will be undulating grass lawns

alongside diverse planting of multi -stemmed trees

with medium -scale trees to define the trail.

The southern section of the Wandle Trail

will retain its existing trees and enhanced

with native species to develop a vegetated corridor.

The riverbanks will be planted with coil reed

and native river Wandle species.

Brain gardens on Wandle Wharf and Kingfisher Street

it will host a mix of native riparian species,

ornamental perennials, shrubs, and water tolerant trees.

Additionally, there will be extensive green and brown roofs

on the proposed buildings, as well as trees and shrubbery

on the podium terraces in block A1 and on level four

of plot B.

The urban greening factor calculated without the inclusion

of the outline plots will achieve .475,

exceeding the London plan requirement

of .4 for residential development.

The landscape strategy also addressed proposed lighting

which will align with the hierarchy of public realm spaces.

The details of the lighting strategy

will be secured by condition.

It's worth noting that the application was submitted

before the biodiversity net gain regulation took effect.

However, as an additional planning benefit,

the proposal will achieve a 26 .5 % increase

in biodiversity net gain for habitats

and 31 .2 % increase for biodiversity gains for rivers,

both exceeding the 10 % requirement,

as explained in section 11 of the committee report.

In terms of massing on height,

officers find the proposed heights acceptable,

as discussed in the committee report section nine,

despite the SPD calling for a range of 40 to 10 stories

for the following reasons.

The existing context changed,

the baseline definition of mid -rise and tall buildings

in the area.

For instance, Homebase and BMQ building

starts at seven and eight stories

and reach up to 15 stories.

Ferrier Streets rises up to 10 stories.

The Ram Building rises to 12 stories

with a tower that goes up all the way to 36 stories.

Even the old riverside development varies

between eight to 22 stories.

Secondly, the National Planning Policy Framework emphasizes the importance of optimizing site

potential while both the local plan and the London plan support maximizing site capacity

and efficient land use.

Third, the site constraints such as gas mains, high voltage electricity cables, flooding,

and decontamination costs necessitate a higher development threshold to ensure that any development

is profitable.

Lastly, the proposal adopts a design -led approach,

prioritizing attractive landscaping, ample open spaces,

and enhancing pleasant pedestrian experience,

particularly with the variety of uses on the ground floor

and the hierarchy of connections between the open spaces.

The height strategy for the proposal

includes a marker building,

block A2 at 29 stories, special building,

Block B with heights of three, 12, 13, and 14 stories,

emphasizing the heritage of the site

and referencing the previous maximum heights

of the gas holders, which varied between 10 to 45 meters,

corresponding to three and 15 stories,

depending on the gas pressure and inflation at the time.

As well as background buildings,

i .e. Block A2 and A3, which will stand

to 12 to 13 stories to highlight the importance

of the other buildings while matching the height range

in the context of the site.

Officers need to highlight justification

for the location of the tallest building A1,

despite the SPD calling for shorter buildings

along the railway.

The building is situated to the north

of all other building, all other structures,

which will help minimize the impact of sunlight

and daylight on the development.

The shadows caused by this building

will primarily fall over the railway line,

affecting mainly industrial buildings and substations

which will help alleviate concerns on residential areas.

It will serve as a prominent landmark

along the Wandle Trail and significantly enhance

wayfinding and improve overall legibility of the trail.

The carefully designed base of the tower,

which we'll come to shortly, featuring a canopy,

a first floor balcony and lively commercial spaces

at street level, all of these will revitalize

as a public space and create a friendly atmosphere

for the poor pedestrians.

Also, the location is furthest from Wandsworth Town

and Old York Road conservation areas,

rather reducing impact on heritage assets.

If we look at the heritage impact,

section five of the committee report

discussed the impact on heritage assets

and noted that there would be less than significant harm

to some of these assets,

with the highest impact being classified as middle,

less than substantial harm

to the grade two listed grapes public house.

Officers found that the taller elements of Block B

would disrupt views of the grapes bub

as its visible parapet contributes to its significance.

However, historical photos indicate that the visibility

of the former gas holder is similar to the height of Block B.

Furthermore, the design of Block B resembles the gas holder

in its cylindrical form and materials,

but is structured with separate blocks

to enhance openness and sky visibility.

Additionally, the cutoff above the podium

will give more prominence to the parapet,

and section five concluded that identified harm

to this asset and all other assets

would be outweighed by substantial public benefits.

This was specially considered

when evaluating the application

in light of paragraph 125 of the National Planning

Policy Framework, which prioritizes the development

of brownfield land unless substantial harm is present.

In the case of this application, both GLA officers

and council officers did not identify any substantial harm

to heritage assets in the vicinity.

These are some images for block A with their location

identified at the top image.

image. You can see the details of the canopy

and the ground floor commercial spaces.

The second three residential entrance with the cycle store

coming from Smuggler's Yard. The main entrance

on Wandelwarf and the interaction between

the block with Riverside Park

and from the Gas Holder's Way. And this is the final image for

of what the tower would appear behind the arches

in its proposed setting.

These are some images to show the architectural detail

of Block B.

Image one and two show the main pedestrian entrance

and podium along the side elevations.

Images three and four show the podium gardens,

and image five show the gas holder's gardens.

Image number six show the thermal store,

which is a key part of the proposed site -wide

district heating system for the development.

This store will act as a buffer to store excess heat

during periods of low demand and increases the efficiency

and reliability of the system and reduces operating costs.

The design of the thermal store will have remnants

of the historic gas holders on site

and will sit at the center of the gas holders garden.

Regarding the quality of accommodation,

block A1 will contain 178 flats,

96 .3 % will have dual aspect outlooks.

Additionally, 83 % of these flats will meet sunlight

and daylight thresholds as outlined by the building

resource establishment or BRE.

All of the flats will exceed national space standards.

They will also meet the private amenities standards

for balconies set by the local plan,

although they will not meet the high requirements

set by our local plan.

The block will feature 200 square meters podium terrace

as a private balcony, a communal amenity for residents,

and images at the bottom show typical flats for Block A1.

Block B will contain 204 flats.

77 .5 % will have a dual aspect outlook,

and this ratio increases to 82 .4 %

if we consider windows overlooking corridors

as a secondary outlook.

Additionally, 61 % of the flats will meet

sunlight and daylight threshold under the BRE guidance.

All of the flats will exceed national space standards

and will also meet London plan standards

for private balcony, although they will also fall short

of the local plan requirements.

This block will feature 1 ,600 square meter podium terrace

as a garden loop on the fourth floor.

There will also be 1 ,837 square meters

of communal amenity spaces, which will consist

of a pool and spa with changing rooms, a bar, a games room, a cinema room, a restaurant

and espresso lounge, a club room, a roof bar, a library and exercise studio. Images for

typical flats in Block B are on the right -hand side.

Officers note that 39 % of the rooms in Block B will fall short of the BRE daylight targets,

but this is acceptable for several compelling reasons.

The circular shape of the building

honors the last remaining gas holder

and preserving its historical significance.

The building's dimensions follow and utilize

the existing basin, avoiding unnecessary demolition.

Retaining the basin will save over 4 ,000 tons

of embodied carbon, which is equivalent

to building 106 new homes.

All types of flat features general internal spaces.

the block offers extensive private communal areas

for residents and the building has 665 habitable rooms

which make the non -compliance percentage inflated.

Most non -compliance rooms are on level one to six

with many facing the three story podium

showing that reducing the building's height

wouldn't significantly affect this percentage.

In summary, the advantages of the design

and sustainability far outweigh the daylight concerns.

In terms of transportation and site connectivity,

the image in the top illustrates

the relationship between the site, the nearby station,

and the number of buses, bus routes,

and the main roads adjacent to the site.

The image to the bottom left shows the pedestrian route

from the main entrance going through

the existing pedestrian crossing and through Old York Road

to reach the once -worth station.

Looking at the overall site plan,

the proposal includes one vehicular entrance

from Smuggler's Way.

Vehicles will then move in an anticlockwise direction

around Block B and exit in a new Icarus Point.

The main pedestrian entrance here

is positioned below the vehicular entrance

with sufficient landscaping in the middle

to avoid conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movements.

The entire connectivity strategy focuses on

restricting vehicular access along the east side,

east part of the site.

The dotted line here indicates a future vehicular route

coming from Armory Way, which will utilize

the proposed route to the bottom of Block B

and use the proposed Icarus Point,

which is part of the proposal at Two Armory Way.

The plan for the application includes three servicing bay,

one to the north of Block B,

three bays to the northeast of Block B,

and one to the south of Block A3.

The pedestrian movement, highlighted by blue lines,

showcases the site's high connectivity and permeability

with pathways stretching from east to west

and north to south.

The key routes include the path

from the main pedestrian entrance

all the way to the Wandel Trail

and the gas holder's way that connects

with the southern plot and potentially with the north plot

when it comes to fruition.

The extension of the Wandel Trail runs along the river and connects with other parts of

the Wandel Trail in the borough.

The site servicing will utilize the base to the northeast of Block B. Refuse collection

for Block B will employ a secondary car lift to transport bins from the basement storage

area to the servicing bay overseen by site management.

The lift can accommodate up to eight bins at a time and the service bay has additional

space to store bins during collection process.

The refuse collection for the A blocks will be centralized in block A3.

Site management will transfer full bins from blocks A1 and A2 to a main bin store under

block A3 for collection by contractors.

The reasons, if you look here there is an image of similar situation happening in Chelsea.

The reasons for centralizing refuse collection

in a storage area under blocks A3 are

reducing vehicular movement within the site,

along with its unique shape and the need to maintain

a safe distance from the river,

and usable distance from the river,

limits vehicular access to block A1.

The central location of block A2 demands active frontages

on all sides, which further reduces opportunities

for a viable central refuse area beneath this block.

In contrast, the southern block,

the southern side of block A3 has adequate space

to accommodate waiting and dwell times

for the waste collection vehicles

with appropriate drag distance

from the bin store for contractors.

