Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 26 June 2025, 7:30pm

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 26th June 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

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, members. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the June meeting

of the Planning Applications Committee. My name is Tony Belton. I'm Councillor for Battersea

themselves when they speak.

But before we get started, I'd like the people sitting here

alongside me to introduce themselves.

Beginning.

Good evening, my name's Nick Calder.

I'm the head of development management at Wandsworth.

Good evening, my name's Duncan Moores.

I'm the external legal advisor.

Good evening, everybody.

Callum Moynihan, Democratic Services,

acting as the clerk to the committee this evening.

Okay.

and when he says the clerk he's taking the minutes he decides what we've voted

on what we've decided we think he we do it but he actually does it and and he's

the record official record of things

before I start can I sign the minutes of the last meeting have they been seen

Councillor Humphries they have fine let me just find the right page in fact

there's so many pages of it let me sign that after the meeting's ended but it's

got your approval to sign it fine we I have apologies from Councillor Colle who

won't be here this evening any other apologies I think not looks like a

100 % turn out apart from Councilor Colpley.

Right.

Can I ask for declaration of interest from members?

Any members with any financial or general pecuniary

interest in any of the applications?

Nothing.

Thank you.

Okay, going on to the item three,

which is the applications.

Before we start, I'd like to point out

that there's a paper here that we have

which is called late items for the committee to consider

which it's just produced minutes before the meeting

so it's not available to the public.

There's nothing secret about it though, it's corrections.

I don't usually talk about it but I wanted to mention

on this particular occasion because one application

has lots of mistakes.

I'm pleased to say that Councilor Ayers and I

both picked them up when we originally got the papers

as indeed did one of the offices.

It says rather peculiarly about item three

that all the references to north should read south,

with all the reference to east should read west

and vice versa.

I'm afraid that's, I really do apologize

and I was recommended by the officers to defer the item

but that would have cost the applicants

quite a lot of money and inconvenience in my book

and we looked at the report and decided funnily enough

that although the north meant south and south meant north,

Actually, it didn't make any difference to the general recommendations.

So I hope that people bear that in mind as he comes to Hanford.

So the item three is on the agenda.

But I thought I'd mention that because I'm sure lots of people would mention it when

we got there.

The officer concerned has decided to pursue his or her career elsewhere.

and so we don't have any longer,

but do you want to add to that?

Just your reference to the late items,

the late items is publicly available,

it's published about four o 'clock

and it's available on our website,

so you can see it from there onwards.

Ah, sorry, got that right.

In fact, I think it's true to say

that at least in legal theory,

we have to take notice of objections

put in up to the moment that we actually

make the decision, which is rather bizarre.

But just bear that in mind.

Again, on our website, we set up till 12 o 'clock on the day

so we can report any late items in this paper.

Nonetheless, I think the laws do still serve.

Anyway, so moving on from that

onto application 2024 -4463,

which is for a six -story hotel on the old Salvation Army Citadel site,

which if we had windows at the back, you could almost see from here.

Any comments, Mr Badawi, as the officer, about this particular application?

Thank you, Chair. Just a brief about the application. It's for the site currently

occupied by the Salvation Army Church

on the corner of Fram Street with Shoreham Close,

which forms part of the site allocation WT19

in the local plan.

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing

building on site and construction

of a six -story building comprising 50 -bedroom hotel

and a community commercial space on the ground floor.

The proposed building would occupy the whole site,

and its design considered the master plan for the wider site

allocation.

All planning matters are set out in the committee report and officers recommendation is to approve

Subject to section 106 and conditions set out in the committee report. Thank you

Personally has reasonably straightforward application any comments Councillor Humphreys. Oh

Thank you chair, yes council guy Humphreys

opposition speaker on this committee and a counselor for Southfield in Putney and

A couple of things, please, folks.

The jobs element that we've got in this application,

whether there's going to be any jobs in the hotel

for local residents, in the report,

is that they get a preferential treatment or something

on the, we often do with things like hotels,

don't we, where there's some kind of slants in the jobs

offered towards ones of the residents.

And I didn't notice that in the report.

