Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 24 April 2025, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 24th April 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, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the April meeting of the Planning Applications Committee.

My name is Tony Belton, I'm a Councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea, surprisingly.

And I will ask other councillors to introduce themselves when they first speak.

I think introducing them all in a rush at the beginning, probably not very helpful,

so when they first speak.

I got one apology, Councillor Colle, whose apologies.

Councillor Govindia is here, I guess.

Okay.

Have you seen...

Councillor Humphries, can I hear you?

I'm calling you a guy.

Have you seen the minutes?

You're happy with the minutes?

I'm happy that I signed them as a correct record, okay.

A gentleman made a complaint today

related to item four on the agenda.

Sorry, five on the agenda, Skeena Hill.

Through a mistake made by the town hall frankly,

He didn't get notice of this meeting this evening

until this morning and he is affected

as he's the next door neighbor.

He knew it, he had known about it before

but he didn't know it was gonna be considered this evening

and in fairness he didn't have the chance

to lobby his counselors or whatever he might

or might not want to do and he asked to defer

the application.

I think to be fair to our residents,

that it's just that we should defer it.

So I ask the committee, do they accept that it's deferred

to the next committee?

Right, so whoever it is, you're free to go and campaign,

lobby your local council as much as you wish

in the next month.

Now, I'm gonna take it in the order on the agenda.

So I've got to, ah.

I'm being reminded by my helpful clerk to actually I should I forget even more forgetful

I don't ask

Councillors to introduce themselves right at the beginning, but I do the ask the people on the top table to introduce themselves. So

Thank you chair. Good evening. My name is Nick Calderon the head of development management

Good evening. My name is Duncan moors. I'm the external legal advisor

Good evening, everybody. Callum one and Democratic Services and Clark to the committee

Who has just reminded me that I also should ask for anyone with declarations of interest

in tonight's proceedings?

Anyone with particular declarations of interest, financial or otherwise?

Councillor White.

I am just trying to think back through the papers.

I do not think it is abseil, but I will just say that I am a member of the community of

renewable energy, Wandsworth, and we do have dealings with the council, but I do not know

or any financial benefit.

I don't think it's on the agenda at all.

No, thank you anyway.

Now I was going on to item one,

which is I imagine what many people are here for,

the application for glass mill was building.

Can I just introduce it by saying

that I don't think in my experience

I've ever had so many comments

and if you like, criticisms of the consultation procedures.

Much of the consultation is done by the applicants

and that's a standard across the country

and all sorts of places.

And a number of people have made a comment about that.

Can I just say, public,

that we do not, as committee members,

consider the consultation to be a referendum.

Thank you, Councilor Govindia, for giving me that word.

A referendum on the applications.

We make a judgment on the applications as they stand.

And many of us, personally, probably all of us,

have been involved in collecting signatures

on petitions in our time and considering them.

So be reassured that we will consider

the petitions in a true manner and recognize that two sides of almost every coin and that's

all there is to it. We will listen to the debate and the discussion and the advice from

the officers and take into account the consultation but only take into account and decide accordingly.

Just thought I wanted to make that remark.

Now, Councillor Sejour, his award councilor

for the Next Dawn Ward, why I'm,

it's my ward as well, so I should have five minutes too,

but we'll make up for that in the discussion and debate.

Councillor Sejour and also Councillor Colle

and Councillor Lee have written in a piece

that I'm going to ask the clerk to read as well.

So you've got two and a half minutes, half of five,

to give us your view.

Councilor Sejour.

Perfect, and thank you for letting me speak tonight.

I know it's not normal practice,

since I don't actually sit in the ward,

but as you know, the Glass Mill will have a huge impact

on residents of St. Mary's, which I represent and beyond,

and I've also been asked by residents in Bassey Park Ward

to speak on their behalf tonight.

As you be all aware,

there's been unprecedented public opposition to this scheme.

There's been over almost 2 ,000 people

who submitted objections on the planning website.

Over 5 ,000 signed a petition organized

by a local campaigner, Robert Gibbon.

And on the latest count, over 600 people

signed the petition that I organized.

The proposals go against so many

of the council's local plan policies,

as well as the London plan policy and the NPBF.

It would make a total mockery of the Council's policies if you vote for this application

and go against the officer's recommendation to refuse.

Height, scale and massing are clearly big issues with this project, but it goes beyond

that.

The glass mill is quite simply the wrong building for the wrong site.

Battersea's local heritage is at risk.

The tower would dominate the skyline.

The GLA noted that the proposal would result in harm

to heritage assets, including Albert Bridge,

Battersea Bridge, Battersea Park,

and a number of conversation areas,

both in Battersea and Chelsea.

There are also concerns about potential structural damage

to Battersea Bridge, a grade two listed asset

as a result of the construction process.

Residents have also expressed significant concerns

over loss of daylight and sunlight

on neighboring properties,

as well as overshadowing and privacy concerns.

And I would also argue there's insufficient

public realm improvements.

The improvements to Thames Path are minimal

and lack ambition.

Partly, this is a reflection, it's a very constrained site,

and the building fills up most of the available footprint.

Given it's a small site with significant and unresolved access constraints, there's likely

to be significant disruption to the local community doing building works from construction

traffic and in the area which is already heavily congested and where there have been fatal

road accidents in recent years.

The planning application is significantly lacking in its construction management plan,

with a few details on how the building works

will actually be managed on this constrained site.

I would assume that in principle,

most of us in this room support the idea

of building more affordable housing.

I think it should be noted that the housing proposed here

for social rent is stated to be subject to viability.

There's no guarantee that the level of affordable housing

will actually be provided, and there's no indication

that registered provider has actually been identified

to purchase it.

Residents have also raised concerns

about the financial viability of the scheme.

I think as taxpayers, it's something we should all care about.

I can't have been the only one left scratch in my head

when it was announced that the Inifro scheme

would be reduced in height by five stories

whilst the affordable housing share

was going up from 35 to 50%.

Some residents have done the math

and came to the conclusion that the scheme

could only be viable if there were significant

Mayor of London grants believed to be around

170 ,000 per affordable unit.

I think it's also worth noting that drawings indicate

that half of the units for social rent

will be single aspect, i .e. having windows

only on one side because of the constraints of the site.

I will conclude by saying that my biggest challenge

when preparing my remarks for tonight's planning committee

was trying to condense the vast range of objections

raised by residents and other interested parties.

I've only been able to cover a few in my remarks,

but I know that as members of the PAC,

you will all have received ahead of tonight's meeting

extensive and well thought out communications

from various residents groups.

I hope you read those in details

and understand that residents concerns

go beyond just height.

I urge you to follow the advice of council officers and to recognise the scale of public

opposition to this project and refuse consent for this planning application.

The glass mill is quite simply the wrong building for the wrong site.

Thank you, Councillor.

As always, I've been very generous all the time, but don't worry about that.

I will now ask the clerk to read the objection, well, sorry, the comments from Councillor

Councillor Lee and Councillor Colle. Thank you, Chair. Dear Chair and members of

the committee, I want to make sure the concerns of people in St Mary's Ward are clearly heard,

particularly those raised by the Friends of Battersea Riverside, as well as the Battersea

Society, residents of Morgan's Walk and many others from across our community in St Mary's

and Battersea Park Wards. I fully back residents' views and officers' recommendation to refuse

this planning application, but beyond simply turning down this proposal, our residents

think it's important to send a loud and clear message

to developers, schemes like this that ignore

the local character and put profit ahead of improvements

to the local area and people's wellbeing

just aren't welcome here in Battersea.

This is a very different application

to the gasholders application that was recently approved

by a committee.

The gasholders application was in an abandoned,

decontaminated site and had no nearby residential properties

so had no amenity impact on residents.

For this application, the officers are right about the building being far too tall and

out of scale under policy D9 of the London Plan.

The truth is, a massive 29 -storey tower here would cause real harm, not just locally, but

also to the historic views from Battersea Park, the Thames Embankment and Battersea

Square Conservation Area.