Considering these factors, there is a compelling case

for centralizing the refuse collection storage

underneath block A3, both functionally

and safely within the site.

details of site management, sorry, of site refuse

are also conditioned.

In summary, the benefits of the development

will be the delivery of 620 homes,

40 % of them will be affordable housing,

with a split 70 % social rent and 30 % intermediate

exceeding the current plan requirements,

which ask for 50 -50.

It will include payment of more than 21 million in community infrastructure levy for Wandsworth

and payment of more than 5 million in community infrastructure levy for the GLA.

It will achieve 13 % reduction in domestic carbon exceeding the local plan for 10, which

will cost for 10%.

It will achieve 38 % reduction in non -domestic carbon emissions.

It will achieve a UGA urban greening factor score

of .457 with a 26 .5 % increase in biodiversity

net gain for habitats and 31 .2 % increase

in biodiversity net gains for river.

It will provide an extension to the Wandel Trail

through the site and through the arches.

It will include development of Riverside Park.

it will regenerate the Causeway Park across the river

and include the construction of connecting bridge

between the site and the Causeway Park.

It will improve permeability through the site,

linking Old York Road with the Wandell Trail

by high quality public realm spaces

and include the regeneration of railway arches.

And the officer's recommendation is to approve,

subject to conditions Section 106 and Stage 2 with the GLA.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bedawi, and thank you for the paper.

As people take all that in, you'll see on page 36, I think it is,

that Mr. Bedawi took into account 69 policy papers from the London Plan and from the National Plan,

42 local policy papers, had submissions from

29 other groups about various features,

and came up with a recommendation with 78 conditions.

Pretty big one to take on board,

and I hope you recover from your,

I find that very difficult to organize in my own head.

I don't know about anyone else.

Thank you very much.

Now after that, we turn to the local ward councilors,

Councilor Davies and Councilor Sweet,

who have their comments.

Take them in alphabetical order for want of any other reason.

So first of all, Councilor Davies.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, it's a very extensive report

and I very much welcome new building

at social and intermediate rent, which is vitally needed.

But like the hundreds of residents

who have formally opposed this, and have approached me as well,

there are some very real concerns.

That's skyscraper, but I'll come onto that.

So it's also really important that we get the place -based

right to promote the health and well -being of our young people.

So in the wider area, there are no parks

to walk to within 10 minutes, which is a recommendation from Play England.

So apart from Branford Gardens or Pollution Park, as it's known,

accessible only by walking next to four lanes of speeding traffic.

So, you know, it's all those measures like the pocket park,

the naturalistic and creative play, you know, very much to be encouraged.

But I do feel it's limited in its scope.

So I could just see reference to stepping log,

stepping logs and fell tree trunk.

And also the, you know, yes there's a Wandsall trail there,

but we also have mention of pocket parks.

You know, and it does look like there's that crescent

sort of slither next to the Wandsall.

Rainwater gardens in between sound good,

but you know, what more could be done here?

Because, you know, it's a sort of

one -off opportunity, isn't it?

And I do wonder whether children or young people

would have been consulted in the course of all of this.

So residents have raised also about their other needs

in the area, which I can't see in the plans.

It's all to do with the infrastructure.

So we don't have sufficient nursery places

according to need, but we know there will be lots of babies

and young children into this precise area,

the gas works, but also the wider area.

You know, doctor surgeries, they'd be more than 20 minute walks away, they're already

overstretched.

So, you know, I, yeah, those are issues the residents have raised with me and I sort of

really think that's right to raise that.

Now, so this 29 story skyscraper, so, you know, I recognize that, you know, the balancing

Act that's got to be done here, but the local plan states that buildings in this tall building

zone are to be seven to ten storeys high. And this is not seven storeys high, but it's

more than four times that. It's 19 storeys higher. So I feel that's not a compromise,

but it's just so far removed I don't understand. It's taller than any other building in the

It's, you know, we've had so much reference to buildings that are 12 stories, 15 stories high.

You know, but I just imagine what's a shadow this eyesore of, you know, the luxury apartments were cast.

What's it, you know, looking down on us?

It's, I say it's not a tall building, it's an excessively tall skyscraper.

skyscraper. I really much feel we've seen all of these residents say it time and time

again, we've seen all these luxury skyscrapers popping up all over the place and yes, we

need more building but not more luxury apartments, not more skyscrapers. It's not Canary Wolf

here, it's not Nine Elves but it's historic Wandsworth town with its heritage, it's grade

It's very materialistic buildings, it's conservation areas.

And so, you know, for that, I just think that the rationale

is not robustly justified, I would say.

And just my last, well, yeah, you know,

just thinking about the views to the west.

So if you're in Putney, so some areas in Putney,

like the Topath, which you've discovered is quite rural,

so there's a very huge contrast there.

Some people have talked about the creep westwards.

Maybe that needs to stop at some point.

And then just lastly to make the point about

the connectivity and the infrastructure there.

Yes, there were lots of bus routes there,

but there's a lot of congestion as well.

I know you can be on the number 44 bus

stuck in traffic for a good half an hour or so.

and also just pointing out that the cycle super highway 8

goes through armory way and swans and way

and it would be reckless, dangerous for cyclists

to go there and no one would.

So that's just another area that I'm not saying

that this building development can specifically address

but it was raised in the reports.

I wanted to raise that point.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you Councillor Dix.

Thank you, Councillor Sweet.

Councillor Sweet.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm concerned about the height and design of this application and the way that the Council's own policies are being

dis -applied. One of the most important things that happened during my time as a Councillor was the creation of the Old York Road

Conservation Area. This came about as a direct result of the planning application for the home -based tower at the other end of Old York Road

from this application. Residents at the time were extremely upset about the impact that tower would

have on the historic area adjacent to this site. I tell you this because I want you to understand

that protection from tall buildings was the absolutely critical reason for creating that

conservation area. It's of course not in the technical description defining the conservation

area but I can assure you that the resident thinking behind it was concern about tall buildings.

I'd like you to bear in mind tonight that the Old York Road conservation area

came into being because of a merely 15 -storey tower. This application is for a

29 -storey tower. That's why so many of the hundreds of residents objecting to

this application and the petition from Councillor de la Sejour concern the

height. I'm concerned about the non -compliance with council policy as

well. I'd like to read the very shocking paragraph 4 .11 to you. It reads,

the council and the GLA would assess the application as non -compliant with the

location and plan led requirements of part B of London Plan Policy D9 as it

fails to meet the full requirement of local plan LP4 in terms of proposed

height range. This assessment would be in terms of visual impact, architectural

quality, environmental impact and functional impact of the proposal.

My question for you this evening to consider is what is the point of having a

local plan that says what the parameters should be if the council is going to disregard those

parameters. The local plan modifications only came in in 2023 and I cannot understand why

the council is supplying so much of it. I'd also add that having applications partly

in outline is concerning. Given resident concerns about height, I don't think it's appropriate

to leave two 12 -storey buildings in this application at outline. So to sum up, there is much in

this scheme to welcome, especially the affordable housing and the improvements to the Wandle,

which will make a new green natural space in a very urban environment. But I do think

the heights and the policies need careful thought. Thank you.

Thank you for two good presentations of local views. Now, councillors and members, it's

your chance to ask questions of the councillors. I think on occasions, if I may say so, we've

it's strayed a little bit into policy areas

that the councillors are not necessarily qualified

to reply to and indeed it's not for them

to counter the arguments.

This should be about their presentations

and what they know about their constituents' views

and we'll get onto other issues with the officers later.

So over to you, Councillor Culkley, I can see.

Thank you chair. I'm Councillor Coakley for St Mary's Ward. I wanted to thank both

Councillors for their presentation and I wanted to ask based on their

conversations with the residents and by getting their views is there anything

that the residents felt could be instead of a huge material change such as the

which we've already heard your views.

Are there any details in the application

that they feel could be amended by a condition

or to make the overall application more palatable

for them tonight?

That's addressed to either of them, I think.

So yeah, they'll probably likely be talking

to separate groups of residents,

so they can both come back on that.

Thank you for your question. I think this will be difficult for you to address in a condition, but one of the things I think is not ideal about this application by far is the inability of new residents that might live in this site to cross Swandam Way, across the main road, Armoury Way rather, over to the rest of Wandsworth town, especially as this is a site that's going to have a large number of families living there.

I think it's concerning the idea that they'd be crossing a very busy main road

and disappointing that there are no measures included to improve that crossing and permeability.

I'm sure we'll raise that with the officers. Do you want to add to that?

Mike?

Sorry. Yeah, no, I very much agree actually that Wandsworth town is very, you know,

there are lots of islands and it's very difficult to transverse the area and that's something that

residents raise and also you know businesses who serve those residents raise that as well

you know and yeah and how to get you know people going to that live music venue from tiny little

Wandsworth town station that's really stretched as well so I think that whole sort of yeah

connectivity does need to be looked at. Two people actually did look at the plans and saw how those

sort of like certain amounts of greening and trees in some areas and could that be improved

throughout and in particular maybe on the walkways and near the restaurant areas.

Those are two things you know and then yeah residents have actually said about

the play space. Thank you.

Councillor Owens and then Councillor Buswell and Councillor Govindia.

Councillor Owens, Northcott Ward. I was very interested to hear from Councillor Sweet about the history of the Old York Road conservation area

and obviously the history of the home -based tower. I was just wondering a little bit more about the impact on the residents

of the Old York Road area of this development and the Tonsleys as well. Thank you.

and Councillor Boswell, if we can try and do.

My question is to Councillor Davies.

I'm Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Back Ward.

My question is around the capacity for play

on the site that you talked about in your presentation.

Obviously, from my knowledge, I know there's a paucity

of parks in that area and there are estates close by

where people are living in very small spaces.

This site, as I understand it,

the play park is in the public realm,

which means that those living in the estates

would be able to use the park

that is going to be built there.

From what your residents have said to you,

have they thought about this?