So I wondered if that was an element that we either

could incorporate, or is it in there,

and I just haven't seen it.

because obviously jobs are a priority and if there's a new business in the town centre that's going to generate jobs

that would be much better if they went to our folks rather than somebody else's and

and just on that I think we'd had a query about this before the committee meeting but I wonder if we've got any idea of

what number of jobs there will be because obviously it's a hotel but there's different kinds of hotels

Some are budget hotels and it's like self -check -in and there's hardly any staff at all other ones. It's a more

of staff for every resident. I wonder where we are in the scheme and if there is any idea

on the number of jobs that might be available on this one.

Mr Bano. Thank you, Councillor. There is no information

about prioritising jobs for the local residents. It is something we can inquire with the applicant

after, but there is local employment skills and training that will prioritize jobs during

construction of the development.

There is a local employment and enterprise agreement. We work with our EDO and Work Match

as well to look at that, so they will review that document that comes forward. I know they

local connections and things like that.

So that will be all captured in there

from other cases that I've done.

Ms. Malloy, you can tell us your credentials for being here.

Sorry, I'm cafe and principal planning officer.

Councilor Ayers.

I've raised a question about the refuse

because it seemed to me that the only way

for the hotel to get rid of its rubbish

was through the cafe to get to the bins.

or on the street, neither of which seemed like a good idea.

However, I'm reassured by some work done by Nick Calder

and Mr. Padawy that this will be sorted out

before occupation because there aren't that many hotel rooms.

Well, I've just counted up, there'll be 50 hotel rooms,

which I'm a bit, I wouldn't say that was not many.

So I would like to see something definite in the conditions

about the refuse collection, please.

Sorry, I should have said who I was, I'm sorry.

Finna Ayers from East, representing East Patney, sorry.

Mr. Bedawi, refuse is covered normally in conditions.

Refuse is covered in conditions.

However, I think the question is about collecting refuse

or waste from the rooms.

the applicant reiterated that it will be depending

on the management of the actual hotel.

So it depends on the operator of the hotel,

how they would do, how they carry out this collection.

But it will be part, it will be captured

in the section 106 hotel management plan.

Before, so any hotel coming in,

once we find out the operator,

there will be a hotel management plan

that will have to come to us and we approve it

and waste collection will be part of that.

I think Councillor Humphries, I don't know either, but judging by the site and the position

and the style, it looks to be more at the premier end of the market than the Ritz end

of the market, don't you think?

I have been asked that question by Councillor Gavincia as well, separately, and we have

made inquiries and they are looking at,

they've got a number of operators that are interested.

None of them for commercial purposes

obviously can be mentioned,

but they are looking at them all boutique style,

the smaller ones.

5050 isn't really a sort of travel lodge,

premiering type size, it is quite small.

Well.

Okay, get on to the hamstrings again.

Sorry to press the point, but yeah,

I wanted to say that I know that Ms Molloy said that we were going to have that in the

agreement, but could we make that a little bit more robust and definitive that we are

going to get something there for Wandsworth employees? I do not think it is an unreasonable

ask to be honest that we can get that in the conditions of jobs for local people. It is

very central to the borough and lots of people who live around there, so I do not think it

is an unreasonable ask, let us put it that way.

Mr Moore.

I just want to leave any concerns that Councillor Humphries may have.

The Council has a standard precedent schedule for 106 agreements that deals with local employment.

It does give preference to local people, both in construction and also end -use jobs as well.

There is a financial contribution that helps the WorkMatch team and the Economic Development Officer place people in those roles.

and also apprenticeships, that's part of that scheme as well.

And it's a very, very good scheme and it's been running for quite a while.

Okay, Councillor Govindia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councillor Govindia representing East Putney Ward.

Following Councillor Ayer's question about waste,

I've been flicking through the conditions to see where the condition for waste collection is accommodated.

and I couldn't find it, perhaps Mr. Badawi

can point that out.

But my more substantive point was that

every, almost, well not almost,

all of the properties immediately to the north

and east of this site are two stories.

And whilst I know that this is about saying

the wider plan site, which includes the town hall,

accommodates in terms of our ambitions for taller buildings.

I can see why local residents are upset

that their two -story cottages and maisonettes

are going to be swamped by a five -story block

on their corner.

