Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 6 May 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Tuesday, 6th May 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Okay.
I think we're just past 7 o 'clock.
Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
My name is Michael Jubb.
I'm chair of the committee.
Members I'll now call your names.
Please switch on your microphone and confirm your attendance.
Once you have done so, please switch it off again and can I remind you also to do something
to your phone so that it doesn't interrupt the meeting.
Good evening, members.
Good evening, chair.
Councillor Owens.
Good evening, Councillor Owens, Northcote ward.
Councillor Osborne.
Good evening, everybody.
Councillor Osborne.
Mark Dodgson.
Good evening, present.
Roger Armstrong.
Good evening, everyone.
Roger Armstrong, northcote ward.
representing the Clans Society.
Frances Radcliffe.
Good evening, friends of Battersea Park.
Edward Potter.
Good evening, everyone.
Representing the RIBA.
Libby Lawson.
Hello, I'm here for Tooting History Group.
Pamela Greenwood.
Hello, I'm Wandsworth Historical Society.
I don't see Peter Faro from the Wandsworth Society, but Lynn Piercy, who's standing
in for Andrew Catto.
As he says, hello.
Thank you.
From the Putney, standing in for the Putney Society.
Following officers also present.
Sorry?
Yes, sorry.
Following officers also present Lauren Way.
Good evening chair Lauren Way principal conservation and urban design officer.
Victoria Broxhop.
Good evening everyone yes senior conservation and urban design officer.
And Democratic Services officer Callum Wernham.
Good evening everybody Callum Wernham Democratic Services and just to add chair I've just had an email from Peter
He's given his apologies this evening.
Thank you.
Declarations of interest, if there are any,

1 Declarations of Interest

can you please declare them now and quote the item and paper number
in which you have an interest.
Do I take that as a nil response?
Thank you.
Minutes.

2 Minutes - 26th March 2025

May I sign the circulated minutes as a correct record?
Or are there any amendments?
Are there any matters arising which will not arise elsewhere on the agenda?
I'll just go through page by page on the minutes.
page one on membership. Anything on that?
The work with the GIS team on the map of local listings.
Still ongoing, Chair. Still ongoing. There will be a bit more of a meaningful update
on the local listing consultation work in the July committee but officers are still
working through all of the data.
Okay, first I think you again fers down lodge, is there anything to report?
No, unfortunately no significant update on that.
The applicants from the previous application are working through a further application.
I believe that pre -application engagement will be forthcoming to discuss the issue of
the use, which was the main concern in the previous application, because it is metropolitan
open land and therefore they need to give very special circumstances.
But nothing to report as yet.
That pre -application hasn't been submitted.
But again, there should be a bit more of an update in July, we hope.
Okay, thank you.
and is there any further information about the appeal that have been lodged for Waterfall House?
No, it has been lodged and we're going through the process of an appeal.
It will be written representations.
There's a bit of a backlog within the planning inspectors at the moment,
so we've got quite a few appeals that are sitting with the planning inspector,
but we're still at the early stages of that appeal,
but it won't go any further than the written representations.
Okay.
Item 3 on the last minutes is the next item on the agenda.
Anything on the applications
or on the decisions?
I don't think there should be.
Okay.
OK.
Right.
So, we've done items one and two.

3 Terms of Reference (Paper No. 25-144)

Terms of reference, you'll recall that we had a discussion about this and it was resolved
to, that we should come back with a slightly revised set of recommendations. You've had,
I hope, put in front of you a slightly revised version of what was circulated. If you look
at item 2B, there was something which was meant to be deleted from 2B in the first and
second lines, the words in the opinion of the Council. It should have been omitted as
it is in Clause 2C.
I think my first question has to be, are there any points that people want to make about
this?
Is it now broadly acceptable?
Does anyone want to make any other suggested amendments? Francis. To be absolutely honest
Chairman, I'm not sure that it adds anything very much because surely the committee can make
reference as appropriate to any wider planning considerations if it feels like doing that anyway.
But I wasn't present at the last meeting. I'm just left, it's not offensive,
but I'm not sure it adds anything. I think the, if you had been at the last meeting though,
So there was some feeling that the original set of proposed amendments,
there was the concern that it might be seen as detracting from the committee's focus
on conservation and heritage issues.
I think it's true to say that in the past we haven't on the whole made reference to
wider issues.
I mean, they may have arisen in discussion, but I don't think they've been referred to
explicitly in reports or in the recorded minutes of the meeting, sort of setting out either
our approval or our objection to any specific proposal.
That's the reason for including it.
If there are no other comments or amendments, can we accept these as the revised set of
terms of reference?
Okay.
Thank you very much.

4 Applications (Paper No. 25-145)

I think that takes us on to item 4, the applications.
And first one, 2025 -07 -99, Elko Street.
Who's leading on this?
Victoria Brocksopp.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
This site is the headquarters of the fashion brand Vivian Westwood located at the junction
of Elko Street and Howie Street.
The existing building is made up of two elements including a two -story brick warehouse on Elko
Street and a later office development of five stories dating from around 2007 which fronts
on to Howie Street.
The site is not located within a conservation area but is located 70
meters approximately from the West Bridge Road conservation area, the
boundary of which sits part way down Howie Street. There is a row of locally
listed buildings at 52 to 68 Battersea Bridge Road which sits opposite
the junction with Howie Street and has some limited views towards the site. The
site is fairly self -contained with localized views available down Elko
Street and Howie Street.
We've got some photos just in the next couple of slides just showing the site as it is with
that office development in the foreground and then the warehouse further to the rear
and then that's just a view from looking in the other direction.
We've got some aerial views as well just to show the wider context of this location.
You'll see it's very close to Battersea Bridge and the Albion Riverside building.
That big area next to the big undeveloped area just in the background there, that's
the Ransom Dock development which is forthcoming.
In terms of just sort of slight context to the planning application, there was elapsed
permission on the site for a part six, part eight story building which was given permission
in 2015.
Since that permission, the planning context has changed in light of the new Wandsworth
Local Plan, which designated the location as a tall building zone, with this particular
area identified as appropriate for buildings between seven and 12 stories, or 21 meters
to 36 meters.
You'll also see on that image the developing RCA, Research and Innovation Building, which
which again just sort of is now part of the context of this site.
Before submitting their application, the applicant engaged in a PPA agreement to explore maximizing
development opportunities in light of the shifted planning context and the evolving
local context.
Moving on to the drawings, this is the Elko Street elevation as it is, and then this is
what is proposed.
So they are proposing a two -story extension above the front part of the building where
the office extension was, and then a part four and part eight story extension to the
central and northern part of the building, fronting Elko Street.