That clearly breaches Local Plan Policy LP3, which is there to protect our neighbourhood's

character and heritage. Losing up to 70 % daylight for nearby residents isn't just a minor inconvenience,

it's devastating for people's quality of life and their health. This clearly breaches our

local plan policies LP2, LP15 and LP27. Our community deserves homes that they can live

in comfortably, not spaces overshadowed by towering developments. Residents have also

made clear their concerns about flooding and climate impacts that the Environment Agency

have also raised when it comes to managing flood risk, which is another potential breach

of the National Planning Policy Framework and ones with own local plan policy LP12 as

well as London Plan Policy SI12.

Finally, it has been noted that many of the letters of support that have recently appeared

on the Planning Portal don't seem to reflect what's been heard from residents in St. Mary's

appear heavily guided or scripted,

repeating phrases like active frontage or building net zero

that most residents just wouldn't naturally use.

Other comments are also off topic or unrealistic.

I'd strongly urge the committee to approach

these letters of support with a healthy dose

of skepticism and caution.

We urge you tonight to refuse this application decisively.

We will always support social housing,

but our residents are going to be the ones

that live through the impact of this development

and its construction.

For this to be worth it, the overall good from the application needs to justify the

harm and, in this case, it falls well short.

Thank you.

Now we'll hear the officer's comments on the application and it's a very large application.

I beg your pardon.

I am doing badly tonight, aren't I?

Thank you very much.

Do we have any questions for our, you can't hardly ask questions of Councillor Lian Gold

Key, but do you have any questions?

Councillor Owens.

Just a question for Councillor de la Téjol, if that's all right.

Thank you for your excellent summary of the objections.

And obviously we've seen on the portal the extensive number of letters of support, items

of support, but I was just wondering what would be an acceptable level of height for

your residence because last time in committee, it may not be one for Councillor Ziziul, but

last time in committee we did discuss it and I wondered if it was something that you had

come across in talking to residents.

Can we clarify that? Has any residence said, I don't think we can ask Councillor Ziziul

to make up a view about what they might think, so has any residence said what might be acceptable?

more.

I have been in Tuckershaw's residence, the Friends of Battersea Riverside, who have been

campaigning heavily against this, and did ask me the question because I noticed the

question was asked at the last committee meeting, so I wanted to be prepared if it came up again

this time. And the answer I got was, well if you look at the nearby buildings, they're

all around a 10 -storey high, and that would be more commensurate with the local area from

from that perspective.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, Councillor Humphries and Councillor White

was that as well?

Yeah, Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Guy Humphries, opposition speaker

on this committee and a Councillor for Southfield in Putney.

Councillor de Sulu, thank you for your comments.

Councillor Belton referred to it earlier,

but there's been a lot of discussion one way or another

about the level of consultation,

how that consultation's been impacting the decision

we're gonna make tonight.

As Councillor Beltson said, we're not swayed by numbers,

it's not a numbers game and it's not a referendum.

But can you give us an indication

from what you've spoken to residents,

how they feel somewhat misled by that consultation

and how that's impacted on their feelings

about the proposal perhaps?

I think a number of people feel like the consultation,

the documents may not be presented in the most honest manner

or in the clearest manner.

I think there's concerns in terms of how the letters

of support were actually gathered.

I think you all got an excellent analysis put together

by the Friends of Battersea Riverside,

I'd shown some doubt in terms of those letters of support,

looked heavily guided, scripted,

and don't tally with my experience on the doorstep

of speaking to local residents,

where there's a near objection to that scheme.

So yes, I think the answer to your question is

there is a feeling that the other side hasn't played

fair and square in terms of how they approached

communications with local residents.

Councillor White.

Thank you very much, Councillor Sejour.

Sorry.

Sorry, my name isn't Councillor Sejour.

My name is Councillor White and I represent Tuttenbeck Ward.

I was just wondering, a lot of the positive comments,

and obviously you've spoken about that some of them might not have been from people.

But was there any sense that you got from the people that you spoke to

that there was a feeling of, because this is 50 % social rent homes,

so did you get any feeling that people were hostile to the social rent homes?

No, I don't think that is the objection that people have

to this scheme.

And actually someone was telling me,

if you look at the Sower Lane estate,

there's some new social housing going there.

Someone said, well that's a nice block,

why do we not put that instead of this massive tower block?

I think the vast majority of people I spoke to

had no objections with social housing per se at all.

And coming back to your earlier comments,

my understanding in terms of how

there's letters of support received is

the question was asked, do you support affordable housing?

Was that given the context of the actual scheme?

And that's why they got so many letters

because in principle most people would agree

that we need more affordable housing.

Thank you.

That was questions.

Okay, thank you.

Now, Mr. Grainger, you're gonna give us

your recommendations.

Good evening, thank you, chair. My name is Nigel Granger and I will run you through some

slides illustrating the scheme. It's always a bit slow to start if you just bear with

I think that's a bit better.

I have to move you over there.

I can't see that.

That looks okay to me.

Sorry, I'm having a bit of difficulty with moving the pages.

side panel.

is.

Excuse us while we have a check.

We haven't got anyone young enough.

We haven't got any ten year olds to sort it out.

Multi -talented and many, many thanks.

Not that you're a 10 year old, but I guess.

Thank you.

Again, my name is Nigel Granger.

I manage the East Area team,

and this is item one, pages five to 132.

It's the glass mills at 1 Battersea Bridge Road.

Just a refresher of the actual proposal itself.

It's the comprehensive redevelopment of the site

to include the demolition of the existing building

and the erection of a part 10 story,

part 28 story building,

with ground floor and basement levels

comprising residential use, office use, community use,

a restaurant and associated car parking,

cycle parking, public realm improvements,

landscaping and other associated works.

Key components of this proposal,

not all of the facets of the proposal,

but key components are 110 residential units,

56 private celled units within the 29 -story tower,

54 affordable units within the 10 -story shoulder block

as social rent, 535 square meters of affordable workspace,

that's over the first floor,

274 square meters of community facility,

which is free of rental fee and service charge,

that's over three levels

on the southern aspects of the proposal.

And 189 square meter restaurant facing the River Thames.

Thamespath and adjoining public realm improvements, private and communal amenity spaces, gym facilities

for both private and social rent tenures and 63 % CAAT saving over the 2021 building regulations.

So most of us all know where we are but it's always important to start off with a site's

curtilage plan, a redline plan.

This is the Garsmill, we will be familiar with it, it's part five, part six story building

and this is a close up view of the building itself and you can see that it tracks along

Bastersea Bridge Road and this is the access down to the Thames path.

Thames walk part are just there and Albion Riverside is in the background and they're

obviously features of the local setting.

This is just more of a close up of the very narrow and difficult to navigate, rather steep

access path with all of its changes in levels and railings and various steps and then going

into access areas to get you back up to Battersea Bridge Road.

This is more of a contextual slide

showing the existing building, Battersea,

the Albion riversides to the left

and the Walgreens Walk states to the right

so over on the, with Battersea Bridge Road

in the center of the slide.

And an opposite view looking back

to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

This is the southern aspect.

This is an important slide because it, excuse me,

it illustrates the fall in land

which is a feature that not only did the existing glass mill building have to actually deal with,

but also the proposed building has to deal with as well. And this area here, my cursor is over,

this is the area that the committee report refers to as the space that was, the applicant tried to

in order to be able to expand into that area,

but unfortunately that was not achievable.

This is an expanded view of that aspect.

It's important, this view, because it shows the context

of the Royal College of Art Dyson building in Easter Road.

It also shows the L shape as the committee report

that talks about of 6 Easter Road with the apartments there

along with the elevation that continues further

into the site, but I'll develop that

in terms of aerial footage in a moment.

So this is an aerial shot, more of a contextual one

to show the Albion Riverside and the application sites

and the RCA campus over here, and Morgan's walked, right?

wharf, a little bit blurry this one, but I was just trying to illustrate what the overarching

sort of pattern of development was in terms of heights and the dominance of the Albion

Riverside within the locality.

This slide is important because it begins to illustrate the relationships with the application

site's neighbour.