Rather like Councilor Kolko said,

is there anything that could be added to that play space

or what's envisioned already that would be attractive

for them to be able to use and they start to see a bonus

rather than a minus.

But if we take those two, Councillor Sweet,

Old York Road, Councillor Davis plays both.

Thank you, Councillor Owens, for your question.

There are two areas I'd focus on in terms of the way

residents feel about this application.

The first is about policy.

It may seem that I've raised a very specific point about paragraph 4 .11 about the disregarding

of council policy, but if you read the resident objections, many of them actually in this

paper, the resident objections describe the problem with that they're kind of being upset

about council policy being ignored.

They can't understand that.

And I think that's concerning.

And the second is about design.

Again, if you read the papers, comments from some of the immunity groups, it's really amazing

how much agreement there is between the Wandle Forum, the Wandsworth Society, the Partney

Society and also the Council's own Conservation Area Advisory Committee. So I think no one's

very happy about this.

Councillor Davies.

Thank you, Councillor Balswell, for that question. You're quite right. I know it's in the public

realm and whilst I really, you know, I think we and residents would really encourage that

and you know it's not a private gated, you know, community for example, at the same time there,

I think there are things that can be done so people who only have, who don't have any access to

you know a park or their playgrounds being sort of historically very, very neglected, they're

they're feeling there's nowhere to go.

And they're saying yes, how lovely to have a new space

to go to, but there are issues about the safety

of getting young children there.

So that's one issue.

The other issue is something that people have raised before

in other different developments, such as the Remkorte,

which is the feeling that sometimes people feel

an outdated model that children shouldn't be seen,

they should be, you know, that have joyful play,

and they haven't been encouraged to be out

on their micro scooters and so on.

So I think something to sort of encourage inclusion

would be a very good idea to welcome people in.

So I don't know what that would look like,

whether it would be, you know, events or some sign posting

from the Set -Time Centre into the area

and into the ones with trail and these pocket parks.

But also there's a very real need.

So yes, you've got King George's Park available,

but there's nowhere for children or young people to go

if it is pouring with rain.

And so to have some kind of community space

or multi -use space with,

you know yeah people have said that would be really welcome so somewhere to

go that's very welcoming that draws in you know different elements of the

community you know to have someone looking over them and facilitating

activities to to make sure that you know there is access for all it is for

ones with residents as well as some people.

Thank you very much, Councillor Davies.

That's incredibly informative and helpful.

Councillor Gavindia.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Gavindia, Councillor for East Putney Hall.

Both of you could answer this.

In your engagement with residents,

I know they do make comments in the paper here,

what is their experience of using public transport,

the trains and the buses and what do they think, how do they think that experience will change

when this development is built?

There have been long -running complaints from residents about the capacity of Wandsworth

town station and those go back many years. I can remember with applications for the home -based

tower and the B &Q buildings that those were issues raised then. I think it's true to

say that there is more capacity at Wandsworth Town Station now and yet residents are concerned

about the impact on their ability to get to work in the morning of so many new residents

coming to the area. I do think that there needs to be more done to address those travel

concerns.

Gansa Davis, anything to add?

Yeah, I mean, I, Wandsworth Town Station is going to have the new entrance, it's going

to be accessible for people, and that, you know, that's in the pipeline, so that's certainly

to be congratulated and will make a big, huge difference to people.

and I do know that the MP is in close contact

with Network Rail and the Transport Minister.

I think people, yeah, okay, that's fine.

I've raised that people get stuck on buses

and people have talked about cycle safety, thank you.

Well, if there are no more questions,

can I say thank you very much for the two of you

for presenting.

I want to pose some large questions,

but in the large, just a couple of questions

I hadn't covered, which we've not had any responses from yet

no chance yet, but I think Councillor Davies said,

concerned about things like doctor's surgeries

and should we say civic infrastructure.

The office has got any comment on that?

Thank you, Chair.

I'll just in the committee report section 16,

it talks about impact on infrastructures

and it does specify, it does talk about how the environmental statement

estimated the number of primary age children, which would be 94,

and secondary age, which would be 42.

The council latest children committee report confirmed that there are

continuous significant surplus capacity within the bar of primary and secondary schools

with leisure implemented to manage excess surplus capacity,

hence the results being negligible.

Also, we noted the ability to fund education through CIL. Similarly, in healthcare, the

development would result in equivalent of 0 .75 full -time GPs. Again, the results were

considered minor and we also noted the lack of response from NHS during consultation period

and the ability to fund healthcare through CIL. Again, the application will have over

21 million in cell which can look at this infrastructure needs.

Okay, now accessibility I know members want to ask about anyway,

but both councils did and indeed it's a major concern of mine.

I think both councils did to be fair.

I think Councillor Davis is quite well in saying pedestrian access

in particular in all directions.

it can feel like an isolated island.

I'm concerned not so much about the rail transport,

the British rail, have increased the capacity

by making 10 carriage trains

and various other things like that.

But I am concerned about the pedestrian crossing,

most of all Swandon Way, but in all directions.

So a view about pedestrian and cycling,

for that matter, pedestrian and cycling accessibility

to the site.

Can I refer to my colleague?

Yes, you're certainly sorry, I should say.

Mr. Marshall.

Hello, Marshall, principal transport planner

for Wandsworth Council.

Regarding access for pesterings and cyclists,

I mean, it's at the moment, the two main signalized pedestrian crossings of where Swandon Way

meets Armory Way, on its northern arm, that's still going to be there crossing four lanes

of traffic and the existing crossing regarding giving access to Ram Street as well and to

Fairfield Street.

So, I accept that it's not ideal to come out of a pedestrian egress

and then have to walk southwards to a crossing

and then cross as the argument saying if you're going towards the station.

And I accept that the access onto, if you live, let's say,

in the northern part of Block B

and you want to, your nearest pedestrian access point is onto the Smuggler's Way,

it's not ideal. The main signalised pedestrian crossings that provide routes to the railway

station and to Wandsworth Southside are still in place. TfL have requested around £352 ,000

to help improve the quality of the footways along Armoury Way and Swanton Way. We feel

that given what infrastructure is already there,

we've asked for as much as is feasible.

Are there any new traffic light controlled

pedestrian crossings?

Not to be proposed as to mitigate the impact

of this development, no.

Okay, right.

I'm hogging here, the members want their own say.

There's a whole mass of areas that one could talk about.

Design, massing, affordability, height, transport links.

Open to Councilor Gavinder, you want to start?

Go on, fire away.

Chair, just firstly to help you,

because you started on the issue

of connectivity and transport.

Shall we exhaust that area of concern

and then move to other areas?

Otherwise we'll be all over the place.

So if I take my transport concerns,

firstly, the proposed changes to the one way system

will put more traffic onto Armory Way and Swandon Way

and less traffic on Old York Road, Fairfield Street

and ones at High Street.

Does that make the difficulties, current difficulties

of crossing those roads greater?

And is there for any proposals to have additional

crossing points when that scheme happens?

And the second point I have is,

it literally is about pedestrian.

I mean, pedestrians will obviously be careful

about where they put themselves at danger or not.

but cyclists tend to want to cross the road

as in a connecting way, connect from one side to the other.

And most of the connecting routes seem to go

right against the grain of traffic.

You almost have to cross one way to get into this site,

to get into enterprise way and beyond.

So I just wonder whether there is a safe cycling way

for cyclists to cross those two roads as well.

Mr Tiddley, do jump in if you feel you need to.

Yes, I thank you, Chair.

David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.

The scheme that's before the Development Committee tonight effectively works with or without

Transport for London's original plans to amend the One's Worth One Way system.

So we're comfortable with that, as Mr Marshall said.

there's also a contribution to TfL to improve the local quality of the footways and the scheme would

be naturally would go to the Mayor for stage two comments as well which so TfL would get involved

at that stage as well on ensuring that the conditions and obligations are the right ones.

I think however the proposals might develop in the future with Transport for London on improvements

to the one -way system.

We know we need to do something there.

And so I would imagine irrespective of whether we end up

with the existing highway as it is,

or Transport for London's plans, or something else,

there will be a need for us to work with TfL

to ensure that, for example,

bus routes are replanned in the area

because there's no North Bank bus on Swanton Way, for example.

And now that the development has happened in Homebase

and this development as well, it would make sense

to ensure a bus route is closer to that part of the world.

Similarly, I'm sure that the cycle facilities in the area,

the routing of cyclists would be revised accordingly as well

and one particular example would be, for example,

I think that Swandon Way is still,

is the only bit of red route in the area

that's still 30 miles an hour

and it would clearly make sense to bring

that speed limit down.

But all those are things that we'll be working

with Transport for London on as part of a sort of more place -making in the Wandsworth

context, more generally, rather than specifically as a result of this development. But this

development will be extremely helpful in making the case for greater investment in the area.

Councillor Apps. Thank you. Councillor Apps, I'm a Councillor

beeped by a driver today for riding primary position

on the one -way system in order to try

and keep my life continuing.

I've got a lot of sympathy with the commons.

It's a very dangerous route and the sooner we can get

that one -way system dealt with, the better.

However, I think many of these issues, you're right,

there will be, it's part of a much bigger picture

in terms of looking at those improvements.

I did want to ask though about the improvements

on the other side, which are improvements to the Wandle Way,

which although I think that residents have a hard deal

of trying to get to Wandsworth town

and trying to use the bus routes

and those things have to be improved,

but actually for visitors to the area,

we see considerable benefits

and I wondered if you could outline some of those.

I'm sorry, cancer, can you please clarify what you mean

by the Wandle Way, or you mean the Wandle Trail?

All right.

I'm happy to take it.

Yes, so as I suppose as well,

thinking of the ones with Riverside Quarter,

and as that's developed,

we've seen very relatively strong connections

over the bridge there between Smugglers Way

and that part of the world,

and also down the causeway.