The scheme is intended to deliver additional office and ancillary space to accommodate
the Vivian Westwood brand's expansion and to house all their departments in one building.
This is the rear elevation, which faces the Radstock Street residential scheme behind,
And that's what's proposed.
And then the next one is the side elevation.
And then that's proposed.
We've got some CGI images as well, just to provide some clearer understanding of what's
proposed.
This is the junction of Howie Street and Elko Street.
You can see the applicant was very keen to retain the existing buildings on site.
This is possibly a slightly unusual approach, but they were very keen that it showed the
history of their occupation on the site and showed those phases.
So you can see the warehouse is still there, the office building, and then the floors above
have got their own character as well.
The white building there represents the Radstock Street residential scheme.
So this is the view looking along Howie Street, and this is the distant view that you would
get from the locally listed buildings towards the site and along that from the nearest part
of the conservation area.
Then there's the vertical meadow that was shown previously.
This is the view from Hester Road from the north looking south.
The big scheme to the left is the Ransom Stock development.
Sorry, yes, not yet, but I'm sorry.
And again, that's the yellow scheme there showing the wider context of the forthcoming
development on that site.
You've got the RCA building to the immediate south and then the Albion Riverside building
further to the north.
The applicant also provided this image, which is a view looking through Vansdam's dock,
so just to show how they've tried to integrate with that forthcoming development.
This image shows the viewpoints that were agreed as the basis for the heritage and landscape
visual impact assessment, showing that a range of close and farther away viewpoints have
been assessed.
And we've just included a few of the main ones in the next few images.
This is the one from Battersea Bridge, and you can see it sort of popping up in the background
behind Albion Riverside.
This is an image from Battersea Church Road, which is the edge of the West Bridge Road
conservation area.
And then this is one of the views from Battersea Park just to show how it will appear but not
above the tree line.
And then this is just the last image just showing the Elko Street elevation.
The elevations have quite a complex architectural treatment based on the concept of overlay
which is said to be a classic Vivian Westwood approach to their garment design.
The very light shade of pink to the powder -coated aluminium panels is also a signature color
for the brand.
Above the two original buildings is a grid of windows with larger irregularly placed
statement windows.
Are there any questions? Mr Dodgson.
I just want to clarify about the existing warehouse. So I've understood correctly,
you're saying that they are retaining that existing warehouse building in order to show
the origins of the site.
But it's not apparent when you see it from the street.
I mean, it's going to be internal, is it?
I'm just slightly out and clear.
Thank you.
So, I mean, essentially, I think there is going to be a certain amount of support the
development going on above.
I think there's going to be a certain amount of redevelopment of that warehouse building.
But their intention is to keep an understanding of it
as part of the overall phasing.
So it's the brick, sort of two -story element
to the bottom.
And then you have a strip of windows.
And then above that, that's where it starts to break out
a bit more.
So it's not really an addition.
They're pulling it down.
And they're going to rebuild with references to it.
My understanding is that they're going
to retain as much as they can.
But they acknowledge that they can't keep it.
OK.
With all the other structures being introduced, I think.
They're going to do as much as they can.
Thank you
Okay any other questions
If not comments there on
What do we think of this building
Remembering it is not in a conservation area it is close to
The the West Bridge Road
conservation area
And not too far away from the Battersea Park
concert conservation area
So I guess it's particularly with those two conservation areas in in mind that we're
We're reviewing as check this
Application
Comments
In the context of everything else around it, it seemed unexceptional to me.
Thank you. Any other comments? Mr Armstrong.
Yeah, I think the height of it, I mean I remember Elko Street in the past,
it's just little two or three storey cottages and it's very tall in relation to historic,
what was there historically and its presence, the height of the new building,
somehow threatens the heritage buildings along Battersea Park Road which are all
very small -scale buildings. And the implication is that you know the
So, that's the part, sorry, that's the bridge road is a principal road, isn't it?
And, you know, one would assume that the larger taller buildings would be along that's the bridge road.
And here, you know, Elko Street was a subsidiary street historically, it was just a street and cottages.
And now we're having this very tall, very important building put there.
and I just feel that there is some arguments could be made
for redeveloping the heritage frontage on Batterbridge Road
because it's too small.
So that's my concern.
I don't know whether that is a valid concern, but yeah.
I mean, I don't want to answer too much for the conservation officers, but I think we
have, we're not looking at a building on Battersea Bridge Road.
We're looking at the application we've got, which is in a small, which is in a tall building
zone up to 12 stories.
and it will I mean
there is planning consent for
Buildings of similar height on the on the ransom stock site opposite on the other side of the road
Like
Mr. Dodgson
Presumably we really have to stick to our comments on really how this impacts on conservation areas. So
Have we got a graphic for how it impacts on Battersea Bridge Road?
Presumably it just can't be seen, presumably, for most visitors in that.
I think the images that we showed were probably the ones showing the impacts of the conservation area.
There's not one going along Battersea Bridge Road.
I think there was one from Westbridge Road wasn't there?
Sorry yes there was one from there looking down towards, but there wasn't one looking
along Battersea Bridge Road.
Would you mind showing it?
Sorry, it would be quite helpful because I've got so many images here.
And sorry that is which road?
So this is the view looking down Battersea Church Road which is on the west at the edge
of the conservation area.
right so that the brown building is yellow is the ransom stock development
yes sorry I mean thank you I've been sure that's the church road always bridge
road yes I'm exposing furnace it doesn't impose enormously on that on that list
oh well I actually think the building such a quite interesting piece of
architecture but not everyone probably will agree thank you
Ms Radcliffe.
Sorry, could we just be reminded what's been approved for the Ransom's Dock area in terms
of height of the building and how they compare?
Ransom's Dock is ten stories, up to ten stories, and I believe that's the same.
So is it, when you say, sorry, when you say one is eight stories and the other is ten,
are they both roughly the same height?
The tallest elements are approximately the same between Ransom's clock and Alcastries.
I mean, I feel if it doesn't impose too much on the park or the Westbridge conservation
and there's already been approval for a slightly taller building not very far away.
Unless we hate the building, there's not much justification for opposing it.
And I agree it's quite an interesting building, though I wonder if they'll regret some of that glass.
but...
And it's also an awful lot more attractive than what is there currently.
I mean, I was interested in the differing heights.
Obviously, that's part of the architectural design and not necessarily in relation to
the conservation area, but it's interesting that the way of using the warehouse, obviously
one side is perhaps more warehoused than the other.
But yeah, I think it looks good.
Okay, I don't think I'm hearing anything again this building
That it seems appropriate in its setting and it is the the impact on the conservation areas
Is pretty minimal?