So you can see that Thames Walk Apartments here,

there are windows within this rear renovation,

all serving bedrooms, bar one, which I believe is a study.

And you can see that 6 Easter Road

has the separation distance in order to create,

because this block here doesn't look directly

over the development, whereas this area

of 6 Easter Road was set back

in order to be a good neighbor to the application sites

with its amenity space there,

but all the deck access with stairs

is all lined up along that area

and forms a significant barrier to natural daylight

to those rear -facing windows.

This slide shows the opposite side of the view

with the Albion Ribs side

and the importance of the elevation of 6 Easter Road,

which is more important where the living accommodation

is a lot of the living kitchen diners, which is completely free of any obstacles.

And was obviously a principal elevation that was given much more importance

than the elevation facing the application site.

Moving on to some plans and sections.

This is a true basement term for illustrative purposes

because the basement begins to change from being not a basement to being exposed for

want of a better way of describing but as far as this level is concerned this is all

subterranean.

This and I should have said the river would be to the left of the slide and inland is

to the right of the slide.

This area here to the riverside, that again is subterranean, but the change in level allows this part of the service road off Easter Road to be effectively ground level.

This side facing Bastersey Bridge Road is still at basement level, but I hope to be able to illustrate and make that more clear with a section drawing later on.

But the servicing and access to the car parking area

and circulation stairwells and office cycle cores, et cetera,

that's all on that rear elevation there

facing 6 East Road.

This elevation now to the north,

that becomes a story above lower ground.

So it's effectively, if you look at it,

it would look like first floor.

But on the other side of the building,

this is now at grade.

So this is where all of the access to the restaurants is.

This area is finally above ground.

And this is where there were access to

staircalls and lobbies,

back office areas,

and that's for the private sale.

And this is the lobby to the social rent.

And this is the entrance to the community facility.

The community facilities over lower ground ground and first,

the mezzanine floor is just above,

but this is the main access to the residential accommodation

and this is a true first floor.

So this is where the affordable workspace would be located

across this area and you can see

where all the stair cores are located

and the last floor of the community facility with the lift.

This is a typical layout of the tower element and the shoulder element combined for the

residential component.

And this is a slide showing the level that accesses the amenity space for the social

rent with an indoor amenity space and a gymnasium located in that level.

It's over the 10th floor, 10th storey,

so it's accessed from floor 11,

and this is a residential unit.

And then this is a typical layout

of the proposed 29 -story tower.

So this section, to try and explain it further,

there were those two levels of subterranean plant

that I was describing earlier,

and then the level changes all the way down

to the south side opposite the RCA there

where the community facility reads as three stories.

But the restaurant is effectively a story higher

but the slope of the land is going down like that.

And this, you can see in section

where Battersea Bridge Road is effectively a story

or it's at a higher level than the service road

off Easter Road at the back,

which is why you get those changes in elevations

where one's completely dead because it's subterranean

and then one's actually the other side is showing accesses.

And this is again the stacking of the community facility.

This is the proposed landscaping plan.

This remodels the existing very difficult to navigate scenario

with much more flowing gradients.

and you can see that this area is going to be leveled

and graded for sitting out purposes

and these white rectangles here,

that is effectively the outline of the building

that over sails this particular floor, the ground floor,

and there is a sheltered colonnade going along this route

here which tracks Battersea Bridge Road.

And this is the landscaping plan for the amenity space above the shoulder building.

So moving on to heritage and urban design, the heritage, townscape and visual impact

assessment that's required to be supported in to demonstrate the impacts of this proposal

on all the assets within the location.

The first step is obviously to identify all of these assets and this is casting a very

wide net, it includes buildings as far out as the Royal Hospital. But a closer examination

of heritage assets can begin to identify the Westbridge Road conservation area here, Battersea

Park and the Battersea Park, the listed element here in the conservation area, the Thameside

conservation area and Chaney conservation area over here in the Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea, along with obviously listed buildings

such as the listed Battersea Bridge.

The five assessment areas that would experience

middle levels of less than substantial harm

in officers' view have been identified as the Albert Bridge,

which is grade two star listed, Battersea Bridge,

which is grade two listed, Battersea Park,

grade two listed, which is a grade two listed

registered park and garden,

and the associated conservation area,

and there are listed buildings within that area as well.

The Westridge Road conservation area

and the grade two listed buildings within that area

and the Thames conservation area

in the rural borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

In terms of tall buildings, policy context,

policy LP4, the tall and mid -rise buildings policy,

this site, which is this rectangle here,

is located in a mid -rise zone which is recommended not to exceed or required not to exceed six

storeys.

The code there MBB 202 that just relates back to the urban design study that informed the

policy through the inquiry process.

But they are actually appended to the local plan itself.

For further context, the tall building zones that have been referred to in the committee

report are to the east and to the west, and both of these zones have been identified for

appropriate height levels between seven to 12 stories that have excluded the application

sites.

So we're moving on to the accurate visual representations, the AVRs, with a map that

shows or tells us where these views have actually been taken from, which is important so we

can actually locate these positions without guessing, but we're also in a position to

to try and influence where these particular views

are taken from at submission stage.

So this is by Cadogan Pier,

and Albert Bridge is in the foreground,

and this is the existing scenario.

And this is the proposed scenario.

So this is one of the main heritage assets

that have been identified to experience

a middle level of harm due to the structural elements

of the Alberts Ridge which gives its special architectural

and historic interest.

This is a view looking straight back towards

the application site with a listed Battersea Bridge

to the right.

Again, it's a heritage asset that's been assessed

to experience a middle range of harm.

And this is the proposal,

which obviously exerts impacts on that heritage asset.

And this is a view looking back towards the River Thames

with the recently completed Royal College of Art

building to the right.

The heritage, sorry, the conservation area

does actually encompass this particular,

the immediate location.

It doesn't obviously go down all the way

to the river base, but the proposal obviously

would have an impact on that heritage asset.

And this, if our back is directly towards,

directly to the Westbridge conservation area,

the proposal would be visible from that location.

Further afield, this is a view taken from Cremorne Road.

Sorry, I had to remember that.

You can see the application sites.

Well, you can mainly see the Albion Riverside, but the application site is located in that

location there where my cursor is.

And that is the impact of the proposal.

This is mainly the Thames conservation area that tracks all the way along this embankment.

And I think this may be one of the final slides further away.

I didn't want to show all just close up angles but further away.

Battersea Park is obviously to the left.

but the proposal would be visible from longer views

and in certain areas within Battersea Park itself.

So summary of the heritage balance within chapter 16,

this is a summary, a lot of this is covered

in the committee report, but this is just basically

to refresh members and make sure that we all understand

and what policy footing we're on for deliberation purposes.

Within chapter 16, conserving and enhancing

the historic environments of the MPPF,

Para 212 states, when considering the impacts

of a proposed development on the significance

of a designated heritage asset,

great weight should be given to the asset's conservation,

and the more important the asset,

the greater the weight should be.

This is irrespective of whether any potential harm

amounts to substantial harm, total loss, or less than substantial harm to its significance.

We can clarify those degrees of harm as and when is required.

Para 215 of the NPPS states where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial

harm to the significance of its designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed

against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its

optimum viable use.

And in terms of public benefits, the historic environment category of the PPG, the planning

policy guidance, advises in Para 020 that public benefits may follow from many developments

and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described

in the NPPF paragraph 8.

Public benefits should flow from the proposed developments.

They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit and

the economic social and environmental objectives have been described in full in the

Indeed planning balance conclusion section of the committee reports

So the way given to the proposed benefits by officers

As stated, but to refresh, we regard the 110 residential self -contained units as a moderate

public benefit, the 54 residential self -contained units as affordable housing, 50 % overall at

social rent levels with wheelchair accessible units as a significant public benefit.

Community, the community facility, has a peppercorn rent in perpetuity with no service charge,

as a great benefit and the affordable office workspace

at 80 % of prevailing market rates for 30 years

are moderate benefits in the public realm,

landscaping and remodel Thamespath access

as a moderate benefit.