So this linkage will actually to a certain extent partly address some of the Council of India's concerns because it would allow

relatively safe pedestrian and cycle access over the wandle avoiding having to use the

The main road and similarly that bridge that currently exists also to some extent does that

One thing I did want to say because I did forget which was about new pedestrian crossings because there is a crossing that's being installed

I think as we speak, between the home -based site and the B &Q site. I would imagine quite

a lot of new residents who are in this location will also in time get to walk along Swandon

Way across through the home -based site to go into the station on the planned northern

entrance. There will probably be a movement that way and not just down towards York Road

as well.

I wouldn't want to think too many pedestrians would want to walk too far along the Swandon

Way.

It would be a bit like walking along the M1, wouldn't it?

But I take your point.

Are we still on or do you want to move on, Councillor White?

You're still talking about transport?

Fine.

Councillor White.

No, sorry.

I didn't want to move on, but I just wanted to say that that is almost an urban motorway

there just outside. It does feel pretty imprisoning for the development to have that road outside

so that the quicker we can sort that out and get as many crossings and try and calm the

traffic as much as possible to make it as safe as possible. As Councillor Davies pointed

out, there are a lot of children moving in there and I worry a little bit.

Okay, still on transport.

You're on transport too.

You're on a small point, Councilor Convinia,

then Councilor Galke, Councilor Ambrose.

And my small point is actually to Mr. Titley,

is there a minimum size width of a shared bicycle,

pedestrian walkway that you, in your transport experience,

would propose?

because the Wandle way, the Wandle path trail,

so goes down, goes from six something meters

to 3 .4 meters and that narrowing

and then the narrowing of the bridge,

I just feel creates conflict between the two uses

and how can you avoid or minimize those conflicts.

I believe the London Cycle Design Standards

is the minimum of three meters

for a shared cycle and pedestrian route, but clearly you should be aiming for more than

that and to ensure that three metres, you know, that where you can get more you can

and that you don't have long distances of three or three metres or less.

What would be, three is the minimum, what would be nice to have?

Four and a half would be nice to have.

Councillor Colkley.

Thank you chair.

I was just wondering why there were so few...

Sorry, I'm Councillor Colkley from... have you?

Yeah, I've already asked.

Sorry, I beg your pardon.

I've already asked and introduced myself.

But I'm Councillor Colkley for St Mary's.

Sorry.

I was just wondering why there are so few short stay cycle spaces because there's a

lot of long stay and it seems like a very good amount but I'm thinking we have, you

The Proposer has a backyard cinema, it has music venues in the arches.

There's a lot of infrastructure and places that people would want to go and see.

And after it being dilapidated for so long, it'd be really nice to have a lot of these features that residents can come and see.

But with only six short stay cycle spaces by Block B, that already seems like it's barely anything really.

It would basically mean that if you want to go to the cinema or the arches,

you can't really cycle there.

You'd have to get a bus because there'd be nowhere to hook your bike up.

There is.

They have provided short stay cycles,

basically in accordance with the London Plan standard.

It's just I admit, I agree that a lot of them are in the

one stuck in one place around between block A1

and the railway arches.

they're quite difficult to see on the master plan drawing.

So is this in addition to the short stay that's?

No, that's part of the short stay provision.

Yeah, so it looks like in total it's 12, 20 short stay spaces

in that entire development and that just,

If it was just residential, I'd understand because maybe there might be anti -social behaviour issues

but because there's going to be a lot going on here that's not just residential, it just seems quite short.

And I don't know, could we try and encourage there to be more short -stay cycle, especially near the arches and the backyard cinema?

Sorry, I missed it.

On the same point,

and these new commercial, new,

relatively new commercial electric bikes,

are there spaces for those too?

We can't,

specifically ask.

Sorry?

We can't.

Under the London plan, we can't demand that.

No, I suppose you can't, yeah, okay.

Developers provide space for electric bikes

as things stand. But the London plan will be reviewed in the future as well.

I do not want to keep going back on the point that maybe we should have this at the very

least as an informative to say, like, you know, make sure that there is enough sort

of accessibility for these commercial units and that we need to sort of encourage people

to cycle there if they want to.

I'll take a note of that at the end.

In form.

There is a condition, sorry, Ellen Richards.

Sorry.

Ellen Richards, team leader for the west area.

There is a condition number 26 in the report

that is requiring further details of all cycle parking

to be submitted and approved.

And I'm sure we can make a note of that

in terms of overall provision,

if that's felt to be a requirement.

Are you still on transport, Councillor Humphreys?

Thank you, Chair. Councillor Humphreys, South West Councillor.

I was actually following on from Councillor Colton's point as well about internal on the

site, so it is transport but that way round. So obviously this is a constrained site and

I can see the developers tried their hardest to try and squeeze everything that they need

to but I am concerned on the servicing and delivery bays and things like that. We've

We've seen where those are.

Mr. Bailão told us where those are going to be.

And officers say in the report that they think that's adequate.

But I'm wondering if that takes into account all the things

that we get in the modern world.

So not only the delivery vehicles

that will be bringing stuff along,

but also all the scooters and delivery bikes and things

like that are becoming in vast quantities

on electric scooters and electric bikes.

And how will they fit into the mix of how those pedestrian

cycle areas, for example.

I'm concerned that that's going to be very difficult to regulate

in any kind of meaningful way to control their access around the site.

And also when Mr. Budweir was saying about the servicing for the waste,

he was saying that the idea is on plot B,

that the servicing bay will be used for putting the waste as it comes round out,

to be collected on whichever day it happens to be that it comes around.

So if the service bay is taken up with the waste trunks,

where will the service vehicles go?

I think we could have a bit more detail please

on how that's supposed to actually work in reality.

We did analyse the service in trips using TFL's latest guidance plus a nationally recognised

trip generation system for developments called Trix.

All the land uses in the development will create 234 service in trips per 14 hour day.

and that includes, you said, mopeds delivering pizzas

and what have you.

And it's all the vehicle trips for servicing

will peak at about 37.

I think it's between 12 and one in the daytime.

And it's of those, yeah.

When you take into account all the five bays

and like you said, yeah, you're right,

the Block B, yeah, it has got a bay

which on waste collection day is going to have to be used

to some extent to put bins in,

but there's also another lay -by

to the east of Block B as well that can be used.

Plus there is nothing to prevent people making deliveries

to the western side of Block B to use one of the three bays

that's just to the east of Block A2.

So taking into account all the bays

and all the vehicles arriving.

There's five bays to accommodate an absolute maximum

of 37 vehicles at the peak hour.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

That's how we've just come back to chair.

That's all fine, I appreciate you.

You can only work with the data sets you've got

and tricks and things like that,

perhaps do a refresh in the real world.

Close to me, there's a Deliveroo hub

and the volume of vehicles and mopeds

and such like coming out of there on an hourly basis

would knock your 200 odd deliveries out of the sky

as far as anything's going.

The volume of buildings that we're gonna have

and residential units we're gonna have here.

My main concern though was not only just the delivery bays

but managing it because how are we gonna be sure

that those scooter guys are gonna pop their bikes nice

and responsibly in the delivery bay

and not zoom across those lovely pedestrian pathways

and cycleways and stop outside block A

and do their A1 and do their deliveries like that.

You know, it's a management of it as well,

but it's a safety concern, let alone just a capacity issue.

Perhaps I can come in there, Che.

Sorry?

Perhaps I could come in there quickly.

I think this was very much a case

where we were extremely keen to ensure

that there was dedicated servicing locations

as set out on the plan to avoid a position

that you can have and can work quite well in developments

where servicing can take place amongst development without being dedicated because of the nature

of the development and the space you're working with. This was very much one where we needed

to identify formal areas for servicing in order to protect the public realm and the

pedestrian movements. That's what we've sought to achieve here.

Plus, again, coming back to, as Ms. Richards said in the previous response as well, there

is another condition to ensure that the servicing and delivery plan comes to us and is effectively

implemented and maintained thereafter.

Thank you Mr Tilley, that's fine but it doesn't address the point but who will enforce it?

Well, Councillor Humphries, we've got lots of examples of this now haven't we? We've

got Battersea Power Station, River Light, the rest of the Swandland Way. We've developed

systems one way or another that handles

deliveries and servicing so on.

I think the officers know the problems.

You've exposed them, fair enough.

Are we still on the same subject, councillors?

Kind of, but sound of moving on to.

Well I was going to move on actually,

but where do you want to move on to?

I'm Finneair's East Putney Councillor.

I think a lot of these problems we've been talking about is because there simply is not

enough ground left.

We haven't got enough ground left for the width of paths that would avoid conflict of

pedestrians and cyclists.

We haven't got enough ground left for playground.

We haven't got enough ground left for parking bays,

cycling bays, and in all other cases

with a submission like this, we would have said,

it's an overdevelopment.

Now in my case, I would be happy with an overdevelopment

if we get this public housing.

I would do a trade on that happily,

and though I wanted to go on to talk about

the public housing, but if you forbid that,

I will accept it.

No, no, no, that's what I wanted to go on to.

The amount, the volume of affordable and private housing, yes.

Well, quite seriously, the only thing that makes me,

shuts my eyes to the 29 -storey block

and all these other problems I've mentioned

are the public housing provision,

which I think would be marvellous.

I would be very pleased to say yes to this proposal

because of the amount of public housing and the fact that a lot of it is the

London rent not in the immediate. However, I see that the planning commission is

going to be developed in co -partnership with a registered provider and that the

developers are struggling to find a registered provider. Now this will

Therefore, it doesn't look like that, Mr Calder.

Oh, you heard what they said.

Well, that's not quite what they said.

For periods of transparency,

we had a site visit where members of the committee

attended the site visit on Monday

and heard an introduction and an overview

from the applicants in which they talked about

the affordable housing and how they have

a registered provider who has interest in it,

except at this stage,

because the intention is that once permission is granted, if it's granted,

that they will come back with the reserve matters in association with the housing association.

And that's the order they're doing it in. That's why we've got the application partly in outline.