And it's also a quite interesting piece of design it seemed to me
Are you allowed to give the Battersea Society's view?
The Battersea Society's view is that it is awaiting the review of this committee.
Can we move on?
The next one is 2025 -05 -82, 160 Falcon Road.
Again, not strictly part of the conservation area.
Thank you, Chair.
So something slightly different from the previous applications.
So we have 160 Falcon Road.
proposals are to seek for wall mounted solar panels on the southwest elevation. So you
see here the actual site is located within the Clapham Junction conservation area and
there's a number of locally listed buildings and listed buildings within the immediate
vicinity, the most important of which are for this site, Clapham Junction railway station
just to the west and then the Falcon public out just on the corner here to the south of
the site. So the proposals do not seek anything on the front elevation but the rear elevations
which we see here from Google street map from Google Earth. So this is the site here, a
rather modern late 20th century building that's situated right next to the railway lines,
quite prominent from Clapham Junction from the platforms from Clapham Junction station.
Another view here just to show its immediate context, the conservation area wrapping around
down towards St. John's Hill. Here the front elevation showing here the Folken public house
which is listed and then the railway lines and the railway station immediately behind
So this is the building itself, again not particularly positive contributor to the conservation
area, modern building.
Brick stock, well not stock brick, but it's sort of a T -shaped arrangement towards the
rear with this projecting wing which is quite prominent.
Again you see here, so you've got, its rear elevation is quite highly visible within public
areas of the conservation area and it's seen in the context of the re -elevation of the
Falcon Public House and then you've got the tower there peeking up behind for the former
Arding and Hobbs department store which with its extension has consented. This is to show
the visual prominence of the building from the railway lines and from the platform specifically.
I think this is platform 17.
And finally, another context view
to show how its proximity to the railway station.
So as I said, it's really only the re -rail elevation
that they're proposing.
And quite fairly, I mean, we've not really
come across this before, but lots of solar panels
can be added to buildings under permitted development rights.
But this is wall -mounted solar panels
within a conservation area which require planning permission.
So they're seeking in total 63 solar panels
on three rear elevations of the building.
So here's showing them as proposed.
So you've got one on this face, which is a total of 12 panels.
They are in total 1 ,134 millimeters by 2 ,094
millimeters.
So this is particularly large, covering the full length of the building at this point.
Two further sets of panels within the projecting rear wing here, 18 on this side and a further
18 on this side.
And then another further 12 just at this point, which is the closest point of the building
to the Volkom public house.
And this is showing you the actual locations as on a street view image of the of the building.
So quite an interesting proposal that we've brought to CHAC to get their view on what
they consider if there is any harm to the conservation area in the setting of those
locally listed and listed buildings.
I think that's our last slide.
Thank you.
Again, any questions relating to this?
Mr Dodgson.
Could I just ask, do we know what colour the panels will be?
There will be matte black.
Thank you.
Comments?
What do we think about this?
As Ms Bui has said, it's a use of solar panels in a way which I don't think we've seen before
on a very undistinguished building.
Mr Armstrong.
Yeah, it's a very prominent building when you're going to a Clapton Junction station.
One concern I have is pigeons nesting behind the solar panel,
between the solar panels and the brick wall,
because that is something that happens.
And I just wondered whether there'd be some protection
to stop that happening.
I do know it is a problem with solar panels.
And any gaps or things like that, these cliff -nesting birds,
love to colonize. Do we have any information on that? No not really we've
got a hundred millimeter gap between the plane of the elevations and the solar
panels in terms of the mounting but if the principal is considered acceptable
then there will probably be conditions that we can put in place that seek to
potentially put netting or something around it or pigeon spikes that avoid them roosting behind or on top of those solar panels
because obviously they will have an impact on there.
Any guano that goes onto those panels will obviously serve to impact on their functionality, should we say.
Okay.
Any other points that people want to make about this?
Mr. Dodgson again.
I feel the building is an unremarkable building.
It is prominent, as has been said by Mr. Armstrong.
But I don't feel, if we're talking about the impact on the conservation area, I don't feel
that the addition of the panels themselves has any more distinct impact on the conservation
area than the building does at the moment, personally.
I wouldn't object to it, but I do agree about the pigeons in Guano because also if more
pigeons can be roosting there, then there will be more problems for Clapham Junction
Station itself, which has already got a problem with pigeons.
Yes, well, Clapham Junction Town Centre as a whole has problems with pigeons.
I live close enough to know that.
Does anyone want to object in principle to this?
OK, so we've established that.
Ms Ratcliffe?
I'm afraid I think solar panels are really pretty hideous when you get these great black.
However, Matt, they're supposed to be, they're actually pretty shiny.
But clearly, solar panels are a good thing.
And it doesn't seem reasonable on a building like that to say, no, you can't.
So I think what we're saying is that we have no objection in principle to this.
There could be some technical issues around how you deal with birds,
whether they're pigeons or seagulls or whatever.
And we'd like that added as a condition.
Any other comments?
No?
Let us then move on rapidly to 2025 -0648, 7 Vickridge Mansions, which is on the corner
of St. Philip's Square in Queens off Queenstown Road. Thank you chair. So moving on we've
got a proposal for a Mansard Reef extension within Park Town Conservation Area. So the
question as you as you say it's a corner plot at the corner of Queenstown Road and
St Peter's Square. It's just to the south of St Peter's Church which is grade two listed.
Quite an interesting ensemble here. I think we've had quite a few applications going for
Park Town Conservation Area but this is right at the heart of the conservation area.
So the building in question is formed part of a small terrace which frames the view of
the church and it's part of the original, one of the first phases of development of
the Park Town conservation area which took place between 1865 and 1870.
So quite a classically inspired formation with these five buildings and then a further
five buildings to the north of the church.
Here you'll see the site in question.
So it's the way in which these two corner buildings were treated in a slightly more
elaborate way, a little bit like a kind of palace frontage with two frontages that have
equal importance and slightly taller to accentuate their visual prominence within Park Town estates.
So this is the building in question, you see here.
And this is the area of the roof that is proposed to be extended with the further smaller central
terraces in the middle and then not a completely symmetrical arrangement, slightly differing
at the other end of the terrace.
Another view of the site looking from Park Town Road.