And I can understand their concern,

and I think it's worth commenting,

well, worth asking why was it not considered

that perhaps the building could have been

step down a bit in order to provide some sort of transition

towards the properties in Shoreham Close or not.

And the second thing the residents might be concerned about,

although Mr. Calder assured me about it,

is that why are Northeast London NHS

commenting on an application in Southwest London?

And then what relevance do they have?

And my other question is that,

does NHS expect to be consulted on 50 units,

whether they are residential, or hotels,

or student accommodation, or whatever?

So I just want clarity on all those matters.

As far as Northeast London NHS is concerned,

as I understood, Mr. Calder's reply to you,

it was merely saying that Northeast London wing,

arm of the NHS, whichever it is,

was effectively the post office for consultations that the NHS used and the actual responses

would be more local. Did I get that right?

In terms of it, we notify the NHS and they just respond and it came from the north east.

It could have come from south west, it could have come from north south east, it could

have come from central, I don't know, but the fact that the NHS decide who responds,

we don't.

I know, Mr Calder knows, NHS knows, but people in Shoreham Close may not know why is NHS

North East London commenting on an application about South West London.

Well I think we've just now said we don't know.

Mr Calder just said that the NHS were asked and that's where the response back came from.

Anyway, the other comments?

Mr Balawi.

In relation to the condition for refuges under delivery and servicing plan, condition 17.

42.

And also, for part of the hotel management plan in section 106, we can make it clearer in the drafting of the section 106 to include waste collection from the rooms as well.

as per Councillor Humphries' request.

In relation to the height,

the area is a mid -rise zone,

sorry, a tall building zone,

which goes up to six storeys.

The proposal is for a six -storey hotel.

And we assessed the six storeys

and we found that acceptable as per the committee report.

Sorry, Chair. Apologies, Mr. Ippadavi.

I know that it is a zone that my concern really was

that the people in Shoreham close might have thought

that whilst that is what the policy says,

could the council have tried to turn a transition

between Ram Street frontage and perhaps

the bit of the building facing them,

whether that was attempted.

Well, Councilor, Councilor Ayres.

Answer to my question.

The answer is, surely the question implies

just which way you're gonna vote

is a consequence of that, doesn't it?

I mean, there's not a factual answer to that, is there?

I think if you heard my question,

you might think there was, in fact,

a factual answer possible.

I asked whether there had been any conversation with the applicant about a transition of the

building from the Ram Street to the eastern end of the building.

The answer could be yes, no.

Sorry, if that was the specific answer, the question, sorry, I thought it was just a general

comment about there could be, couldn't there.

Mr. Badawi, was there any conversation specifically with the applicants about that?

I am not aware of any conversation.

Okay.

Council is.

On page nine, this is the bin store again.

I'm sorry, I'm bothered by this.

Page nine, little drawing at the top.

It shows the bin store has only one door from the plant room.

You can't even get to it from the kitchen.

You can't even get to it from the loos.

I just do not understand that planning.

Did they forget to put a door in or what?

I just don't understand how it would work.

Sorry.

Does it matter?

I mean, does nobody care?

No one else cares.

That's the reason we're proposing conditions

so you can further details.

And when they have an operator on board,

you'll get more information

because different operators work in different ways,

as I'm sure you can imagine.

So the next stage is when they've got an operator on board,

I'm sure they will come back,

look at the hotel management plan that we've talked about already and talked about the conditions that are proposed and that they'll use those to

Satisfy us how it's going to be carried out

Thank you

cancer apps

Thank you very much and Sara apps Shaftesbury Queenstown Ward

It probably would have come in better straight after councilor of India's

question actually because my only concern really with this,

having not analyzed the waste plans, was about the height.

You know, it's four meters over the 18 meters.

I kind of am aware of the Shoreham Close

and what a low rise it is.

And it is the only thing really about this plan

that gives me cause for concern.

So I understand about the six stories,

but the overall height is quite high against the neighbouring buildings.

Though I did read that actually in terms of light it made little impact.

I'm sure in the sense of living in those homes the additional height will have an impact

or is that not your assessment?