Sorry, you want to come back. Sorry, but I just wanted to correct the point that unlike a lot of

developments, they have actually got interest from housing providers.

Interest is not the same as commitment, as we all know.

It is a valid concern. Make your point.

It worries me that it will delay the planning application in detail,

which has to be done as part of the condition.

I do not know what can be done about this,

but delaying it adds to the length of time it is going to take

to get it as far as on site.

That will take some years,

and in almost several years of getting it,

all the details in drawing form,

all the building work on site,

economics change in that time.

And I'm very concerned that we will have a repeat

of what we had a few meetings ago,

where a public housing provision was changed

and completely obliterated because the economics had changed

and it was no longer viable.

So I'm worried about late viability on this scheme.

And as that's the only reason that I would support

this scheme, despite the fact that there are many

good things to recommend it, and thank you by the way

for that site visit, very helpful.

I don't know how you can, I don't know what can be written in to avoid late application

for a reduction in the public housing.

Well I mean at one level of course the answer is nothing.

If we pass this planning application tonight there's nothing stopping the very same applicants

coming back with a different mix.

And that is always a possibility.

Unlikely, I think, but it's always a possibility.

So in that sense, we can't stop that happening.

But I think that the developer probably wants

to get on with the scheme.

And they will find it much easier

to get a REDS provider interested

if we decide the permission, then there will be a real scheme that they can talk to the developers about.

Hi everyone, I'm Debbie Turner, I'm the Principal Development Viability Officer

and I just wanted to provide a little bit of extra information that may help a little bit.

But essentially one of the requirements that yes, they have gone down the fast track route on this application,

which then would mean that we wouldn't be able to enforce a late stage review,

but it does mean that if they don't start on site within 24 months,

they would then have to undergo an early review,

which would then obviously,

they would then have to go through another viability review,

more viability assessment,

which obviously is something that the developer will not want to do.

So that time period is quite a strong incentive

for them to essentially get on with the development,

not have to go through any of those further discussions.

So we are hoping that that will then mean

that they will crack on with this. As Nick Calder mentioned earlier that yes

there is an interested registered provider. Obviously we would we would

need to go through that the process with them as they're not currently on the

list of preferred registered providers for the council but it's something that

housing officers have been talking to them and obviously they will you know

have to go through that process of being added to that list but it is the nature

of the economy at the moment and the fact that there is an interested

registered provider is a significant benefit at the moment. So I think this is

again where the applicant would want to move forwards quicker where they have

got an interested registered provider on side. Thank you.

Councillor White, Councillor Galindya. Thank You councillor. Yes I just got an

email from the applicant saying that they have three RPs. We're interested in the site,

not just one.

Thank you for that. Councillor De Mede.

Councillor White, Tootenbeke, Walside. I didn't introduce myself before, but when Finne speaks,

then things happen. That email was received. That doubled quick.

So yeah, I've similar concerns, but as Councillor Ayers put forward, I was also a little bit

disappointed that we're 51 % affordable, short of going 50 % on this.

But as Councillor Ayers did say, the London living rent is intermediate without any shared

ownership which I think is fantastic and we should have been doing that a long long time

ago I think. But there is something in the ones, I think it's the ones with the slightly

comments that talks about there's a significant financial deficit. That's not in the papers

so maybe that could be spoken about, maybe that's incorrect. I'm worried about along

all along the river about off -book sales

and foreign investment in verse 30 commas

rather than people actually living there.

And I was wondering what the current experience

of the locality, so that with the RAM development,

what is the experience there?

But yeah, I think that's as far as I want to take it

at the moment, yeah.

Just on the first point, Councillor White, the paper does say that if decontamination

costs, etc, were particularly high, then that would be a reason to allow a lower level of

affordability. Well, as you know in the paper, it says decontamination costs just under $19

million. I think it qualifies on that count. On the other housing issues that Councillor

Whitehouse mentioned, like the take -up in the Rams site, do we have any comments about

that? Anyone from the housing department? It is a good question, but I am not sure that

anyone could tell you the answer.

I am afraid that we have not got any detail here on the take -up from the RAM, but I am

more than happy to ask my other housing colleagues about that.

The take -up on all these sites, the RAM is a good one, but obviously through the whole

of Nine Elms there is an issue that concerns us all.

I know you touched on it but I did not read about the significant financial deficit in

the paper.

That was a comment from Wands of Society.

Anyone know anything about that?

Yes, so obviously with the applicant, with their initial offer when they first submitted

the application which was based on 20 % affordable housing and then 20 % with

grant so they then did need to provide viability information with that but then

when they up their offer that it would be 40 % on the basis of

regardless of grant they then didn't need to provide further viability

information with that so essentially that means that there isn't a formally

agreed viability position but that's essentially that the route that they're

allowed to take when they go through the fast -track route.

So although in those initial assessments,

there was a deficit, obviously that's always

the initial viability assessment that's submitted

generally has a fairly large deficit.

However, that viability position wasn't agreed

as they then changed their offer.

So Councillor Ayers has got every reason

to be very worried about this, is that what you're saying?

I wouldn't say that there is a real concern, obviously,

how the applicants put their information forwards.

Our viability consultants that considered it

had quite a different view.

So I would say that at the moment,

there just isn't a viability position that was agreed

just because of being able to use that fast track route.

So we can't really definitely confirm

exactly what the applicant's position is.

Councillor Apps.

Yeah, I was a bit concerned with something I just heard

because I also read about the decontamination costs

of I think it's 19 million.

But presumably I was working on the basis

that had already been taken into account

in terms of what affordable homes are being offered.

I just want some assurance on that.

I also just wanted to,

Councillor White reminded me that there was a comment

in the Wandsworth Society about the existing flood risk assessment not being sufficient

because it didn't take into account the undergoing review from the Environment Agency on flood

risk. Is anybody aware of when that review is due? Is it imminent? Is there a reason

to think that we could get the results now or is that something for the future?

On the 18 million it was me saying that that had already been taken into account effectively

and was why the application is as it is.

So, it's already been taken into account, isn't it?

The contamination, yes.

Sorry, on the second part of Councillor App's question.

Yeah, it was really to ask if anybody knew

when the Environment Agency's new assessment of flood risk

was going to be available.

No, but the Environmental Agency has been part of the discussions

on this application and they responded very extensively

about the proposal. In relation to confirmation of affordable housing

offer, it will be done under Section 106 agreement. Everything that

they said they will do will be agreed to in a legal agreement. If

there is any change, the application will have to come back to this

committee to approve anything other than what is agreed to.

Perhaps we could make a note that we can remind any future committee

that this committee was very determined that the affordable homes

should be protected when it comes back because I'm afraid we've all got I don't

know if I'd call it PTSD maybe post -affordable home trauma from past

encounters such as Basset power station and we don't want to see any repeats.

Noted. Now all the comments, all the headings I put down have been

covered with the exception really of height. The only person who has mentioned height is

Councillor Ayres in her, of course in a sense, but if Councillor Ayres gives them the say

then it's the final say as Councillor White's already pointed out. But does anyone else

want to say anything about height? Councillor Govindia?

Just whilst you're dealing with housing and affordability.

Sorry?

Just whilst you're dealing with housing affordability,

when calculating affordability rent levels,

will they be inclusive of service charges?

Because one of the issues often is

that the service charges make affordable rent

unaffordable accommodation in a sense.

The second question is the reference to communal space

and SPA and such like in block B,

will that be accessible to all residents of the development?

Again, there have been situations where some are allowed

and some are not allowed, so it's important

to understand that.

And the third point, which is about the early stage

viability review, now it says that if development

has not occurred within 24 months of approval.

So presumably approval will mean posts 106

being engrossed.

I see Mr. Bedawi nodding, so that's helpful.

But is there then not in fact a risk

that the early stage viability review at that stage

could in fact be faced with different economic circumstances

and the figures that we are agreeing today,

both in terms of the overall quantum,

as well as the split between tenures and so on,

could shift.

So if I just quickly answer that question first

on the early stage review.

So generally, an early stage review mechanism

is implemented on substantial implementation.

So obviously there are normally clear specific rules within the Section 106 what that substantial

implementation is and that's normally site specific as well.

So in addition, early stage reviews are purely uplift only.

So if for example outside factors do mean that the viability position has worsened,

then that doesn't remove any of the affordable housing requirement.

It's not essentially an extra risk mechanism for the developer.

It's upward only.

Yes, so I'll answer your other question about service charge.

So in relation to London Living Rent, there are controls that essentially

the rent and the service charge must be 40 % of income.

So there are controls in relation to that.

In relation to social rent, there are very strict controls

in relation to the rent.

So that is basically calculated on a formula done

by the government, which is based on local house prices,

average incomes, but essentially the service charge

associated with social rents aren't controlled

in that strict way.

So in a sense, that is my question.

because there is a lot of correspondence,

well not correspondence, commentary in the housing press

about housing associations, service charges going up

on a cyclical basis, making them,

making accommodation unaffordable.

Is there any way in which you can write this in

at this stage or is that not possible?

Unfortunately it's not really possible at this stage

to write that in but obviously the design of the site will help with service charge

as obviously especially that the social rented units being in their own block that will massively

help in terms of the management and keeping those service charges low.

In terms of communal facilities within Block B as far as we know they are for residents

of Block B only. They are not accessed by other residents in the development, including

Block A.

Other hands were up, I think, Councillor Humphreys, and maybe that was it.

Councillor Humphreys.

It is still on, if I can, just last thing. Just to remind colleagues, at the moment we

have only got Block A2 and A3 in outline, so we have just got the broad parameters of

the dimensions pretty much, haven't we? I am concerned, and noting that we have made

some comments tonight that the applicant is hearing. It would be useful to remind the

applicant that although that has to come back for a decision later on, I am concerned that

already in Block A3 that is where all the refuge is already for the entire development.

We have already some talk about single aspect units in some of the blocks that are in full

spec, let alone outline spec. I would not want to see a degradation of standards on

those affordable parts of the development.