So to conclude all of that in line with what we have to do

as officers in terms of balancing the harm

as Para 215 states, it's officers' opinion

that the public benefits as identified work

together suitably to produce a cumulative impact

that addresses the lower middle levels of harm

identified within the PAC report.

The nature of the public benefits,

which would have produced a mixed use scheme

that would have addressed the three strands

of sustainable development as described by the NPPF,

notwithstanding the urban design impacts,

are considered to sufficiently flow in scope and kind

to balance the harm to the identified heritage assets.

In this respect, a balanced degree of compliance with the MPPF and policy LP3 of the Wandsworth

Local Plan is considered by officers to have been demonstrated.

Moving on to the summary of the urban design and tall buildings impacts.

Again it's very important to stress the policy picture which has recently been updated and

changed with more emphasis in the NPPF

in December of last year.

So within chapter 11, making effective use of land

of the NPPF, Para 125C states, planning policies

and decisions, and this will echo from last month's meeting,

should 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.

Given the above planning policy context,

in arriving at the recommendation,

officers have carefully applied the requirements

of the NPPF which seek to achieve sustainable development

and have balanced the benefits along with the disbenefits

of the proposal against these overarching objectives.

To this end, the material weights that the individual

components of the proposal are considered to achieve

are required to be balanced against the harm

identified above.

Officers have assessed the impacts of the proposal

against London and local plan policy objectives

and have identified significant harm.

The impact of such a tall 29 -story tower

on the spatial character of the location,

which is predominantly six stories with the closest

somewhat anomalous building being the 11 -story

Albion Riverside has not, in officers' opinion, been justified.

Officers have concluded a detailed assessment against policy objectives

within table 2 further up within the committee report within the design section

and have identified conflict resulting in significant harm

against a number of specified objectives.

So, in terms of paragraph 125C and significant harm,

officers acknowledge that this planning balance has become closer

in terms of identifying significant harm

to be able to resist any given planning application.

Officers have provided a clear and justified assessment

based on the considerable degree of weight

policy LP4 of the Wandsworth local plan possesses

as to why there is no justification

to engage the weight that paragraph 125C

places on the council to approve this proposal

that has been demonstrated to cause significant harm.

The proposal does not lie within a zone designated

for tall buildings with an allocation set as mid -rise

at a maximum of six stories.

At a proposed height of 29 stories,

the assessment within the design section and table two

of the PAC report indicates to officers

that the scope for putting aside the objectives

of the London Plan Policy D9 and local plan policies,

PM9 and LP4, is at a significantly high bar.

The harm identified is at such odds

with these policy objectives that are contained

within a young local plan adopted in 2023.

It is within this context that officers cannot regard

the material considerations listed above

as so significant they enable officers,

other than any other approach,

engaging the primary planning law position

of section 38 bracket six of the planning,

sorry, the PCPA in making this decision in accordance

with the 2022 -2023 local plan.

That's the planning compulsory purchase act,

I should say, sorry.

So to conclude, as members will be aware,

officers have arrived at the conclusion

that harm has been identified and the application

be refused subjects to referral at stage two

to the JLA's.

The proposal, to recap,

by reason of its excessive height and scale

with an established local spatial character

that is predominantly low rise

while also being located within the low rise policy zone

would represent an unacceptable

and incongruous transformative change

within the location that would significantly harm

the spatial character of the same location.

The significant harm identified has not been outweighed

by material considerations that indicate otherwise.

And then we go back to repeating the same policies,

D9 of the London Plan, PM9 and LP4 of Wandsworth's local plan.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr Grainger.

I want to perhaps start a discussion by challenging one thing that occurs to me.

I will certainly open it to everyone else in just a minute, but just to get the debate

started.

I think many locals would say regardless of whether

the buildings in another place might be attractive

or regardless of all those issues,

regardless of whether it's ecologically sound,

as it is right here, what it would do to the transport

and traffic implications are horrendous.

I'm not saying that for myself,

I just know that's a view that many would share.

Could I ask Mr. Tiddley to give a view, Mr. Tiddley, who will introduce himself in a moment,

give a view about how the road system could be handled by either the construction or the

actuality of a building being there.

Thank you, Chair.

David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.

I think there are probably two things to deal with here.

one would be the transport implications of development

and then the other issue is how development

might be constructed.

So taking the first one first,

clearly the current usage as an office premises

generates travel and the assessment that's been made

is to compare that with what the proposed development

would generate.

And that assessment in our view results in an increase

in the numbers of trips that would be made,

but not an increase that would sort of materially impact

on the local highway or public transport network.

This is a development that is primarily

has a low car parking with it.

It's principally residential led mixed use development

and most of the journeys would be by public transport

and by sustainable travel modes.

As part of the application as well,

the application has been referred to Transport for London

who are the strategic transport authority for London,

of course, plus they also have responsibility

for the immediate road of Battersea Bridge Road

and Battersea Bridge and they've also indicated

they have no objections to on transport

and highway grounds.

Also I suppose one other thing that has come up

in previous meetings, there has been discussions

about servicing and deliveries and deliveroos

and that sort of more fluid activity

that we get now in areas.

And this development does provide some ground floor

or circulation and ancillary space,

it does provide a degree of parking space

that does provide that sort of level of flexibility

that would, in our view, allow the development

to proceed in transport and highway terms.

I think also having looked at quite a lot of the comments,

that there are fewer concerns, in relative terms anyway,

fewer concerns about the long -term traffic

and transport issues of the development

and that there is a greater level of concern

about the construction methodology

and how this development would be built.

Just to start with, clearly at the moment,

Battersea Bridge Road is a red route.

It is intended for the movement of high volume

strategic transport and heavy goods vehicles.

There is currently no restriction on the numbers

of vehicles that could drive up and down the road

and in fact Battersea Bridge as well

carries hundreds of buses a day over it.

So again on those grounds and following discussions

with Transit Support for London,

we have no particular reason to assume

that a development could not be constructed

near the highway here or that the highway

would provide any particular constraints

and in fact there are tall buildings

that have been located in quite constrained sites

next to roads and rivers and bridges elsewhere.

That said, there would quite clearly be a need

for a condition on the application

for a construction management plan

that would be required prior to various stages

of any development should members approve the application.

There were also quite a lot of other regulations

that would come into play that are related

or outside the planning system.

So for example, the construction design

and management regulations, highway regulations

and highway restrictions that would,

and permissions that would be needed,

everything from parking suspensions to hoarding licenses

to cranes, abnormal load movements,

environmental regulations and even things

that were due in construction.

So rules about building at height and things like that,

all those that really dealt with in another place.

Although again, we have no reason to believe

that it wouldn't be physically possible

to build a construction here.

And again, they would also need to be appropriate

structural testing of the Riverwalk and the bridges

as might be required by a highway authority

or by transport for London at the appropriate time.

So I think with that, I'll finish, Councillor.

Thank you, Mr. Tiddly.

Now, members, the issues are fairly clearly described,

I think, any particular comments?

Anyone want to, Councillor Ayers.

I'd like to thank Nigel Granger for his very,

Could you just say,

Sorry, I'm Fiona Ayers,

I'm Labour Councillor for East Putney.

And I'm thanking Nigel for his long and carefully worded presentation.

I think the problem with this is that it's not just too big, it's not just too tall.

It's so enormous, it's almost a joke, this.

I can hardly believe it's a serious application.

When you showed those very clever photographs,

it was the narrow view you showed always of the tower.

In fact, it's quite a big footprint.

If you look at it from the other angle,

it would be even more imposing on those photographs,

be even more dominant.

And I'm particularly concerned that the shoulder building,

which is a sort of architectural game where you step down

from a tall building to a lower building,

this so -called lower building is not 10 stories high.

It's nearer to 12 from the south end

with the level falling like that.

And that shoulder is presumably where all the local,

the social rent goes.

And on level four, there are six flats

with only single aspect,

and only four with dual aspect.

And presumably that's the case of all of those 10 floors,

which is really not acceptable use of a form of housing.

I'm also concerned that the public housing promised

is as pointed out by Councilor de la Chazure,

that it's not definite that we get it all, if any,

because it's subject to viability.