These buildings to the south of the site are all locally listed, again part of the early
phase by TJ Bailey. This is looking back towards the site from St. Philip's Square. Apologies,
I think I said St. Peter's Square. And you see here you've got the other building at
the other corner which has a similarity in terms of architectural treatment. But the
roof form of the building is fairly prominent when you're looking down from St. Philip's
square towards the site. And again, a fairly enclosed environment when it comes to Park
Town Road, but with this particular building at this corner, there is quite a few longer
range views. So from Prairie Street towards the west, you can see it looking eastwards
and that roof form is quite prominent from this point. So moving on to the proposals,
as I stated, it is contained within the roof form. So the roof form at present, you've
got a hipped roof which is largely concealed by quite a tall parapet line that you see
in the previous images. What they're proposing here is a simple mansard with 70 degree pitch
with dormer windows. On your east elevation you're looking at, so this is the main west
elevation with the mansard included. The rear chimney will be removed as part of the proposals
which you'll see here, but all the other chimneys are supposed to be retained. Here
on the east elevation, they're seeking to increase the parapet line upwards to take
account of this being, this will be the location of the stair core that leads you up to this
new floor. The new floor will be housing a much larger flat, so at present it's a two
two bedroom flat over one single floor. It's now proposed to be a two storey flat with
four bedrooms all with en -suites. Existing left elevation and then proposed with that
Mansard being added. And this is the only CGI unfortunately that was included in the
application that shows that Mansard is peaking up, but bearing in mind that actually the
is quite quite visible from rather longer views that I've shown you there.
I think that's the last one. It would be interesting to see what the committee
consider of this application. Okay thank you. I should have mentioned many members
of the committee would have seen applications relating to this building
in the past and there's quite a long history of attempts to alter the building.
Questions to start with, anything that's not clear?
Mr Dodgson.
Could I ask, have you got any visuals at all of the building on the other side of the church
in Queenstown Road which is similar in design?
I mean, it's part of a uniform arrangement.
None of the visuals in the pamphlet we were sent actually show this.
And obviously, you've got images there with trees with full -in leaf.
But actually, if you're looking at the church and the two buildings on either side of it,
they do form a uniform group.
But presumably, you haven't got anything further you can show?
No? Okay. Thank you.
Okay comments on on this our council of Belton to start with query really I
it's quite a large flat not not the low end of the market is there a lift in
that block I don't believe so no it'll just be a staircase leading up to the
new Mansard which is why you have that sheer story well the parapet being raised up on
that east elevation but no lift.
Mr Armstrong.
Yeah and I think in order to comply with building regulations because there'd be a five -story
building they would have to have a masonry staircase all the way up instead of the timber
stair which presumably currently serves the flats there. Is that correct? Is that one
of the reasons why they're proposing to remove the quite prominent chimney stack, the rear?
I couldn't answer that question. I know that there are some changes to building regulations
when you go up by a certain story, but as far as I can see, there isn't an obvious reason
why they need to remove the rear chimney stack, which is the main one that's being removed.
Yeah, I mean this building has suffered in the past and it's lost its string course,
and I noticed they're not proposing to put that back on the upper floor.
It's just a band now, just a concrete band, but that used to be a mouldage course.
Like, they don't show the building on the opposite side of the road,
but that has, I think, its string course intact.
And it's got all these drain pipes coming down,
which they don't show in this, the drainage is quite ugly.
It's been put there to serve the flats.
I mean, really, it would be better if this didn't happen
because it's gonna threaten the other part of the composition
on the opposite side of the road and the further down,
all these knolls designed principal corner properties.
We're going to get applications to put on a fifth story
and that will compromise the quality of the estate architecture
and its originality. We'll lose the original roots and roof form
And it looks like we're going to lose a lot of chimney stacks as well
Any other comments
Miss Radcliffe only to agree that it's a composition
and you don't want one side altered and the other not.
If I, sorry.
Yes, also to agree, and also because the buildings
on the other side of the road
are particularly beautiful as well.
Can I say something from the Battersea Society perspective?
As I said, there have been numerous applications
in relation to this building.
And it is clear from the objection comments
that it has caused problems for some neighboring properties,
which may or may not be a planning issue.
We do have a concern that basically the composition
of the square, St Philip's Square, which is the central square, as Ms. Way has said, of
the whole Park Town estate. They're the most prominent buildings in the Park Town estate,
and it does seem to me and to my colleagues that it is imperative that we do as much as
we can to seek to preserve and enhance the quality of the built environment there, which
has been messed around, particularly on this building.
And I must echo what Mr Armstrong has said about the drainage clutter on this building.
It's absolutely dreadful and really does detract from the look of the building, particularly
on the St. Philip's Square frontage, the north frontage, rather than on the Queenstown Road
frontage.
And I hope that if this application were to go ahead, it would be on condition that there
would be a complete review of the drainage clutter
on the building.
So, speaking for the Battersea Society,
we have grave reservations about this application.
I won't go further than that.
I think Mr Dodgson wants to speak.
It's really just to say, as it was implicit by my original question, I fully agree with
that view.
I think it would destroy the composition.
All right, not every one of these towers is exactly the same as each other, but they do
provide a consistency between them all.
And I think to add a further mansard on top of this particular building would be wrong.
It would destroy that consistency.
Thank you.
Councilor Belton.
As you know, I always press that this committee is advised.
And I don't particularly want to give a view.
I happen to agree with most of the comments.
But I just wondered from your knowledge really, Chair, could we seriously make a condition
to clean up what's already there?
Do you think the planning officers would allow that as a planning rule, a condition?
It might be informative, but do you think they could accept a condition?
I think I need professional advice on that.
The rationalization of the pipework could form part of the planning balance in terms
of if we sought for that to be taking place then it would be considered a minor heritage
benefit, which we could seek as part of the proposals as forthcoming.
So there is an ability to do that.
It would be better to do that as part of the application rather than condition it because
Obviously, they'll need to consider the drainage.
It's best to do it now, basically.
I don't want to make, let's not sort of extend this discussion too far.
We'll take one more from Mr. Dodgson.
Sorry, I was slightly going to do just that because I just wondered if the officers know
whether this would be part of a whole scale redevelopment or presumably, I imagine not.
In other words, all the existing functions of the building and the bathrooms and the
laboratories and everything that require all this pipework, if they're not being reconfigured,
I suspect this will be a big ask.
Whereas if the whole building is being redone inside, then that might be another matter.
I just wondered if you knew.
No, what we have before us is just the Mansard extension.
There's no proposals in relation to the rest of the building.
So yes, we would need to
Get them to consider the whole building
But it would depend on whether we think that that's it. There is enough
traction for us to do that if there's a balance to be struck the in that enhancement could outweigh the harm from the
proposed Mansard
Okay, I think what we're saying is that we
have grave concerns about or we are opposed to?
We're opposed to the Mansard's roof.
One of our fail safes is if it were to go ahead,
we would ask that as part of the planning process,
there should be a review of the pipe work shown on the pipe roof.
on the face of the building.