The additional height will have a minor impact on one window or one kitchen within short

close. We can look at the building in comparison with Shoren close or with Dover street across

the road and the town hall extension which go up to more than 10, up to 12. So it's how

you see the building. If you're looking at the building within the street scene, it's

not just going to be compared to Shoren close, it will be compared to all other buildings

around it and it sits comfortably within the height of six stories. In terms of impact

to neighbours it's been assessed and the height doesn't raise a concern that would

warrant a refusal from our perspective.

Just as a reminder, how high is the tower block going up to the west of the site which

has rather thrown these kind of views in all sorts of ways since this plan was originally

done? How high is it going?

Building 5 in the room quarter is going to be 36 stories.

36 stories. It's a little bit further away, but it is rather changing the whole era and style.

I had a completely different little tiny point.

I noticed that the Heritage Advisory Committee was concerned about the plaques on plaques

and whether they'd be relocated on the new building.

Are we going to make sure that happens, are we?

Yes, Chair.

Condition three for materials, I think that's three.

Let me double check.

Condition five for materials is two parts.

One for materials and the other one is to ensure the plaque

and a sign are going to be a part of the new design,

final design for the building.

Yeah, I must say, although I have no great regrets

about the current building. I think the Victorian one that was preceded disappeared, what, 10,

15, 20 years ago without notice. Hardly anyone noticed it was there and had gone, which is

a bit sad. I can't even find a photograph of it.

It was 2007, that consent was, because I reviewed and changed the report to say how mundane

the proposal which has now been built was,

and they've missed a chance to go for a taller building.

But yes.

Now I can hear the hesitations,

but are the recommendations approved?

Agreed, okay, thank you.

Agreed unanimously apparently.

Move on to Finton House School,

application 205 -1123.

Perhaps Mr Loy, you can give just a little bit more to the historical background because

believe it or not, I go all the way back to his origins.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm Cathy Molloy, Principal Planner in the West team.

The application itself relates to Fintan School, which is a private primary school located

on Trinity Road between Wandsworth Common and Tuttenbeck.

The application seeks a variation to the legal agreement to allow an increase of 20 pupils

from 340 to 360.

There will be no increase in staff numbers.

Just in terms of the history and how the school has evolved, the original consent for a private

school at No. 171 Trinity Road was in 1987.

There was no pupil restriction on there at the time.

Around 1999 to 2000, the school then extended into 169 Trinity Road, so it was the two properties.

The first restriction in terms of pupil numbers was in 2004, where the school applied for

extensions, and that limited the pupils to 321 in 2004. The last increase in pupil numbers

was in 2018, and that increased pupil numbers to 340, which is the current number. This

application is looking to increase it by another 20 to 360.

I think you said to me that you've been on the site fairly recently. 340 school

children on essentially what was two large -ish Victorian or possibly

Edwardian houses. That sounds like very crowded at break times. How did it appear

to you? Just a matter of interest. So just in terms of the site visit which I

one was a couple of years ago. In terms of this application and the detail that was provided,

there is staggered play times. They also use Trinity Fields, which is about 300 metres

away. Also, again, at lunchtime and afternoon slots. The school also provided a technical

note in terms of noise, which our environmental health team have reviewed. There will be a

general increase in noise at morning and evening pick -ups and possibly at playtime. The conclusion

was that this level of noise would be unnoticeable with the additional 20 pupils and they are

going into existing classes. There is not a new form being created. Class numbers are

quite small anyway. They are 14 to 20, so that 20 will be absorbed in those classes.

There are comments from the public about traffic implications, drop -offs and so on. Perhaps

we could ask Mr Tiddley if he has anything to say about the transport implications.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As we have said, the proposed increase in pupil numbers of 20, the

over the years show that a, most, well, in fact,

surprisingly, a very large number of school children

are ones worth residents and so do live relatively locally.

That said, there are around about 25 % of pupils

are driven to school because it does have

a slightly wider catchment area.

So that's a relatively small, obviously 75 % of the children

of the children don't arrive by car, but nevertheless,

25 % of 360 is quite a lot, you know,

it's around about 80 vehicles.

The important thing, I think, probably to mention

is that parents are strongly encouraged

not to use Wandle Road, which is the immediate road

of the school.