Is there anything in the conditions

which limit the occupation of the market flats

compared with the finishing of the council flats

as we discussed in the previous submission here.

But really I'm also concerned that there's so little

public realm left.

If you look at the size of the footprint

on the size of the site,

it's really just tiny little borders that are left.

There's no expansive space on the river.

that is quite tight, that space.

Once you consider the changes of levels on that space

between the building and the river, it's tight.

It's all sort of ramps and steps and not generous at all.

So I am totally against this building

and there's no minor changes that could be made to it

to make it acceptable to me.

Thank you.

Council Givindji.

Thank you, Chair.

Council Givindji, East Butney Ward.

Mr. Grange, a couple of questions about what you've

just presented and thank you very much for that.

On the construction management plan,

and there's very little about it in the paper

given the conclusions of your report,

but did the applicant offer the use of river

for construction works and if not,

but would it be something that you and your team

would bear in mind when subsequent applications

for this site comes?

Because given the building, the site is right

at the head of the bridge, creates a real challenge

of how that construction is serviced and managed

and extensive use of the river might be the right way

of trying to get over that problem.

So that's one point.

And the other is about the community space,

which I notice on three levels.

Which is quite, for a community organization,

sometimes managing three level spaces is quite difficult.

So I don't know whether they had an occupier in mind

and then whether that occupier was content

with the way that internal space could be managed.

Because it did seem to me that they're doing it

because they had to do it.

and they're doing it in the most grudging of ways

and providing something that ticks the box

but doesn't necessarily make it a wholesome,

workable community space.

And third, probably a confirmation,

as far as I'm aware, 6 Hester Road is social housing

managed by Peabody, if I'm right.

And is that the case?

because I thought that was the block which was probably

most grossly impacted in terms of loss of outlook

and sunlight daylight.

To answer your last question first, yes,

it was the affordable block for the Albion Riverside.

The community space,

the report's a little bit cumbersome, I'm afraid,

but there were three expressions, I'm going to have to thumb through this, but I do know

at the same time that there were three expressions of interest obtained by the applicant in terms

of potential occupiers for the community space, one of which was the Catherine Lowe settlement

and two others escaped me for the time being because they were written down in this committee

report that I'm flicking through, but there were two.

It's in a paragraph in here somewhere.

I'll arrive at that area soon.

But it's not so much the, I mean,

the expressions of interest from the community groups

were, it wasn't necessarily focused as constant activity

base.

It was actually in order to, it could

be construed as sort of like a drop in point

to enable community, but also enable administrative functions

in order to deliver that community facility as well.

So that's why the three levels could work in that regard.

So obviously the lower levels are way more user friendly.

You know, it's face to face,

and then you could have other functional

administrative functions further up.

But still, the fact is that it's all accessible.

So yeah, we think that the future success of that,

a feature of this, had it been acceptable in other regards,

which is repeated continually through the report,

could have succeeded.

The river usage, I've seen in sustainability documents

and the whole life, and so -called economy statements,

I have seen references to the river.

I can't guarantee that that was actually negotiated

to a point where it was actually going to be secured.

But I have seen references to it,

and obviously based on that,

we can take that forward and develop it if needed.

Can I suggest on the river,

that sounds to me very attractive.

However, there's low tide much of the time.

The wharves required,

I think the viability issues we get,

talking of which, talking about viability,

I'd also like to go back for a moment

on the point Councillor Ayres made

about the affordable housing.

There's one very famous occasion in recent history

where an application on Battersea Power Station

caused some raction when less affordable units

were delivered than had been expected

because they argued on viability.

So, Councilors was saying,

what's the guarantee about the affordable element?

Sorry, hello.

Yes, hi, Debbie Turner here.

I'm the Principal Development Viability Officer

for the council. In terms of viability, as they have proposed 50 % affordable housing,

they haven't been required to submit a full viability assessment as part of the application

process. That means that we haven't got that line in the sand to consider going forward.

If they had provided that, we could have a bit of an understanding if they were taking

it forwards on a deficit position for example. In the background we have done a little bit

of our own kind of high level viability assessment which kind of uses fairly standard assumptions

and that is showing that there is a bit of surplus in the scheme but obviously there

is the potential that they could argue that the toss on that and certainly it would be

very, very difficult for us if they were going to justify high costs, which we would expect

on a complex site like this, especially with a building of this height. Obviously, with

height comes a much higher build cost, as I'm sure you'd all be aware. But yes, I would

certainly be concerned that they may come back in the future and reconsider the affordable

housing, especially if it is 100 per cent social rent, I would not be surprised if that

would almost be where they would start to consider these things. Certainly, from the

high -level viability assessment we have done, it is showing that it is viable at this point

in time.

So to put that in very lay terms,

which means that Mr. Moore's here

will shoot me down afterwards,

but to put it in very lay terms,

because the governance of this country

hasn't asked for viability at this level,

we're taking the gamble that it becomes that level

and it works and it's up to our decision tonight

whether we believe it to a certain extent?

Exactly, yes. We just have not got that point at the moment that we can say there is a definite

surplus or deficit on the basis of this specific application.

Was Mr Calder desperate to say something there?

Only to say that the application in front of you is to supply 50 % affordable housing

and 100 % of which is social rent. If they were to come back and change it, that would

need a further application so the one you're considering this evening is with

the 50 % affordable housing and 100 % social rent.

That's the form of shooting me only it's not Mr. Moore's.

Other comments?

Councillor Justin.

You know who I mean.

Councillor Justin, 9Ls.

I just wanted to ask the officers in considering this application, did they consider the proximity

of this development to Battersea Heliport? I'm aware that single -engined craft must follow

the river, but there is a precedent for a standalone tower like at the Vauxhall end,

commonly known as the Lipstick Building, which was involved with a collision with a pilot

of 25 years experience showing what can happen in fog.

And I'm thinking that this building here could,

in its proximity to the heliport,

whether it was ever considered as one of the reasons,

you know, of the impact to have that there.

Because it's not, nothing's been said about it.

Mr. Grainger.

Thank you, Chair.

I think you'll find a heliport consultation

with a response that there wasn't any comment from the heliport.

But having lived the experience of the Lombard Wharf next to Tower,

next to Cremorne Bridge, Rail Bridge, I do actually know that the landing patterns

for the use helicopters landing at the heliport is to track from west to east the River Thames,

was turn around by Cremorne Bridge

and taxi and land into Cremorne Bridge.

And that was obviously debated a few years ago

with leading council providing various opinions

on whether Lombard Wharf would have an impact

on that pattern of aviation.

And it is not an accepted practice or an approach

that the helicopters landing or using London Heliport use.

they don't go far as the site location.

So yes, we've considered it,

and I also have experience of knowing how they land.

It does seem, unless someone's gonna jump up

and shoot me down at this point,

as though actually the members heart in this discussion

about these kind of things,

because they're all agreed it would be quite a nice building

in the right spot and et cetera, et cetera.

It's just the spot and the scale and height of it

in the spot.

So I'm asking really,

can we get onto essentially what the officer's

recommendation is about the location of it

and whether we think it's appropriate

or whether we agree completely

with the officer's recommendation.

Comments?

Councilor White, Councilor Govindia.

Councilor White first.

I think that is the point of the motion.

The next speaker is Councillor Humphries.

Thank you.

Given that the local and London plan states that we should not

be having high buildings in this area, this would represent a

Trojan horse for the area, such that this could be referenced by

by other developers to build at a height that they would require.

But it is ironic that the Batsy Riverfront is well known for

delivering mass housing which is not affordable. Only 16 % of that

is affordable. If this was built, it would stand out like a sore thumb, given that it

would have 50 per cent affordable housing. I wonder whether there was any consideration

of actually getting rid of the sore thumb and leaving the shoulder, which is only 12

storeys, and having that at 50 per cent?

Yes.

Well, I think in the words that Mr. Calder

will supply for me, we're here to decide

on this application, not some mythical other application,

which would...

I'm not suggesting that.

Was that considered was the question.

Was it considered?

Okay, fair enough.