I'd like to see that they maintain equality

with the rest of the development

on the sense of double aspect units,

as we expect in policy,

and every other standard that we expect.

I wouldn't want to see a diminution in any other way

and what comes forward in the future.

You comment, yes, indeed.

Councillor Colpia.

Thanks, I also had a similar concern. I noticed that Block A3 is where Block A3 seems to be the bin building and where the refuse has been collected.

And, you know, if that makes sense logistically, then that's fine.

But because it's an outline permission, it worries me a bit because also we haven't secured yet.

Also the details of how we're going to do food waste recycling.

And so then if we need separate bins, I assume they would also be in Block A3.

And then suddenly we have all of this room for bin storage.

That's encroaching on the land which was meant to be used for building the housing.

And so I guess, like, yeah, I don't know if that's a comment

or if officers have any reassurance that, you know,

A3 with the outline would still be able to have the capacity

to deliver all of the housing even if,

you know, the need for it.

Sounds to me very much like a comment,

but people might have a comment about your comment or...

No, not particularly.

Just slightly off the subject.

No, not off the subject.

It's just speculatively, I realize there's all sorts of

ifs and buts, but there's the section 106 to be signed

and GLA approval and what would an optimistic date

for anything actually happening in a real sense

in spades in the ground?

Well, I think, going back to the consent, we have put in place requirements that the

reserve matters applications are brought forward for the affordable housing at an early stage

and again that it is built out and occupied before they can use the tower, for instance.

So it is making sure that there is a good phasing plan to bring everything forward.

In terms of the consent itself, if we resolve to grant tonight, and I am not pretty judging

any outcome that you might make. It needs to be referred to the GLA in any case. If

it's approved, it tends to come back to us quite quickly. If it were to refuse, they

would probably look at whether they'd need to call it in and it would be a similar process,

as you recall, from the Springfield Hospital. There would be a possible delay there depending

on the outcome.

subject to when the decision is resolved. We would try and get the section 106 done

as quickly as possible with the assistance of Mr Moore's design, but we tend to have

a clause which they have to sign within six months. If not, we can refuse it, and we have

used that weapon on a number of occasions. There is that cut -off point, and then the

Reserve Matters application will probably be in pretty quickly after that.

They'll, subject to any resolution, they would probably be discussing with their now

three RPs, registered providers, to bring this forward.

So hopefully that gives you a sort of idea.

So the simple bit, everything goes reasonably well.

When do spades hit the ground?

Three years?

Well, certainly I think they'd be looking within two years to avoid the early stage

I think we've had a fairly good discussion.

I'm sure it could always be better,

but a fairly good discussion.

Clearly members have got some concerns.

Been refuse collection being one,

pedestrian crossings across Swanton way being others.

Maybe other things will develop.

But I think we've had a reasonably good discussion.

I was just thinking we're coming to an end,

but Councillor White's trying to,

oh, lots of people.

Gosh, that what a mistake that was.

Why are you all so reticent? I am sitting here wondering what is going on. Can you give

me an idea of how much longer you want to be?

I do not think my questions will last for that long.

You are always quite quick. You are one of the quicker ones, I notice, Councillor White.

Why is everyone laughing?

I have a worry as well about when another block,

and you quite rightly put out that it told us about the service charges,

and the management of the block is quite easy by having separate,

but it worries me about the quality of materials that will be used,

and will they be different, will it look different,

The recent experience of other developments seem to indicate that the fixtures and fittings

are not of the quality of the private housing, which causes big problems afterwards.

It is interesting that there is talk about the wind speeds on page 30, and the window

fixings can be very affected by that. I am worried that we might be building in problems

here, maybe into social rented housing rather than the rest of the development. There were

also other things as well. It was interesting about the car club spaces. I was not sure

legislation seems to dictate there would be three or four spaces, which is good.

But I mean, is that enough?

I mean, there's a lot of, you know,

we're going to encourage people away from owning their own cars.

And this is car free, I believe, isn't it?

So and then the other thing is that there's coming up quite a lot.

She just said that's free.

I think I've got four questions, actually.

So, strap yourself in.

But there's a line on page 88 that talks about

a sensitive lighting strategy aimed at minimizing impacts on bats,

which is good, but is that a tension with safety of the area as well?

And I wanted to know also what is the proportion

and what is the proportion that will be,

the energy will be heated by gas, please.

Thank you.

Some of that sounds a little bit detailed at this stage.

I'm not sure.

Officers got any replies to those?

Yeah, I mean, to answer your question,

and we do want there to be a car club space provided.

It's council policy at the moment

to provide one space per the first 100 dwellings

and then subject to the provider considering

additional spaces to be viable one per 200 thereafter.

So at this stage, that's what we've asked for

in the section 106.

So the priority, what we did to deliver the one,

the first one, first.

It's pretty low, I mean, in terms of,

I mean, okay, there's a lower car ownership

and car usage in London than almost any other city

in the country, and not surprisingly,

but it's still lower than the average in the borough,

isn't it? So it's still motivating people away from cars, whatever the figure is. It's quite low.

Which is what you're after. So I'm not sure where this is going.

It seems low. I can understand its policy, but it just seems a bit slow. And there will be blue

the badge provision as well.

Yeah.

That's one down.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Chair.

The second question was about the sensitive lighting.

Sensitive lighting, yes, it's required to not affect bats

and their foraging routes.

That doesn't mean that it will affect pedestrians.

It goes to a certain level that it should,

and a certain height.

That will be discussed with the biodiversity officer, the Met Police and the transport

colleagues as well. The lighting strategy will involve different people talking together.

It will not just be taking care of one thing and ignoring the others.

I am sorry I missed your question about heating and energy.

I wondered what the proportion of heating was, because it's a hybrid system, isn't it?

Part powered by gas and part by air source heat pumped.

So I wondered what was the proportion?

Will the gas only kick in in Arctic conditions or is it something that will be used all the time?

Do we know that?

I asked the developer on Monday, he didn't know.

So I expect you will.

The information I retain at the moment is the site will have centralized energy center.

That will be...

That will... Sorry, that will produce energy for the site

with what we calculate as carbon offsets on the site.

The technical details, I can get it for you later.

But the energy state, the energy assessments are BCing.

BCing will be part of section 106, which will mean that

they will be monitoring to what the energy efficiency

on site will be.

It might not be air source heat pumps at all.

It might just be...

Sorry, you're getting a bit like a two -way conversation here.

I'm not sure the rest of the world is quite there.

So speak up, please.

Okay, yeah, if you can give me that information, that'd be great.

And I think that was, there was another one, wasn't there?

Sorry, there was the points about materials that you were concerned about.

those are covered by condition and for the outline buildings they'd be part of

the reserved matters that would have to be approved.

Sorry just to add that I think there's design code as well across the site isn't there so that would ensure at least the

externals over a quality internally that will be done within association with a

housing association that came in so there would be further agreement with

fixtures and fittings.

I just got an answer to your question, Councillors.

This will be 90 % air source heat pumps on site and 10 % gas.

How long have we been sitting?

I'm not complaining.

I'm just wondering whether anyone wants a break.

Sorry, Councillor, can I finish on a bombshell?

If you turn to page 13 .13 found by my right honourable solicitor, it will answer your

question about proportions of the Energy Centre.

Sorry, where is it?

Paragraph 13 .13 on page 93.

I have been asked for a break.

In that case, we will have to have a break.

And none of your five minutes.

I want everyone back very quickly.

So quick break, please.

I'm sorry about that for anyone who wants to speak straight through.

Thank you.

Okay. Now, there were three other people who had their hands up for questions, I think.

But anyway, they can add more if you want. But Councillor Boswell was one, yes, Councillor

Boswell. Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I wanted

I wanted to actually go back, Karima,

it was your response to the presentations,

and I think you went to 16 .4, 16 .5,

particularly I'm interested in.

One is to ask a question about process,

and another about stage.

So this, for example, is about healthcare.

And I note, it says, officers note lack of response

from the NHS during consultation period.

So are we reactive only?

Do we not proactively, with hundreds of people

on this site, a question around whether there is

GP surgery capacity in the area would be pretty important.

Do we just wait to see if the NHS respond?

I contacted the officer working in our area who responded to the application next door

and I reminded him of this application and they still haven't done it and I reminded

him twice.

Thank you very much.

And the other part of my question is, and I note the other part of that sentence says,

ability to fund healthcare through CIL.

So at what stage would that happen?

would that be noticed that the capacity wasn't there?

And then CIL access to make that happen.

The CIL process is outside the planning process.

There is a separate board that dictates CIL

both locally and at the structure level.

So it would have to go through that rather than

through this.

So it'd be highlighted maybe by ward councillors

that there was an issue.

and then we could, that I presume could look at that.

Thank you, Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

If I was a resident, concerned resident,

watching this meeting, I'd be very -

Which of course you are.

I'm sorry, watching this meeting.

Yeah, yeah.

I'd be very perplexed that we sat here for two hours

and we've talked about everything under the sun

except the thing that's most concerning to residents

as Councillor Sweet raised in his comments at the beginning.

The heights, the volume, the scale,

the fact that it contravenes most of our policies,

we haven't talked about any of those issues at all yet.

Well, Councillor Ayers did mention it

and I mentioned that she did mention it.

I was waiting for someone to raise it.

Well, okay, here we go.

The serious point here is what Councillor Sweet said,

that residents find it increasingly concerning,

apparently, evidently, that we have our policies,

and we're always very strictly guided by our policies

when we make our decisions here at the Planning Committee.

In this particular instance, in front of us tonight,

it contravenes, I think it's 4 .11, isn't it,

which says it quite succinctly,

contravenes so many of our policies.

It's outstanding.

I mean, besides the whole basis of WT4 and LV4

that we've talked about,

I've just made a little list of some of the things

that we were going along.

So we've got 39 % in Block B,

non -compliant on sunlight, daylight,

non -compliant on private amenity space,

non -compliant on play space,

some single aspect units.