And in fact, the majority of parents don't use that road.

And surveys indicate that they do generally

disperse as part of the travel plan to wider areas

and then walk the last bit of distance,

which helps to minimize the immediate impact.

I think it was because what we have here

is an increase of 20, that would probably suggest

around about maybe four or five extra vehicles,

most of which won't actually be parked in Wandle Road

and therefore we thought it would be very difficult

to really propose any objections

on highway or transport grounds.

Okay, but we are concerned, well I am a bit concerned

about the general numbers.

Any comments, Councillor?

By the way, I should have said at the beginning,

I do apologize for this, I should have said

at the beginning, welcome to Councillor Pridham,

Councillor, come to me in a minute.

You're on the first meetings of the committee

and Councillor Tiller, welcome back from previous meetings.

I should have said that earlier.

I beg debugging upon.

Councillor Apps.

Thank you very much.

Reading through this, it was very clear

that transport is the big issue here

and I see that there was an attempt

at a school street previously,

which obviously was rejected at the time.

So I wanted to ask if you thought it might be necessary

as part of this look at a school street again,

or if there might be other ways to do it.

I mean, in my experience, I'm quite impressed

if they park further away and then walk the last section.

That is unusual behavior for drivers, I have to admit,

particularly parents who are in a rush

to get their kids to school.

So, and it was really welcome to see

in the additional items about the plan

to add to the legal agreement, about a revised travel plan.

I think that I very much hope that this will not just be

a sort of paper exercise at this point,

but is something they'll be actively engaged in

to make sure that this doesn't become a difficulty

for local residents near the school,

and also so that we can have safe and driving

and safe children arriving at school too.

I just remembered, I don't think I introduced myself

actually, so apologies for that.

David Tiddley, the head of transport strategy.

On the school street, the school's position has always been

that they're happy to support a school street

if the local people did.

That's really been their position.

We consulted upon one and there was strong opposition

to the idea.

Now they do work successfully in many parts of the borough

And I'm sure can counselors here have possibly have school streets in their own wards

so whether there's an opportunity to resurrect a proposal in in the future because we have found that we're able to

introduce relatively bespoke

arrangements for each school and to

Amend them and adjust them accordingly to ensure that they work as best as possible. So it's certainly something we'd be open for

Okay counselors. I

I don't see how we can refuse this, but I have quite serious concerns about it.

I'm concerned about the creep, because 20 extra students seems really very small.

But I fear that in another two or three years, more will be asked, and it will just get bigger

and bigger.

And I speak actually as one who lives near Putney High School, where they have enormous

numbers of buses.

and as Councillor Covinda will know, they are having to reorganise all the parking so

that the number of buses can be parked in the road. The pupil numbers apparently in

Putney High have also gone up and this is why they need more cars. So I think there

is a problem sitting for us in the future but probably not now.

I agree with you about some of this. When people say it's only 20, it is only 20. It's

about 6%, isn't it? Which, if you apply that to salaries or all sorts of other things,

6 % seems quite high. But Councillor De Windu.

Thank you. Maybe a question Mr Tiddley could help with, which is about given the level

of complaints about parking that the residents have raised in the consultation.

What sort of enforcement activity has your department undertaken to support the residents'

concerns?

And just as an observation, I mean, Fenton House is a primary school and so it inevitably

means that the patterns of primary school children

and parents are different from those of Putney Highway,

it's a secondary school, junior and secondary,

and it has habitually been kind of about 800 pupils.

And so I think slightly different scenarios.

But nonetheless, I think enforcement action

by the department, if that's what the residents have asked,

would give us some more substance to the complaints

about parking and bad parking.

Mr. Shearley.

Thank you, Councillor.

The school, the streets around the school

and immediately outside the school,

there are school key clear markings,

there are a range of yellow lines, red lines,

and controlled parking at various times.

Our parking team has an enforcement roster for schools,

so effectively they put schools on a roster

and go around them in turn to do targeted enforcement.

I'm unaware that this school requiring any specific levels

of enforcement or requiring any,

or having had any specific issues arising

from their visits, the staff as part of the travel plan,

the staff is a staff presence as well, which should help.

And I think in terms of the proposed measures

in the future travel plan, it's intended to strengthen that.