And our grounds for opposing it are that it would detract
from the overall built environment
of the centerpiece of the Park Town Estate,
these St. Philip's Square.
Is that okay?
Right.
Let's then move slightly out of Battersea to the rear
of Endlesham Road, in fact,
facing on to Western Lane within Ballam or as it was formerly Streatham.
Thank you chair. So the next item is as we state the site to the rear of 6 to 12
Endlesham Road. So here you see what's in the Nightingale Lane conservation area
surrounded by quite a number of heritage assets including locally listed
buildings six to twelve which are from well actually it goes further than that
but a whole row of terrace properties on Endelsham Road to the to the east of the
site some of those building some of those buildings back onto the site in
terms of being part of the former rear garden of those properties then you have
a list of buildings along Nightingale Lane
to the north of the site.
So the site itself is in Western Lane,
which is an interesting part
of the Nightingale Conservation Area.
It's more rural in its character.
The conservation area appraisal describes it
as a quiet backwater with vestiges of rural charm.
A lot of the buildings along this part of Western Lane
were formerly coach houses associated with the Bilgsings on Endlesham Road.
And it started to take on slightly more organic character to this part of the conservation area.
So here you see the site as it is.
So it was part, as I said, it was part of the rear gardens of Endlesham Road.
And then historically, this part of the conservation area started to get built upon
with stables and a garage, but the vestiges of those former garden plots
remained. Once those stables then became cleared in the 20th century and then you
had this large area of hard standing which has been left, which has been used
largely as car parking up to this point. The vestiges of the previous rear
boundary walls of the properties are still appreciated from Western Lane. It does
include number six Endalsham Road in which the rear garden plot and the boundary wall
are still fully appreciated from Western Lane. So this is the site within the site itself
which shows the land to the rear of 8 to 12 Endalsham Road which is largely all hard standing
and quite run down and completely separated off now from the rest of the buildings on
Endalsham Road. There's sort of some vestiges of historic garden wall that have remained
just to the north, just as you see here, but largely it's been completely cleared. And
again, views of the site from Endalsham Road from the upper stories of the properties.
And this is views from Western Lane to show the current condition of the sites that's
boarded up at the moment, largely to the rear of number six. And then we've got quite a
large gate here to the rear of 812. Some various views towards the site which were taken last
week to show that kind of more organic character to the conservation area. They've got modern
development just to the north of the number 6 in Dorsham Road rear garden which you see
here, which is slightly set back. But you've got some older properties as you go down south
down Western Road should give you some semblance of the former character of the
of the site. As you look over you can still very much appreciate those rear
elevations of the properties, the locally listed properties on Endlesham Road and
importantly here you can see that rear barrow, that boundary wall that
that separates number six and the rest of the site so there's still that
appreciation of the long narrow garden of that particular plot. Again looking
further down Western Lane you see here the more organic kind of Victorian character of
the buildings. Something to note however is that a lot of these front gardens have now
been taken over for parking and that's becoming rather detracting part of Western Lane in
terms of its character. On the other side of the road however the buildings, those buildings
are slightly more hard up against the edge of Western Lane so you don't, you haven't
lost as much of that character through car parking. So this is immediately to the west
of the site. Looking here, now I've given, I've included this image which is directly
to the south of the site because I think a lot of the, a lot of the character that's
proposed in terms of the new build have come about from this particular building. And they've
used this as a design cue for the proposals coming forward for the site. And then further
north this is where the character sort of degrades a bit and we've got rather
more utilitarian looking development that's come forward which is set back
and then you have these front gardens which are taken over for hard standing.
So as existing here above just about well largely a back ground property now
with the vestiges number six rear garden what they're proposing here is
four dwellings on the site, all three bedrooms, two stories, all are quite consistent in the
design that they've posed with these arch windows which they've stated in the design
and access statement. They've picked up queues partly from that building that I mentioned
to you just further south on Western Lane, but also picking up queues of the buildings
on Endlesham Road as well.
Now I had previous pre -application engagement on this,
and you'll see in the design and access statement
there's some evolution of the design.
So they've now looked for quite a uniform
and consistent approach to the four properties.
Previously there was four different,
slightly varying designs to the four buildings.
They sought to try to reflect that kind of more organic
and gradual development of Western Lane,
whereas now they're taking the approach
of something more uniform.
So as you see here, you've got projecting gables,
which are a feature of Western Lane.
Note that the building just on the opposite side
of Western Lane has those projecting gables.
To the rear, quite large dormers,
but quite simple in the design.
So these elevations won't be visible from within public areas of the conservation area.
And some indicative street scenes to show how it will be seen from within Weston Lane.
And you see the slightly set back with the front gardens.
There was concern raised at pre -application about the use of front gardens for parking.
It is a car free development, so no car parking proposed is part of the development.
But the buildings are slightly set back.
There is fairly generous front garden that would be if they're considered to be acceptable.
The conditions can be put in place to avoid those areas being later used for car parking.
And now looking up north up west up Western Lane towards Nightingale Lane.
And then the last few few slides of those CGI is mainly on that Western Lane elevation
to show the proposed design materiality which seeks sort of stock brick elevations with
red brick arches and a very uniform orderly arrangement of the four houses. Another one
showing there with the very low hedges. There's been an evolution with the front garden and
the landscaping of those to try to soften the visual effects. And then finally I think
This is the last CGI to show that image in slightly more context to show the proposed design.
And then the buildings within their plot to show a bit more of a context in terms of the positioning of them within the plot.
Quite small rear gardens, but set back in a similar way to the current buildings on the site.
And I think that's my last slide.
Thank you.
Questions?
Questions not comments at this stage?
Mr. Dodgson.
Yes, I will have a lot of comments.
But my question is about the brickwork.
One of the graphics that I looked at online seemed to suggest, I think it was that in
fact, that it was going to be Flemish Bond.
Has there been anything in writing at all about actual how they what type of
brickwork it would be? No but we can condition all of the materiality to
ensure even to the brick bond and pointing detail we can actually go into
that level of detail to make sure that the development is good quality in terms
of materiality. Thank you. Okay, comments. Mr. Dodgson again. Before I make my
comments, I had a conversation before the meeting with Mr. Armstrong and he does
know quite a lot about the history that I don't know, but I will plow ahead with
my own comments, but perhaps I could ask Mr. Armstrong to add a little bit of
history. That would be quite helpful. A number of questions really come to mind. The first
was actually the boundary wall that runs at right angles to the western lane. The applicant
has suggested that this is a totally rebuilt wall made up of reused stock and other bricks.
I'm not entirely sure myself and I just wondered whether the officers have any view about that.