We haven't even got onto the heights and things like that.

So in the SPD we're talking from four to ten stories.

And the justification it seems like from officers is mainly that

well it's a changing world around us

and the prevailing characteristics around the area have changed

and then what they're providing on site.

Although we've picked a few holes in what they're providing on site already so far tonight, haven't we folks?

But I just was questioning that justification of the changing context around the site

because our local plan, which this contravenes massively,

is only dated 2023.

And in fact, there's currently a revision on the local plan

coming through this council,

where there was a chance to amend it,

and there was nothing considered worthy of amending

on this aspect of the SPD or the local plan

as far as this area was concerned.

So it's obviously, even in the last year,

considered appropriate.

We knew about the Ram Brewery site

and a big tall tower that's going there.

We knew about Swanton Way and the development

that's happened there long, long before this SPD

was drawn up by very diligent officers at the council

that we worked with ourselves, some of us,

through that process and came up with a very well -sought

through and cohesive local plan.

And here it just seems like, oh well that doesn't matter

because the overriding thing is we're gonna get

some affordable housing and everything else

as characterised, it doesn't really matter

as long as we get the affordable housing.

so hang the height, 29 stories as opposed to 10 stories.

The lowest element of this development is 12 stories,

the lowest element, let alone when the SPD

talks about four to 10 stories.

I just think it's a joke really,

and I can completely understand how the public

lose faith in the council when we come forward with policy.

Big, strong, important policies,

not to write little details here,

and then completely override it when we think

it suits us to do something appropriate

or the developer thinks we can get away with it.

So I just think on all those grounds,

it's not acceptable at all.

Can I answer?

And if there's a question there,

how can officers justify the changing context

when all that was well known in place

when the local plan was put there?

Well, I think perhaps we will ask officers a point,

but frankly, I do think that's a political question

in all sorts of ways.

And I'd be better to give it a go at some point or other,

but can I start?

Yeah.

I was actually going to mention this aspect of it,

because I read the papers about it being a way marking point.

I considered all the options.

I considered the design.

I was very mindful when I was looking at this

that my husband, when he was MP for Battersea,

actually had the RAN Brewery application called in

to the Secretary of State.

And so obviously this council and councilors

on this committee haven't consistently voted

against tall buildings, that is for sure.

And we've got a 36 -story building coming in

for the Rambrewery.

So the fact is is that, yeah, and the fact is

is that we look at these on balance

and we look at the public good

and the scheme and design as a whole

and we consider whether or not

that we think that the height is in keeping.

I'm also very mindful of the state

that the current site is in,

the fact that it requires a huge amount of investment

in order to make it usable as a site.

And so I'd be interested to know

what the officers thought about

the balance of those arguments.

I think, officers, what would you like to respond?

I thank Councillor Apps for a response because I was going to say something similar, I may

do in a minute anyway, but officer response?

Thank you Chair and thank you Councillor Apps.

Definitely everything you said is taken in balance.

The cost of bringing the site back in use are really high which necessitates higher

development margin. On the local plan issue, just a reminder that

PM2 as part of it, it says tall building will only be acceptable form of development to

tall building zones. After that, it said development proposals will need to relate appropriately

to the specific context of the site, existing buildings in the locality and any other tall

building proposals in the area including schemes with an extent planning permission. The fact

that we're looking at the context and we're saying that the context is changing and changing

the baseline for what mid -rise and high build, what tall buildings are is not disregarding

the policy. It's still looking at part of what the policy is.

We have two parts of the policy. One is saying it is in a tall building zone, part of the

site, part of block A1 overlaps with the mid -rise zone. We gave justifications for why A1 is

where it is. I hope you take that in balance. It is in the whole building zone. What goes

against the policy is how high it should be. The justification for the height it should

be is coming from all the other aspects. One thing was said in the beginning of the meeting

in relation to paragraph 411, the Council and GLA would assess the application as non -compliant

with the location and plant -based requirements of Part B in London Plan Policy as it fails

to meet the full requirement of Local Plan LP 4 in terms of proposed height range. The

part that was missed from that paragraph is nonetheless for scrutiny purposes. So that

I started my assessment with why we are accepting the height, but saying nonetheless, even though

if you don't want to accept the height, let's look with scrutiny at what a tall building

should be. The GLA has guidance on what we should look at when we are assessing tall

buildings in terms of environmental impacts, impacts on designated views and the design

of the building. We go into the assessment of these things and we find that the building

is acceptable.

With respect, Mr Bedwari, that is your opinion and we are allowed to have a different opinion.

That is why the planning committee is here.

Well, that's okay, but he's given his view.

I want to talk about this in two different ways.

One, not much to do with this application.

I apologize to those in the public gallery

who are most concerned about that.

And that's to do with the use of guidelines

in the first place and what I think government policy

is pushing the other way.

I, Councillor Abbess finds it peculiar

because of what her husband did before.

I find it peculiar because of known positions

I've taken for years and you two in the front there

particularly know about it.

And I've also, the positions you've taken in the past

on many occasions, how many times I've sat and heard

you say these are just guidelines and meanwhile

how about a 23 story block on the corner of Calvert Road,

or similar, I can barely count.

And they've been used as guides.

It's your turn now, Councillor Belton.

Yeah, yeah, quite, and I'm trying to justify it,

which I don't think you did,

but I am actually trying to justify it.

But before I do, I was going on to say,

the government seems to be plotting,

bringing forward a policy which is suggesting

that one has to stick very much closer

to the Barrow Plan issues as it's defined,

that has historically been the case.

In which case, all of us are going to have to spend

much more time talking about planning policy

and making sure that we get the guidelines

right in the first place.

because this will go both up and down,

the argument is, you go both upwards and downwards.

So the kind of poll -ands that we've had

for the last 50, 60 years to my knowledge,

where they have been guidelines,

will have to be much more precise in future, I think.

I think that's the way it looks as though it's going.

Conversations with Councillor Vindy would say,

suggests that he's had more or less the same view as I,

and indeed I think Mr. Calder says that view as well.

So it says a lot about our plan making in the future.

But in the meantime, you find a position we're taking odd

and I've said that about you in the past.

I think the justification in this particular case

is partly to do with the extreme costs of this site

and partly to do frankly with the change

in the nature of the area.

And it has changed.

There's no question about that.

All sorts of pretty high rise buildings are there.

And this is right next to the railway line

which in itself is a few stories high.

And I think it probably fits in there as well as anywhere

and probably is needed for justification

and the viability given the costs.

So slightly unwillingly that's where I get to,

which I think is a less elegant way of saying

what Councillor Abbess was saying really.

I think that's why I get to the position

that I think I'm gonna be in.

Anyway, any other comments on that issue, Councillor?

Sorry.

I'll bring in Mr. Mors.

And I've now been told I can't say all right.

Mr. Mors.

Absolutely not, Chairman.

I wasn't going to contradict anything you said.

I was just going to address Councillor Humphrey's point.

I get what you're saying about it may look odd

to members of the public that a scheme of this,

with a tower this size, is being recommended for approval,

despite the fact that it's in breach of LP4, policy LP4.

The legal position is that the development plan has primacy.

So it has to be considered in an application that

has to be in accordance with that development plan,

unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

So an application need not comply

with every policy in the local plan

in order to get a favorable recommendation for approval.

There are other matters that can be taken into account and often you'll see them set out in the papers there

So the starting point is that is the local plan is the council's carefully

stated planning spatial policy

But for the reasons set out in the report

Officers who very carefully considered the scheme consider that the height of the

the tower, A1, and any harms that may flow from that height

are in the balance outweighed by the policy compliant

elements of the scheme, but also the benefits

that the scheme's bringing.

I think in my view, most notably the need for housing

and also the 40 % affordable housing.

So I hope that addresses a little bit concerns

that members of the public may have

when looking at the paper and says,

is far too big for policy LP4, how can it be recommended for approval? It is not quite

as linear as that. There are lots of considerations, as I know you know.

Thank you Mr Morris. I appreciate that that was for the public's benefit rather than

mine necessarily. We all understand the principle that policy is there to guide it. We frequently

go outside policy on particular specifics when we think it is relevant and it is going

and inclusion of everything, but in this particular application, that's the point I was making,

it isn't just the height, it's all the other elements, and what the committee is here to

do, forgive me officers, is for us to make our decision about where that balance is and

whether we've got the right balance in the application before us, and that's our decision

under officers' advice and guidance and recommendation, but we don't necessarily have to follow that

advice.

Councillor Goadley. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, this application has

been quite difficult for me because I didn't get elected to support a 29 -storey tower and

I don't think any of us here, if given the choice, have the tower there and not have

tower there we wouldn't pick to have the tower there for me it's like officer

said it's the the balance and I can't see how it would be feasible if we only

developed up to if we only developed four to ten stories on that site I don't

think any private developer would ever pick it up and so we went there for the

site visit and there was a complete wasteland it's just this big drum with

water at the bottom and it's it's sad and I and that there's so many areas

especially in that section of Wandsworth,

Wandsworth town that there's not enough greenery.

There's no coherence,

you can't really walk through it very well.

And yeah, it just looks like urban spool.

And I don't think that's good for anyone's mental health

as well as denying potential residents

the chance to live there, especially 40 % affordable,

it seems like considering a really good deal that the officers have negotiated.

I saw that in the application and sort of related to what I was saying,

there was no section on sort of immunity impact

because normally when we have an application we have sort of daylight effects and overlooking.

And I was wondering since this section wasn't in there,

was it because the, especially the 29 -story tower,

is that far enough away from other residential developments

that it will have no noticeable impact on daylight

or overlooking?

Yes, you go on, John.

Well, if I'm given the opportunity to speak,

I'll say something else.

So we talked about context and everything,

but one interesting point is paragraph 125 of the MPPF,

notably part C, which talks about planning decisions,

and in particular says,

give substantial weight to the value of using

suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes

and other identified needs,

proposals for which should be approved,

unless substantial harm would be caused

and support appropriate opportunities to remediate,

despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land.