And again, I think to go back to the point about park and stride, which is where you

park further away, just looking at the numbers there.

And so, yes, so more than half the, say more than half the pupils actually do park and

stride, the ones that do arrive.

So again, that would be something that we could put into the travel plan to ensure that

that continues to happen.

Okay, we're expressing concern, but we recognize it's no grounds to refuse, I think.

Is it approved, recommendations approved, agreed unanimously, move on to 2024, 2382,

Scenery House, Harrowwood Road.

This is where people can't work out their north from the south and the south from the

north.

but apart from that, personally,

I thought this application seemed quite good.

Any comment, Councillor Apps?

So this might seem like a less important comment, maybe.

It's not a problem with the overall scheme,

but I did have some issue with the two -tiered cycle racks,

because these are largely family homes,

and whilst they're legally compliant,

I do think that we should be thinking about more in the way of facilitating cargo bikes and other types of family bikes

For these kinds of homes, so it's probably not permitted within our planning policy at the moment

But I think it's something we should look at for the future

Wow

I'm not that why I wasn't of disapproval and I think you're probably right. I can't remember how many years ago it would be when

bikes, well stuff them somewhere or other, but our attitude has so changed. We probably

ought to, but as you've already said, that's probably something for the future, noted very

much.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair. Like you are, I think this is a pretty good scheme and I welcome the

larger units as well, which is nice to see rather than lots of one bed, so that's definitely

very welcome to see. I just had a question about this specifically with the commercial

space downstairs. Obviously when you get these mixed use developments, there's always a concern

that we're keen to preserve our limited amount of business and light industrial space and

such like. I just want to know what specifically we've got measures in place on this scheme

as an example to make sure that it's not going to impinge on the use. So the residents complain

about the noise and such -like from businesses. Will that impact on the types of businesses

that could have the commercial spaces downstairs or is there enough soundproofing and such -like?

Has that been taken into account in the process of where we've got to where we're at so they're

actually viable units for the kind of businesses we want to encourage to be able to stay in

the borough?

Good evening everybody. Nigel Granger, East area team manager. Thank you chair, I can

in response to Councillor Humphreys.

Yes, we have looked at that.

We've looked at, interestingly,

two principles of noise nuisance.

And what you're describing is unknown known, so to speak,

because obviously any conventions,

you would know what you're buying,

whether it be off plan or looking at the property.

So you know that there's going to be commercial activity

over the ground and first on the taller wing.

Finally, we can see that we have recommended the imposition of condition number 28, which

is for noise insulation, so that's both horizontally and vertically, so that there's sufficient

physical insulation between those activities and the residential units as well.

So that's thought of, that's assessed in that physical intervention to get that degree of

isolations in place.

We also looked at the principle of,

I could see what you were alluding to,

where there's potential conflict,

but it's more that conflict arises more

when there's existing uses

and you put a sensitive use next to it.

And we have this thing called the agents of change principle

and there is an existing restaurant at the rear

with extract duct and it would be quite close

to the rear elevations of this property.

So what we don't want to do is have a situation

where these new residents get in, get comfortable and start

complaining about the lawful activities of the adjacent commercial unit.

So in that regard we've got sound attenuation measures which have to be

submitted to and approved by us in order for our

environmental health colleagues to scrutinize

details and plans and physical interventions again to make sure that

that relationship is acceptable and that's condition 36.

Okay, Councillor Sampras. Sorry, it's more for my information more than

actually a technical question as far as the application, but the current lessee of the

building, which is a theatre scenery builders, and particularly as it's our borough of culture,

I just wanted to know if that tenant is going to be staying within, do we now have any ideas

if that tenant is going to be staying in the borough, would it have been chucked out and

going elsewhere, are we going to get something echoeaetical coming in instead, it would be

quite nice in this year to be able to say that we're supporting the arts across the

board. Do we have any knowledge on that? Not that we have any influence over it in this

committee but... There you are Mr Grandeur, I'll turn you

one for you. Very good Chair. I don't know. There is flexibility,

put it this way, the degree of flexibility in ensuring that a commercial occupier will

take up those units is in place and not going to a completely different day nursery or something

like that. That's in place. It would be a beautiful story to say that some arts function

would reoccupy the units, but I simply can't say.