Before you answer that, I would just comment that interestingly that some of the features
on the pillars on the lane have what look like terracotta or code stone decorative caps,
which seem to reflect the nature of the buildings in Endlesham Road, which use, I think it's
terracotta, which the buildings were built, I understand, to promote the use of this terracotta
by the manufacturer.
And therefore, I just wonder whether we've got
one or two heritage items.
They may seem raised there, yes.
Those caps actually look genuinely old.
And I wonder again whether they are
sort of part of the feature of the original cartilage
walls for those properties.
That's my first issue there, because they're
claiming essentially that the boundary wall that
runs at right angles to that gate that's I think on the left of that pillar on the left
is it right angles to that.
That boundary wall they're claiming it's not even original and I would dispute that.
Can we just deal with that question?
I'm just checking through my colleagues' comments on the pre -application that I did identify
the boundary wall between along six so the boundary wall that runs down that separates
six and the rest of the site as some that forms part of the local listing of of the
building in terms of the boundary wall that fronts onto Western Lane there is a degree
of change to the brickwork here you can see at this point there is some semblance of some
brick pillars here which do have some potential heritage interest it could have been that
They were related to the use of the rear part of the site for the stables, but we don't
have conclusive evidence to say that these were an original part of the site or a very
early part of the site because there is quite a lot of change within along this boundary.
So it would have been a solid boundary when we see historic maps.
But there is some heritage interest to the pillars, we would agree, and there is a concern
and that was raised about the loss of some of the wall, particularly along the boundary
between 6 and 8, and some of that wall is now being retained within the development.
But the part of the wall along the front was identified as a potential for harm to the
conservation area within the pre -application comments, as it makes a contribution to the
conservation area at this point.
And there is some semblance of the brickbound,
some semblance of what was here before,
albeit it is heavily altered
because this is the very large opening now
that you see in this view.
Okay, carry on Mr. Dodge.
My other comments are really,
I think it's general comment about the lane.
The buildings on that side of the lane are now varied.
Generally, there is no,
that's part of the charm of the lane.
Although on the opposite side,
I grant you that the original pairs of cottages, they did have consistency, but now the look
of the lane is one of, as has been mentioned by the officers, one of a vaguely rural characteristic.
I do feel that putting a terrace, a uniform terrace, albeit with projections forward,
into this context is just wholly inappropriate for the nature of this lane.
Also, I object to the height because what they've taken their, they've taken the height
from the building at the left, which I think is number 36 from memory, which is to the
left of that terrace, rather than from the building on the right, which is considerably
lower.
So, I think that's another point I feel very, very unhappy about.
And actually the architecture.
Yes, I know some of the more modern additions to Western Lane are not incredibly
meretricious on their own, but actually it's the variety of the different styles in a way
that's almost made it more interesting.
And I think to have actually focused on a particular architecture here, which I know
they've sort of taken from one of the existing new buildings, I think it's
It's neither trying to replicate what might have been subsidiary buildings to the main
buildings in Endlesham Road.
There's no use of, for example, they've not used any of the terracotta or any of the code
stone features in these.
They've just tried to suggest them with the red brick around those semi -circular tops
of those first floor windows.
But otherwise, personally to me, I just feel it doesn't really bring anything major.
They obviously the existing sites are an eyesore, but then anyone who's built who's demolished or cleared a site
Intends it to look an eyesore so to encourage
development on it
But I it doesn't really I don't think it fits fits. What is needed here. Thank you
Mr. Armstrong
On this committee quite a long time since the 70s
and
And the development of the back gardens of Endelsham Road
was a frequent subject that came up.
We got lots of applications.
And at that time,
it was decided that there would be only five, I think, of those sites
along the line that could be developed.
And they weren't all in a block like this.
At the time, Mr. Engering, who was the DOE Historic Buildings Officer, owned a number
of these buildings on Endlesham Road, including number 12, where my girlfriend lived, and
I spent quite a long, I was a young man at the time, I spent quite a long time there.
And one of our architects at Solon, I work for Solon Housing Association,
one of our architects lived in number three, Western Lane.
And the whole idea was to try and keep Western Lane
looking like a little lane, country lane,
without houses really on the frontages of that side of the lane.
And the arched window effect is taken from one of the original coach houses,
which I think is still there and has been developed into a dwelling on that side of the lane.
But it always was one of the principles that only a certain number of those sites would be developed
And we wouldn't allow, or the local authority
wouldn't allow a terrace like this to happen.
All those buildings along Enderson Road,
they all had back gardens and boundary fences,
which have been taken down since Mr. Engring,
I think he's probably long dead.
but he owned a number of these houses and he was concerned that this sort of
thing didn't happen.
Okay, are there any other comments?
Miss Radcliffe. Sorry, I don't mean to be sort of awkward but I think it's too bad
And in a way, in London, to reconstruct a bit of terrace,
now I take your point entirely about the character of the rest of the road,
is not such a bad thing.
You know, when you think what could be put there, is this so bad?
That would be my question.
Just a comment.
I do happen to know the lane.
I happen to know the people in the house, just the other side of those houses.
The pub, of course, is at the end of the lane as well.
And it's a really nice, if you're sitting outside on a summer's evening, it's quite nice.
You can be on part of the lane.
Obviously, the main seating area is on, sorry, you can be a bit on western lane, but the main seating area is on Nightingale Lane.
I can concur with a lot of the comments, the society is to my left.
I find it quite strange looking knowing the lane in the sense that
It is very different to the houses on that side. I'm very different to the houses opposite
And I think they're lovely looking houses. I'm not I'm not you know I think that they're interesting
But I'm not sure that that's what the lane has in mind, and it is quite a country lane
We don't have any of those in London
I have to say that
From my perspective, I mean, this isn't in Battersea, but I have a view.
I do agree that there is something extremely odd about the idea of building a terrace along this lane,
when its whole character is of diversity and gaps between, substantial gaps in some cases,
between the individual properties.
It has a sort of cottagey kind of feel to it as you walk down the length of Western
Lane.
And my ears pricked up when I heard about ten minutes ago
that in pre -app there were discussions about whether to build separate properties or a terrace,
if I've got that right.
No, they always sort of a terrace style property,
but what they saw in the previous pre -op was that each house was slightly different,
so you didn't have the uniformity that is proposed in this application.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think it is the, I mean,
if they were of different styles, it would make the terrace significantly different,
no doubt, but it's the terror thing that I find slightly odd in this context.
I agree that the terrorist as it stands, in some other context, would be quite acceptable.
But in this context, I think there's a big question mark about whether it's appropriate.
But that, sorry, that is not a chair's comment, that is a personal comment from me.
Mr. Dodgson wants to come.
One thing I didn't talk about was the rear.