To my mind, this is an ideal site

that complies with the requirements of the paragraph

125C in the MPPF.

And that's part of the planning balance

that we as officers have made.

And as you said, you as councillors

may make a different decision.

But that's the policy framework that we've got.

Sorry, back to Karim for amenity.

Thank you.

Section 8 talks about the amenity impact.

And it is what you thought, Councillor.

Because the site is part of a larger site allocation

and it sits in the middle of it.

And the distances between, for example,

Block B and the Delta site,

well, with the road and with another separation distance

on the other side will be enough to alleviate any concerns

on future development.

Looking at the amenity impact on the site itself,

we found that the proposal doesn't have impact

on the amenity of future occupiers within itself.

But also the site WT4 itself sits across the river

from another site allocation from Frogmore.

The distance between the distance of the Wandle Trail

Riverside Park and the river will alleviate any concerns

with anything coming on that side.

It also sits with the railway to the north

and that railway goes to WT10,

which sits behind the railway line,

which is another site allocation

and part of the requirements for this site allocation

includes revitalization of the railway arches

and continuation of the Wandall Trail

and provision of open space along the river as well.

So if any potential developments to maintain offset area

from the railway similar to block A,

the distance between block A and any building coming up,

not to mention that there is existing substation anyway,

will be 35 meters plus.

So that will be enough to alleviate concerns.

So the site has a unique,

probably the only advantages they have

that they sit within the middle of nowhere

and anything coming around them will have to look

at what they did and design around it as well.

Not to say that they are taking all the extent

of development across the site

and making it harder for other developments to come.

Okay, I think

Well, I'm sure we all have our opinions we always talk about about the particular issue but unless something new we got any other

council given did

something new and different

Firstly perhaps mr. Calder could comment on why?

This application has taken such a long time

having been originally lodged in December 22 and

And the second thing, and this is because we've had previous discussions on these two items and I don't want to see them lost,

one was about the short stay bike in condition 26.

Could that actually be expanded to cover line bikes or equivalent, I don't mean line bikes alone, but those type of bikes?

Because inevitably people using their late night or evening facilities will travel by that and you don't want them dumped all over the place,

you want them placed in a proper place.

And I think that should be included in the condition 26.

And the second is that we did talk about the noise

of these paladins of waste being transported

from A1 to whatever.

And these things move at all sorts of antisocial.

Can the noise related conditions,

and I don't see anyone particular on those paladins,

but there are several noise related conditions.

Can those be expanded to include some sort of limit

on how much noise or what hours they could be moved?

Because Councillor Ayers and I have had some casework

of somebody being woken up at the antisocial hours

when the lorry arrives.

I just think those two matters of detail,

if they could be picked up,

I can't believe they're contentious,

about why it has taken such a long time?

I will kick off with the highlights and then Mr Richards might add in. The scheme itself

was submitted after a lot of negotiation. However, we felt it was not in a situation

at that point. We went through a long series of meetings. There have been various amendments

and as recently as October of last, October 2024,

we had a revised scheme which brought down the heights

and looked at the affordable housing.

So it's been an evolution of this site.

It's not the same as when it was submitted in November,

December 2022, it's substantially changed.

We've got different uses.

There's changes to the design of block B, block A,

and block A1 and A2 and A3 have also changed.

So there's been a lot of changes and we've moved it on.

Is there anything to add to that?

I just wanted to sort of talk really about,

because we've been involved in this from pre -app,

I'd imagine from 2020.

And so it's 2022 when it was submitted, validated early 23.

It's been a long journey, definitely.

But I would like to say also one of the crucial elements of the overall scheme that has taken

some time, as has been set out in the report, the site itself has a various number of landowners,

some who are interested in developing, others not.

But one of the key aspects of it really, in order to ensure that it would future -proof,

if you like, for any future gyratory changes that have been touched on already,

is that the route through the site would work, that the two sites or the different elements of

the site could come forward and operate successfully and sort of jigsaw together,

if you like, in future. We already know that there's another site to the south of this site,

which is live and under consideration, which you will eventually have to consider.

But that was a crucial element that took a long time because part of the section 106 will be a

land swap essentially to ensure that the route through the site is maintained and retained for

future. Heights certainly was a big issue and at Pre -App and throughout the scheme, the heights

well exceeded what officers felt comfortable with as well. What we have felt where we could make a

concession really was on the tower if you like because of its location, because of where it is

near the railway arches, because it sits with the riverside quarter in the background as well.

The one that we were concerned about particularly were the two blocks being overlooking the river

and wanting that to still retain some kind of human scale,

but also the actual Rotunda building,

if you like, the gas holder,

that was in excess of 17 stories when it first came in.

And that to us felt way too excessive in that location

and because we were coming closer to the smaller scale

of Fairfield and Old York Road.

So combined, I think, again,

as has been mentioned a number of times,

it really is a case of balancing all the things in the round really to come to this point.

So I just wanted to really emphasise that it has not been an easy path.

Thank you.

Mr Badawi, do you want to comment on the questions? I thought I asked about the electric bike

parking but I mean nonetheless.

In answer to Councilor Humphreys,

sorry I don't mean, I mean Mr. Tiddley.

Yes, thank you Councillor.

I would probably address it through the section 106

obligation for residential travel plan

and the condition for an operational travel plan

for the non -residential uses which already actually says,

and I'm just looking at it,

The travel plan should contain an action plan

contained in a package of measures

to support sustainable travel modes to the site.

Measures shall include consideration of bus services,

local improvements to cycle and walking facilities

and provision for cycle hire

and other micro -mobility schemes.

So I think it's there.

Sorry, condition 24 could be adapted to include further information. That's to do with delivery

and service plan and that covers waste. That could be adapted to include noise, mitigation

and hours of movement.

I'm sure everyone must have made up their mind by now.

Just one more, sorry, Madam Chair,

matter of detail, which is about the landscape maintenance

and how long is the site owner's obligation

for whether it is in perpetuity,

or will there be at some point a bond?

Because I'm concerned about trampled planting.

Condition 43 is for landscape replacement in the event of anything in future.

For landscaping it's five years, for biodiversity net gain items it's 30 years.

Funny, on Monday after we'd seen the site, I went off and walked through Swanden Way.

Guess who was with me?

Hello, Councillor of India.

The two of us went and walked through and the landscaping, he pointed out to me, was

trodden over right, left and centre and not under whose chair was that?

That was that you, Councillor of Humphreys?

I can't remember and I'm only making a jokey point,

don't rise too much to it, it's not that important.

But it's very notable, just on the landscaping,

that at pavement level, people just walk across grass.

Just put it up a brick or two

and it makes a world of difference.

I mean, just to make that comment on the side.

Now, we reach a conclusion.

The officer's recommendation is we approve this application.

Are we agreed?

So we're talking about those.

Do you want to make an amendment or something?

Sorry to add, just wanted to,

because we covered on a few things

that could have been covered as conditions

or sort of informed, like the short stay

and also the feel of the committee and the ward councillors

about wanting to see the transport of investments.

And I know that's gonna be more of a point

for the sale and the administration,

but I thought it was also,

I'm just checking that these are all minuted

and these will be considered with the feedback

with the committee report.

I'm sorry, I thought the ones you mentioned

that was covered at the time

and someone said it was in a conditional informative.

But let's be precise about it.

Which ones do you think, because I thought the ones

you mentioned had been covered at the time.

They've been covered in a condition for instance,

the short stay cycling, but it was more that when the cycling

is more just sort of almost an informative given

that when they do get their cycling plan,

like there is some consideration for the short stay cycling.

And then similarly as well, the points that have been made

by board council is about the transport infrastructure.

About the transport infrastructure?

Yeah, as in like one sort of town station.

Oh, well I mean.

I mean, I know that's more of a still comment

and that would be more after the development

and it's not as related,

but I feel like it's still worth noting

that it's been raised.

Well, I'm sure it's been noted.

You've been taking extensive minutes,

but are we going,

Do you think it is all covered in the paper or do you think amendments are required?

I think it is all covered.

I think we will just be minuting the issue with the transport because that is a longer

term aspiration that Mr Tiddley and his colleagues will be picking up.

Okay.

So those in favor of the officer's recommendation to approve.

And those against.

That application is approved.

Now moving on.

Is everyone going to leave the public gallery now?

Please do so quietly.

I hope you've found that at least a fair debate.

Moving on to the application about 222 Bellam High Road,

application 2024 -4130 and it's on page 126.

My own view about that was that it was extremely

uncontentious.

Are people happy to agree?

It's agreed, so that application is agreed.

move on to application number three,

2024,

stroke 4178.

And that's back extension in Marrinson Road in Northcote.

Council Owens.

Obviously, yes, I've received quite a few objections

because this particular one is in my ward.

Obviously the roof terrace not being in keeping, in the sense that there are no roof terraces

nearby. We have had, on numerous occasions, roof terraces in the planning committee, but

this pertains to Mallinson Road itself. Obviously the size of the extension being oversized

and a bit too close to neighbouring properties. Have you seen all that and the objections?

You are supporting that objection.

I am supporting the objection.

You are not actually speaking as a ward councillor, you are speaking as a member of the committee,

which is absolutely fair enough. So we should reject the recommendation.

Well, yes.

Any seconder? I am afraid you lose.

The application is agreed.

That application is agreed.

Moving on...

Sorry, would you be voting against that?

I'm voting against it.

I think the Minute Clerk could work that one out.

But okay.

Now moving on to the enforcement paper we've done.

Tree preservation orders.

Now everyone's going to agree to tree preservation orders,

aren't they?

Agree?

Agreed?

Decisions paper, page 221, is noted.

Anyone got any comments noted?

Closure of information files.

Item 7 noted. Closed appeal as Item 8 noted. Thank you and good night.

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 27 March 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 27th March 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 27th March 2025 at 7:30pm