Was it, well, I've been around for a bit of time.

As far as I, it's always been considered as a very,

But Mr. Grainger, you know absolutely.

It started off much, it was taller.

It's always been taller.

So it wasn't considered.

Who did I say, Councillor Cavinde?

Thank you, Chair.

I probably am coming to my conclusion on this application.

I've read through this and I've read through a lot

of the letters of support and I've read through this

and objections, and I think the overwhelming message

I get from that and the report is that

this is just too tall a building in the wrong location

and the impact on a whole range of heritage assets,

both sides of the river, is just so enormous

that any of the benefits that they might promise,

which sound a bit like a pig in the poke at the moment,

given the viability still being in advance as it were,

makes me come to the conclusion that the officers

are right in their recommendation.

I just in passing would say that there is certainly

an issue here that the applicant having paid

an enormous sum of money for the site

is then recovering that expenditure or investment

by jacking up the building.

and I think it's right that the applicant

shouldn't get the message that it is not for us

and the local community to bear the negative side

of their bad economic decisions.

We shouldn't have to put up with the pain

of a tall building just because they're paid too much.

Applicants have known because in fact this site

has been one of the sites that I have been aware of

when I was leader of the council

and it's always been known by previous owners and others

that the site was not appropriate for a very tall building.

If they paid big money knowing that history,

then it's their lookout not for us to bail them out.

I think my final point would be that I contrast

this application and this report with the gas work

holder site which we discussed last month.

And it is unfortunate that that 29 story building,

this 29 story building got an entirely different treatment

whilst both of them failed to meet

the planning policy requirements

and yet both promised to deliver 50 % affordable housing.

So we have to be very clear in our message

to the development industry as to what do we mean

and why do we want what we want.

But as far as Mr. Calder's, you know,

each application on its merit and without comparing it

with another one, I just say this,

that it's important for us to give a right message,

not only to local residents, but also to those

who wish to develop in this borough,

that they will get a fair crack of the whip,

but they need to also play fair with us.

I don't think there is anything I can say that,

anyone can say that would change my mind that this is a grossly unacceptable application.

Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. I don't want to repeat

a lot of what's been said already, but I too was going to draw a little bit of a parallel

with what happened last month at the gas holder site. In the light that I was somewhat nervous

coming into tonight's meeting because the comments from some colleagues last month was

that we don't like this building,

I'm paraphrasing obviously, but it's 50 % affordable,

so we'll say yes anyway.

And again, it's that message that it sends out to developers.

I know every site is on its own merits,

but here we've given a lot more weight in the report

to our local plan and the significance of that.

And it's a different context admittedly,

but I think we have to be consistent in our approach,

and that message should go out just as strongly

to the developers as it does to residents,

that we have local plans, a relatively new local plan, 2023,

and it's there for a reason.

We should uphold the standards that we've set out

and that we think are appropriate for the borough.

Otherwise, it isn't altogether surprising

when developers come up with a proposal like this

which is so extraordinary out of context

because they think our local plan doesn't evidently mean much

Mr. Crane has done a very good job of explaining,

thank you for that, how we have to balance

all these different aspects in the summing up

in the decision that we make.

And the public, just wanted to make a quick comment

about the public benefits as well for the developer side.

And it's been alluded to a little bit by colleagues tonight

that it strikes me as being a little bit tick box exercise.

So we need this hype, but we need a bit of public realm tick.

We've done a bit of that, as Councillor Ayers said.

I think the efforts on a very constrained site, it's hard,

but they could have done better

if it wasn't such a greedy footprint on the site,

the over -sailing of the building,

the shadowing of the public realm,

a lot of that public realm still not being very accessible

with a change of use and stuff like that.

And it's difficult, I'm not saying it's easy to do that,

but it's not a, it's just like,

yes, we've done a bit of public realm.

We've heard there's constraints with the community space,

a big open community space would be much more accessible

to the whole community rather than a little bit fine.

As Mr. Grainger says, they can use it for admin.

We'd like to see the public using it

rather than it being for admin purposes

and things like that.

So I think, yes, I'd like the developers

to be a little bit more conscious

that we want those public benefits.

If they really want to get success with an application,

to be much more significant, much more easily readable by the community as genuine public

benefits rather than just we've done this, we've done that, we've ticked the box. We

need more than ticking the box, we want good high quality facilities that the community

can use in conjunction with the affordable and decent housing for everybody in the borough.

So yes, I won't be supporting the application and it's very out of context but I think we

can go away and do better.

Councillor Apps.

Yes, briefly, just to say I associate myself with the comments from other members of the

committee that they are not happy with this proposal. Because it had come up, I just wanted

to comment on the gasworks site. A colleague commented to me that the context couldn't

be more different now. This development is right next to, as opposed to the gasworks

development, right next to existing buildings directly affecting residents. Whilst we welcome

a good attempt at providing more affordable housing, the benefits just aren't enough to

outweigh the significant height of the tower. I absolutely think that is right. I actually

went and spoke to many of the would -be neighbours of the site a couple of weeks ago and there

was very, very strong opposition to the block, which I heard from them. I understand their

concerns I was particularly shocked with the view from Battersea Bridge which I

think is is overwhelming thank you can I

council white sorry yeah I just wanted to make a comment as well about the

difference between the two sites the gas holders site they develop reference

lots of different buildings are really really high in that area we are talking

We are talking here about an area where that is not the case at all.

In fact, you have to go a long way along the river to get built buildings of this size.

And, you know, I don't know, one of the buildings that fill the skyline is St Mary's Church.

You know, I think it's a very, very different area in comparison to the gas holders.

So let's not get mixed up by that.

I was gonna say, I will say it anyway.

Having sat on this committee one way or another

for quite a long time, the comparison between this

that's just been made between this and the gas work site,

given the gas work site area was developed very largely

when you know who was in control and was planning

applications chair and to make that a comparison with an area which for a mile

or so on both sides the Chelsea Riverfront and the Battersea Riverfront

is actually relatively unchanged. It seems wild and particularly given that I

in my ward have a site that has been boarded up for 20 years where a 23 story

was given permission on Parsi Park Road.

I didn't fancy that either.

So I really think we've been trying to be very non -party.

And I just think that was a little over the top, frankly.

But having said that, I hear no one supporting

this application, whichever position.

So in fact, I think it's all summed up very well indeed

in the officer's report around paragraph 2043 to about 47.

And if any members of the public don't want to read

150 pages of report, and I will understand that,

if they look on the website tonight at page 129,

they'll see the basis of what the recommendation is.

So the recommendation is that we turn this down

on the grounds that are given in the paper,

that is excessive height and scale

within an established local spatial character

that are predominantly low rise while also being located.

And with due respect to Mr. Grainger,

I won't carry on reading it

because I think people get the genuine drift

of what they're saying.

Is that approved?

Agreed, thank you.

Thank you.

That I should say, I should say of course

that there are several options.

We have turned this down, but there are several options

that are now open to the developer.

They have six months to appeal if they wish to,

and it's possible the mayor and the GLA

will call the application as well.

So this is not necessarily the end of the process.

So thank you, and we'll have a couple of minutes break

while the gallery leaves if they want to.

Thank you.

We are back live.

Okay.

I'll call people to order, please.

Now we move on to application number two,

the lodge to Tootingbeck Road and slightly unusually.

We have Mr. Raybould here in a different role,

but Mr. Raybould, do you want to present it in any sense?

I can do if you'd like, Chair.

Mr. Abold, with a planning hat on this evening.

The site is the Lodge Building at 100 Tootingbeck Road.

This is a grade two listed building.

It's been vacant for a number of years.

As you can see from the photos in the report,

it's in a pretty poor condition

and is on Historic England's Heritage at Risk register.

The proposal seek to bring the building back

into beneficial use as a funeral director's office.

To facilitate this, it's proposed to demolish

and replace the existing rear extension,

erect an L -shaped building

along the internal boundaries of the sites to provide parking and a small cafe fronting

Tootingbeck Road. There are also changes proposed to the boundary treatment, which include retaining

the existing original iron railings and reinstating them into a plinth. No changes are proposed

to the planned form of the building. In general terms, the application is similar to a similar

scheme that was granted consent in 2012, with an extension and outbuilding of a similar

size and arrangement. On balance, officers are happy with the scheme and are recommending

the applications for approval.