But before I do that, the implication when I read the applicant's documents was that
they sort of discussed, you know, a uniform versus non -uniform.
And they implied that they'd been encouraged to put in a uniform terrace, but I mean, probably
As officers, you probably don't really want to comment on that.
But going back to the rear, I find that I don't know whether we, I presume we can comment
on the rear.
I had to laugh really when I saw them because if you look at those, what they've done there
is they've done all the things that people who've got low built houses do in their back
gardens.
They've got the added on dormer, which people do in Victorian houses in the area.
They just add on a dormer.
They've got the ground floor, which has no historical, you know, there's nothing
historical about three panes of a glass sliding doors there.
And it's all the things that people do to existing Victorian houses to sort of change
the rear view.
When people are looking out of their windows from their houses in Endlesham Road and they
look at those they're not going to think they're looking at pretty cottages in a
lane are they thank you as you can guess from my remarks I I do object to this
application I'll take one more comment I think from Councillor Belton again from
the planning applications committee's point of view we have to decide whether
It causes substantial, less than substantial,
I'm sure the officer can remind me of the exact words,
arms to the conservation area.
And I think perhaps you need to wonder
what you'd advise the committee on in those terms.
Okay, I think what,
I think the position that we've reached, and I am bearing in mind Ms. Radcliffe's comment.
I don't know the area, so please ignore me.
Okay.
I think that at the very least we have concerns about the building of a terrace of this type in the context of Western Lane,
and that we think that given the character, the specific character of Western Lane, we
feel that a development of this kind would do, when it comes down to it, probably less
than substantial harm to the environment of Western Lane.
Now, the planning issue then becomes whether there is something to offset the—but I think
I think it will be difficult to make the case that it is substantial harm to the conservation area.
Well, but in either case,
it then becomes whether there is some
countervailing benefit that comes from the development.
Now that is not our decision to make.
Nor is it, I mean that was a personal view that it's probably less than substantial,
you can accept it or reject it.
But I think that our view as the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee is that this
would represent harm to the conservation area and to this particular part of the conservation
area western lane.
Is that acceptable?
Well, from the bottom of society's point of view, I believe it would be substantial,
but I'm – obviously we've got to come to a majority view.
I think there are other issues.
I raised the question of the height.
They have taken the highest building in the whole lane and they've replicated that in
one big chunk.
I think if they wanted a way out, they should come up with some proposal which is more varied
in its character, possibly not everything actually being in a terrace, maybe two pairs
of houses.
that you would want to add to our comments.
I don't think we as in this committee can reach a view on whether the harm is substantial
or less than substantial.
That's not our job.
It's not our role.
It's the whole purpose of the committee.
It's the whole character of the lane. It's going to be changed.
And it will spread along the whole lane.
You know, it will blow apart the country lane aspect.
The whole feeling of that.
And that is substantial, isn't it?
I fully accept what you've said.
Okay.
Do we want to reach a view on whether it's substantial or less than substantial?
Council Osborne.
Yeah, I'd be keen to see the committee come to a view on whether it's substantial or not
substantial damage to the lane.
I think that would be useful for the Planning Applications Committee.
Just to clarify for the purposes of the committee, so when we're looking at harm to designated
heritage assets, we need to look at the conservation area as a whole.
So you'll see we're looking at Western Lane and the impact of that and the character,
but looking at the conservation area as a whole.
And usually when it comes to substantial harm, it's a very high test.
So when we, the key piece of guidance is the MPPG which talks about an example being the
key part of what's significant about the heritage asset, this being the conservation
area.
So I just wanted to bear that in mind when you're taking that view on how much the levels
of harm to the conservation area as a whole.
Obviously we have other heritage assets that you can take into consideration, namely the
locally listed buildings towards the east,
and the impact on their settings as well.
Okay, with that advice, do we want to,
I'm prepared to take the committee's view,
do we want to say that in our view,
That the development would represent substantial harm to the conservation area
Okay, thank you
Can I just ask chair that did you want to add in the comments?
Regarding that the committee has concerns with the height of the building that mr. Dodgson raised. Yes. Yep. Yes
Thank you.
OK, let us move on to Putney
application.
Excuse me.
Twenty twenty five, oh nine, five, four, thirteen, deal three road.
Thank you, chair.
So this has been brought to the committee
in relation to one particular aspect of proposals that's coming forward.
but I'll run over all of the proposals you see here.
So we're looking at erection of a side dormer extension to the south facing
roof slope, relocation of the roof, roof light on south elevations.
And there's replacement side elevation windows.
So they're looking at changes and additions to the windows.
And there is also some changes towards the rear, including,
and towards the front with looking at replacement and rest of existing windows
with heritage style windows along with a new heritage style front door. So application
site is within the West Putney conservation area. You see here we've got a number of
locally listed buildings within the vicinity but the key part, this particular part of
West Putney conservation area is a very distinctive roof form of this part of the development
with the very steep gabled end buildings with the pitch roofs,
the gabled ends fronting the street,
which form a very distinctive skyline to Daltrey Street.
Here on the other side, you'll see this is the application site here
and this grouping of buildings here.
You've got semi -detached pairs,
which largely have got pitch roofs
with front -facing gables towards Daltrey Street.
This is the building itself, which is a very distinctive, like, Victorian building of West
Point Putney Conservation Area.
And here's just a particular view of that side elevation.
The key element that we would like to seek the committee's views on is the side dormer.
So here you've got the distinctive pitch roof, which is quite visible.
So all of the side pictures of the building roofs are quite visible from within the conservation area and public areas,
and then quite tall chimney stacks.
And here you see some other, the rest of the buildings along the site.
We take note here of some other side dormers that have been consented in the past,
which you see one of them being here that sits behind the chimney stack.
And here you see that very distinctive character to this part of the conservation area.
Those gabled, very consistent and regularized gables that form part of that very distinctive
character of Dyltry Street.
And the side elevations of those buildings and the side roof pictures being fairly very
visible within those public areas.
another roof dorma here but much smaller and more historic as well close to the site. Some other
pictures, these are showing two particular examples of those side dormers that have been historically
added on these side elevations of these buildings so that's one of those and here's another one on
that side. So I focus just on the front elevation and side elevation proposals because those are
largely those areas of change that are proposed.
So on the front elevation here,
you're looking at replacement of the sash windows
with double glazed timber sash windows.
They are gonna be heritage style windows
that seek to maintain that character of the building.
But with the side dormer that sits just behind
the chimney stack here,
they do include proposals to replace the door with,
which is not the main front door,
but this side door here with a heritage style timber door.
Existing side elevation you see here,
so some VLUX roof lights just on the side pitch.
And as proposed, they're seeking to introduce
quite a large side dormer, so quite a lot deeper
than those other examples that I've showed you
on some of the images as existing within this part
West Putney Conservation Area. So it goes quite far back. Other changes within this
side elevation, you've got another roof light that's repositioned much further forward.
So previously it was largely marks behind the chimney stack. Now it's proposed to
be further forward and that dormer is proposed to be sited just behind the chimney stack
and extend quite far back within that side roof slope.
A new window and aperture to propose within,
to make a three regular pattern of windows
and then some other changes towards the rear,
including some rear changes towards the rear extension,
which largely won't be visible
from within the conservation area.
But the officer, the conservation officer
has sought for this to come to the committee,
largely on the basis of the side dormer.
The reason being that one of the main justifications
for the proposals that has been sought in the application
is the fact that there are other presidents within the area,
albeit these other presidents are older
and are predating the adoption of the current local plan,
which sets out specifically under LP5.
That dorm is to be kept to the rear
unless it's sensitive to the style of the building
and locality.
So it would be helpful to get the committee's views specifically on the side door, but obviously
you're very welcome to take a view on any of the other works proposed as well as for
the building.
Thank you.
Questions first of all, if there are any.
If not, comments.
And I think, sorry, I've forgotten you.
PSA.
Yes, Partner's Society, we discussed this.
And actually we're not inclined to think that it does cause harm to the conservation area.
Three principle reasons.
It's quite far back.
It is hidden behind the chimney.
Yes, you do see it from the front, but a lot of it is hidden behind the chimney.
The street actually has a lot of variation in it already.
You do get that uniformity at the front, but there's a lot of different gables already
put in, as you've referred to.
And whilst they are older and they are varied,
I think they have set that precedent of having them there,
including to the one immediately next to it, number 15,
the one that has a scaffolding on it in the images.
It's got that one already there.
And it seems, yeah, that's it.
The one with the scaffolding there
is immediately next to it.
So we would not be inclined to think
that it causes harm to that part of the conservation area.
We would, though, want there to be a couple of conditions put
in for approval were the Planning Committee minded
to approve it.
The first would be to specify the sort of shingles that
would be on the extension, to match
the shingles on the other extension on number 15
so you don't get variety there.
And also, particularly, to clarify
that any glazing in those new windows
should be, what's the word, obscured glazing so that they don't actually overlook number
15 from those new windows.
But otherwise, we wouldn't object to it from part of society.
Okay, other comments?
Mr. Dodgson.
I can see that there are other examples of dormers in those positions, but I think the
example that we were shown was considerably shorter in its length.
I think that there was an existing one, you showed us an image there.
I think with the one on the right there, well, we can't actually see how far back it goes.
But there's quite a big gap between the chimney and where it begins.
And I don't know if there are any other examples there.
I just feel that the one here, it can be seen from the street.
So it is breaking the general understanding that from the street these sorts of additions
should not be made.
I just feel it is just too long.
I feel if it looked less, if it was just shorter in its length, it would be more acceptable.
Just to pick up on the point of seeing from the front, I think looking at those two examples
There you can see that there is a block between the chimney breast and the slope of the roof just as there would be on this
application
Yeah, I don't think there is on number 15 though I do agree there is on those ones
Mr. Armstrong
Looking at this one
The
brickwork goes straight up and it goes through the gutter. The gutter doesn't continue along,
but presumably what we're being shown on the proposal does go, is set back within the roof
and so the gutter is continuous, isn't it?
I just wanted to check that.
That's correct.
They are not proposing to continue the side elevation
all the way up towards the dormer.
There is a break, so basically the eaves will be maintained
along with the gutters.
Yeah, that's less objectionable in terms of...
But it does extend a long way back,
but you can't see that from the street frontage.
OK. Are we saying that this is acceptable or not?
To my point of view, I say not,
because I think what we should be asking ourselves is,
if the architect built this house,
Would they have put that there in that way?
And I don't believe they would.
And this is what we're talking about.
From the streetscape, I don't think it is acceptable.
If it was a rear, the rear and can't be seen from the street, I think we've all generally
accepted that's what happens.
I just feel this looks like an add -on.
It looks like somebody trying to fill in and get as much as they can out of that bit of
the roof.
And that's why I feel that it just, if it was less, it was shorter in length, maybe
a gap between the chimney and where it began.
So maybe we don't, we're not going to have uniformity of view on this one.
I think with respect, the question cannot be, you know, can you go back to square one
and whether the architect would have done this or not?
I mean, we are where we are, to make the obvious cliched comment.
I think the question has to be whether this is going to do harm to the conservation area.
And it does seem to me that given the variety in the street,
and I have walked down it recently,
I find it difficult to say that it would do significant,
I'm not using the word substantial,
whether it, I don't think it would significantly
damage the streetscape at all, would be my view.
but are we accepting this application?
I meant from Miss Radcliffe.
Sorry, I'm just clear about that Velux window.
Is that a new window?
And I think I saw one similar on another house.
Or is that breaking a pattern?
because that really is very towards the fore.
So the velux window, if I just take you back to the...
I don't think you can quite see it, but there is an existing velux window,
but it's set behind the chimney.
So you can see it open a little bit at that point.
I don't think there was a possibility of an image looking at quite the side.
But they are bringing it further forward in terms of presidents.
You see here, this is the building here and you have got some that bring it further forward.
It will be further forward than the chimney, so it will be more visually prominent than
previously.
There are some reflights on the side pitches, as you see here.
Are we of a mind to accept this application even with some reluctance?
Yes?
Okay, thank you.
That brings us to the end of the applications.
We then have the decisions paper, paper 25146, to note, I think, that the Star and Garter
application on Lower Richmond Road permission was granted by delegated authority.
Could I just comment? The Partney Society is delighted that that was the case.
Good. As you'll have seen, this committee supported the application. 14 Clapham
Common Westside was refused for, I think, basically the reasons that we discussed last...
Was it last? Yes, it was last time, wasn't it?
Hooray, I think not for a minute
Okay, is there any other business
Okay in that case just to note that
that our future meeting dates.

5 Decisions (Paper No. 25-146)

6 Future Meeting Dates

The next two meetings in July and September
will not be in this room.
They will be in the council chamber, just to note.
I will be sitting up on a big dais
with a very uncomfortable chair.
Why is that?
Because of the changes to the governance at the Council, we've moved the meetings of the
Cabinet, formerly Executive, and they now clash with the next two meetings on the same
evening that CHAC is meeting.
But there's no crossover of membership.
Thank you.
Thank you very much everyone.
Look forward to seeing you in July when I hope the weather will be warmer.