Any comments, any questions, any queries? Councillor Boswell, Councillor White, Councillor

Humphries. Councillor Boswell.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm Councillor Sheila Boswell, Tooting Beck Ward. Yes, I

I have looked carefully at this application.

It is in Tooting Back ward, in my ward,

and whilst this site has actually been not in use

for 17 years now, and it is welcome

that something will be happening there,

there are some grave concerns.

The first one I've got is around heritage,

And I've noticed that the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee unanimously have

objected to this development for all sorts of reasons, the tarmac hard standing, totally

inappropriate.

But my greatest concern is that we've had three enforcement notices on this, and the

The last one, last September, is really quite recent,

where work has been started

when it's out of planning consent.

And that this, historically, this site isn't safe,

because the last one that had to be stopped,

which Mr. Raybould will recall Mr. Appa dealt with,

they had already started work on the Heritage site.

and once you've done that and demolished

even a wall or a railing, you can't get it back.

So I am very concerned about the historical safety

of this application going forward in the hands that it's in

because of that history three enforcement notices served.

And then my further point is the residents

in Romberg Road obviously are very concerned

and they're worried about the hearses

of the funeral directors will be parking up in there.

Six hearses in, six out, these are big vehicles,

it's a residential road and I would like to ask

about the hours of business that they will be able

to operate, you know, is that going to be two o 'clock

in the morning that the horses will be going in and out?

And also, they're very concerned

about what will actually be at the site.

Obviously, it's very delicate to mention,

but would cadavers or bodies be there?

They are worried about that.

People lying, you know, if it's lying in rest

and if there are regulations around that.

So, yeah, I will vote against this and site LP3

for the historical reasons, thank you.

Mr. Edle, are you happy to take on a number of questions

at the same time, so I'll move on.

Councilor White, did you want to?

Yeah, the fact that this has laid derelict

for such and such a long time,

and there's obviously gonna be problems with the building

as my ward colleague has laid out.

I have also concerns about the size of the hearses

moving in and out of the site

and I'd like to ask whether there is enough room for that.

I mean, will it cause problems on the street?

Is the Romberg Road really sort of wide enough

that it will be able to comfortably allow such turning.

Also, I'm quite disappointed

we don't have any sustainability details

because I think that will,

because the historic nature of this building,

I think that's gonna be quite difficult.

So I would have liked for us to have been able

to examine a sustainability report.

That too to be going on with, I haven't forgotten you Councillor Humphries and Councillor Owens

and Councillor Govindia, but I've got at least, maybe there's one I missed here, but the actual

trafficking implications in terms of the hearses and the impact on the road there, the hours

of operation, the historic building which I think is generally covered but nonetheless

to repeat at least those three. Mr. Raybould.

Thank you, Chair. In response to Councillor Boswell's questions, it is important to emphasise

that there are no changes proposed to the plan form of the Lodge building itself in

these applications. We have recommended an informative be put on any decision to grant

consent and highlighting to the owner that consent may be required depending on the scope

of any proposed works internally to the lodge building.

In terms of the impact of the extension,

I think that's dealt with in the report.

It wouldn't have any kind of physical impact

on the lodge itself beyond what already exists

with the current extension.

In terms of the hearses, we haven't had any details

say how many hearses they would be.

So I'm not sure they would be six in total.

There are six parking spaces proposed

and I understand from the intended use statement,

and that would be a mix of hearses, vans, and staff parking.

So I would imagine there'd be significantly less

than six hearses.

Hours of operation are currently proposed

in the application as being between eight and 5 p .m.

No indication that there'd be any use taking place at night.

In terms of some of the practicalities, I guess,

of this sort of use,

It's not going to be a mortuary.

There's going to be no embalming or activities of that nature.

It's a funeral director's office for customers to attend,

discuss and make funeral arrangements.

There would be viewings of the deceased in a viewing room,

but they wouldn't be stored there long term.

So they would be brought in for the viewing and removed in a van,

essentially.

And the arrangement of the site kind of allows for that to be

done quite discreetly.

You wouldn't want that to take place on street or anything like

So the site is enclosed to allow that to take place discreetly.

In terms of Councillor White's questions, the size of hearses

and if they would require any specific operational arrangements

to get on and off the highway.

I'm not sure that they do, Mr Tiddley.

No? Thank you.

And sustainability, that's something officers are aware of

and we've applied two conditions, one for a post -occupation pre -assessment

for Bream outstanding and then a further condition within three months of

completion for a post completion certificate to demonstrate they've

achieved that compliance and the finished buildings.

I presume a company has been identified to occupy this place?

They have yes, Evershed I believe.

Okay, Councillor Humphries, then Councillor Galindale, then Councillor Owens.

Thank you, Chair. Just a comment generally to start with, as we've heard of it and it

says in the report a lot about the chequered history that's been going on for so many years

on this site. I'm pleased to see a positive proposal to do something with the site and

bring it back into active use, because although there are compromises with that, I think an

empty site having sat there for this long with the building deteriorating isn't doing

anybody any favours, and if the applicant can make a viable business there, which at

at the same time will help sustain the building

and its future going forward in a sensible condition.

That's got to be a positive, whatever the use is.

So there's a lot to be said for that.

My only specific query is about the hard standing area.

And I didn't know any details of the report.

I appreciate that for practical reasons

where the vehicle movements have to be hard.

But is it, can we specify it's permeable?

Because with the rain runoff and stuff like that,

it's quite a big area.

And this is a condition or something in that

that will cover that to make sure

that it's a permeable surface.

Thank you, Councillor. The application details propose sandstone paving around the lodge

building itself, more sympathetic to the historic asset, in the rear courtyard permeable tarmac.

I've got to be honest, I wasn't aware there was actually a permeable tarmac. I've Googled

and done a bit of research to check they're not pulling the wool over our eyes on that.

Nevertheless, we have recommended a condition for materials and landscaping just to ensure

all those details are looked at with a bit more scrutiny.

Councilor Govindia.

Thank you, Chair.

There's some comment about signage,

and I don't think the application

includes anything about signage.

And presumably, if there is to be signage in future date,

there will have to be a separate application, I guess.

The other question, just a confirmation,

which is that the proposed use is not something

for us to determine because that's already allowed for

in the user class.

And I read all this stuff about it,

but frankly I have to be blunt.

Where there is life, there is death.

I mean frankly the idea that a funeral parlor

cannot be where people live seems to be absolutely bizarre.

I really cannot understand that.

But anyway, that is just a confirmation about the use

and the signage, please.

I must just chip in here, I mean,

before Council Owens ruins my whole point.

The vice chair and I both agreed

that this was very sensible and practical use of the building

and was quite nice and polite and demure and so on.

And the only bit that we were unhappy about, really,

was the not terribly inspiring cafe.

And no one has mentioned the cafe.

Ah, Councillor Owen's ward's gonna ruin my, Councillor Owen's.

Thank you Councillor Belton, I spoke earlier,

I'm Councillor Owen's Northcott Ward.

Yes, this has come up, the cafe,

obviously particularly in conservation and heritage,

which Councillor Belton and I both sit on.

I was gonna ask specifically in relation to the cafe

about the pitched roof, because obviously it's,

As has been pointed out to us, everything is in line with the previous building, in

this particular case the greenhouse.

But obviously it's quite obvious and has there been consideration because we've discussed

this in conservation about perhaps being more aligned to something that's less obvious and

flatter.

Thank you.

Thank you councillors.

to take Councillor Gavindya's points first.

The advertisement signage, there is the plan show

a single advertisement board on the corner of

Romberg Road and Tootingbeck Road.

They haven't provided any further details.

There are some advertisements of that nature

that can be displayed with deemed consent

that wouldn't need our permission.

Any advertisements on the lodge building itself

would require advertisement consent

and also listed building consent.

And you're absolutely correct in terms of the use class.

A funeral director's office is Class E,

which falls under the use of the site, so it's not something we could consider as part of this application.

In response to Councillor Owen's question, the pitched roof and the impact of that, of the café,

the impact of that on the site and the street has been considered.

There was a former greenhouse building in that location of the site that also had a pitched roof.

Absolutely, it was smaller in scale and this is larger.

and officers did seek revisions to the application

to have the frontage of the cafe set back

just to lessen its impact a little bit on the lodge.

So the lodge still kind of reads and stands out

as the key focal point of the site.

Given what was said by Councilor Boswell,

what are we saying conditions or anything else can we

about traffic implications, access,

Well, we've partly covered it, I guess,

by you saying that the hours of operation were eight to five.

Was that it?

In terms of traffic.

I think Mr. Tiddley's gonna say unlikely to cause

any serious traffic problems in the road like that, I suppose.

That's correct.

I think that although we wouldn't want to condition

or make a particular thing about it,

it would be helpful if the vehicles accessed

from the main road into the short section of the side road

and then in rather than came in from the other direction,

but that wouldn't be something that I would particularly

want to condition or it would be a requirement.

Now, respectful of Councilor Buzwell said,

but Pete, is the application, are there any other comments?

I don't think there are.

Is the application accepted?

Do you want to record a vote against?

I would like to record a vote against.

Any others against?

No.

That's for both the application and the listed building.

Thank you.

Yes, as pointed out, it's both the application itself

and the listed building consent.

Yes, agreed.

Okay, thank you.

We move on to Elsonham, sorry, Upper Richmond Road.

Upper Richmond Road.

Whoops, paper's falling about.

And we move to Miss Richards, I think.

Tell us why we're knocking down a perfectly usable building

and why this is all right and so on so forth.

Thank you, Councillor.

I'm Ellen Richards, I'm the team leader for the West Area.

The application is for the demolition of the building to replace it with another office

building plus two residential units of the upper floors.

There was a planning permission granted in 2017 for a similar scheme of a similar scale.

Some of you might recall regulations and policy have changed since then, so the proposal has

altered in so far as they are now introducing a second stair core in line with building

regs and fire regs changes. Officers have worked quite hard with the applicants to better

improve really the accessibility of the site, the frontage and the public realm because

initially there was a lot of staff at the front and pushing out into the main pavement

And so thankfully that's been revised a little so the main Upper Richmond Road street frontage

is kept quite free.

I think there's quite a heavy footfall along there and I think over time we're emphasizing

the importance of the public realm along there and if, as we anticipate, more of the buildings

might come forward for refurb, that area will be improved bit by bit.

That is why the recommendation is to approve.

Any comments or questions?

of the council of India?

When I saw this, first of all, knowing bits of upper Richmond Road, I thought we were

demolishing some Victorian building. I am more pleased to see that this is a faceless

block at the moment. But how easy would it be to reuse the building and convert it to housing with the carbon savings that would entail?

There are another couple of questions as well. 41 % reduction on site seems quite low for carbon emissions.

and there's no flood risk assessment and given the extensive basement works here

as well as again it's a little bit a little bit alarming given that's right

very very close to the river

the hill down Putney Hill I'm down the Putney high street must be 15 20 feet

We've got an expert.

Not an expert.

In terms of the carbon savings, the policy requires 35 % and so what they've indicated

in their initial assessment is that they can exceed that policy requirement and indicating

41 % increase, which is compliant with the policy, exceeds the policy, so it's acceptable

in that regard. The flood aspect is not in a flood zone. I don't think there is any issue

of flooding around there. So it's not a consideration, it's not an aspect that we've needed to assess

heavily.

What about conversion? How easy would it have been to confer?

The applicant submitted, because of the policy change since our new adopted plan, there is

and justify why a building is demolished.

And our conservation team as well were very particular about that.

They always want to look to see what the retrofit could achieve initially.

Essentially, as set out in the report really, under section 3,

they submitted a statement and they've set out that if they were to retrofit

and in order to comply with regulations they'd lose quite a lot of floor space,

which is again something that we're trying to protect in terms of office accommodation.

The new stair cores require a lot of structural work if you like to meet with those regulations.

The basement level is being rebuilt if you like because they want to introduce more of the basement

under the pavement at the front to increase the office accommodation because at the minute

it's just used for a plant and so on, so it's a dead space. So really there's a lot of issues

associated with it that would make it unviable and so in this case it's not in a conservation

area and so given all of the information that they presented to us we considered that to

be an acceptable case in this case to demolish.

Councillor Gavindya.

Thank you, Chair.

More a point about the construction management plan that you're yet to agree.

It's just a plea that given this is a major road, given that the footfall along the pavement

is quite extensive, very heavily used, that there is minimal disruption to both traffic

and pedestrian flows when the construction is carried out, particularly the digging out

of the basement which inevitably will create a kind of gantry structure to excavate and

so on. So I just plead to be very mindful of those requirements.

Thank you, Councillor. Just to say that we're on a TfL road here. That's one of the restrictions

in terms of how far they could dig out into the front.

So they'd have to consult with TFL anyway as well

and with our team.

Okay. Is there anyone else? No.

Is the application accepted? Agreed.

Agreed unanimously, I think.

Move on to Elstham Street on page 185.

185 is that?

185 and I'm not going to remind myself 185. Is that the switches again? Do introduce it please.

The application is for a roof extension and started at the back with an extension on the

back extension on the outrigger. Planning permission was granted for the scheme of

this design pretty much identical in 2020,

but that has lapsed and the application has come back

with the same scheme, but now with a little terrace

at the back on the flat roof element.

This has generated a lot of objection from residents.

I do understand why that is,

because there isn't a huge profilation of terraces

of this design and form in this group.

and in this stretch of the road.

There are a couple of examples

which have been cited in the report.

The houses, the application site and its pair, if you like,

are slightly different to others in the streets.

So this kind of terrace would be the only design

that could be accommodated on this roof form.

Other buildings within the groups, terraces, the terraces are inset, so they're set in with the railing at the front.

So they do exist, but they're a slightly different form to this one.

I think it's on balance really that we accept this, it is a little bit more prominent, it's introducing a different form of terrace,

but the screening around it should protect from any overlooking.

and people do overlook each other from back -to -back terraces, i .e. the houses.

I'm sure Councillor Humphries knows it well.

Thank you, yes, I don't want to overly prolong it, but thank you Mr. Richards, that's right.

I think one point to note is that in this particular, which is quite unusual again in this street and in the area,

is that it's converted into flats,

it's two flats rather than a house,

which we wouldn't allow nowadays under policy generally,

but in a way back when it was converted,

we had a positive policy of converting

those houses into flats.

So it does give that upper floor a private amenity space,

which they wouldn't otherwise have.

That's in its benefit,

although it's not that far from the park.

But just to reassure any residents that may be listening,

and we all know this from hindsight,

there's always a degree of concern, understandably,

about introducing a new element like a roof terrace

or something like that,

because the scale of it is relatively modest,

in practice, after it's been delivered

with these kind of things,

there's rarely issues with noise and disturbance

because they're so small to not generate

that kind of activities.

It's more just like a bit of reassurance

if Mr. Richards could confirm to the residents

that they tend to not generate

just because of the scale of what it is.

And as you say, wouldn't necessarily be giving a carte blanche

to every other house on the street

to do the same kind of thing

because every case on its own merits,

again, as we always hear.

So although it's slightly disconcerting,

I think in balance again it's acceptable.

Well if the ward councillors supported it,

I'm sure we're all going to support the application,

are we?

Agreed?

Agreed, thank you.

We've dealt with, or yes, we've deferred Skeena Hill,

move on to the next item,

which is tree preservation orders.

You've all seen the pictures,

and I acknowledge them.

Are they agreed?

The decisions paper noted.

Closure of investigation files noted.

People can ask questions on any of these if they want.

I'm just suggesting.

And the closed appeals noted.

Thank you and good night or good evening.

Shh.

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 24 April 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 24th April 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 24th April 2025 at 7:30pm