Something the EDO could have a word with, see if there's anything going around, because

there's always arts companies looking for spaces for things.

Councillor Worrall.

Councillor O 'Shaister in Queenstown.

Just a question about trees in relation to this development.

Reading through this, it's a bit confusing

as to what the plans are around in terms of the trees there.

Are we looking at replacement one for one

in terms of any trees that might be removed

during the development?

Or are we looking for increased tree planting?

And we do know that trees on streets reduce temperature

and actually help towards the overall environment.

Thank you.

There is a landscaping, there are limited,

there's limited scope for landscaping

within the footprint of the building.

There is a street tree, actually,

which is of amenity value,

and there is a condition to ensure

that protection measures are in place too

whilst the construction phase, if approved,

ensures that the continued health of that tree.

But in this very urban environment where there is 100 % coverage of the existing sites,

the main opportunities for landscaping are within the rear gardens of the townhouses.

And that's where the landscaping and, I mean, we get a lot of this detail post.

There is an indicative plan, but one has to be very careful

when you plant trees in a constrained space that you don't end up with this conflict of a tree with a large crowns bit.

They have to be very upright.

So we get all of that detail and we have specialists that look at that,

arboriculturalists that look at that and flesh out that detail at a later stage.

But we have an indicative plan that we think is acceptable and then we can move forward from there.

OK.

Councillors.

I am not talking about bin stores any more, I am talking about how it looks. On page 66

you can see how they have tried to make it look like a terrace of houses with just a

few big windows where the commercial areas are. I think because now that the elevation

I am looking at is clearly pre -revision when the office was moved up to the first floor.

There is so much of the elevation now which is not normal domestic. I think it is a shame

that they have even got three little entrances with curved door heads going into them. I

think the houses are very good indeed. Some of the bathrooms even have windows. New members

will know I'm obsessed with bathrooms and windows. One of the bathrooms has two windows,

so I'm very pleased with the housing and the flat, but I'm disappointed with the look that

it hasn't been expressed that some of that terrace is not domestic. It can be very smart,

but still not domestic. Thank you.

Outrageous extravagance, a bathroom with two windows. Mr Gray, have you got any comment

to just note it.

I mean, there was a, happened to be a conservative council,

it doesn't matter that particular bit,

but an idiosyncratic council I remember from many years back

no one here will remember him,

didn't mind anything being anywhere

as long as it looked like a Georgian house.

You're not quiet.

You do remember who I'm talking about, yes, of course.

I thought you might remember.

Indeed, okay, those comments noted

and the fact that a planner could have got north and south

and east and west muddled up, which is more than noted.

Oh, and one other comment, one member said earlier to me,

Why do some of the maps not have the North so you can tell which way it is

and could you make sure? I thought they all did actually to be honest and I

think we have to get that one member to prove the case by pointing out one that

doesn't but can we make sure that there is a North thing or whatever that little

thing is called. Are you talking about the ordnance survey extract? Yes.

It is automatic. There is no way to manipulate an OS plan other than north.

We have some that are east -west, but we have manipulated them somewhere.

The Ordinance Survey Extract.

We cannot afford to bore everyone else in the room. We will sort this out ourselves.

Apart from all that, is the application agreed?

Right, thank you.

Move on to the variation of conditions

associated with Barrage Gardens,

otherwise known to everyone else in the world

as the new Peabody Estate on St. John's Hill.

2024 stroke 34, 34.

Agreed?

Okay, agreed.

That's good, I'm pleased about that.

Move on to 2025 0295 Allthought Road on page 129.

While I find it and remind myself what this is about.

Ah, sorry?

No, Allthought Road.

Allthought Road, sorry.

I'm sorry, I'm being.

Sorry, I'm ahead, I'm running.

Yes, okay.

All Thought Road.

I've suddenly got a slight blank about it.

Erection of a Mayansard roof extension, additional story.

Yes, I recall.

Any objections, any comments?

Approved?

Approved.

Thank you.

Move on to Palmer Crescent.

I had a request for a deputation but I don't think that was necessary.

I think a member of the committee represents the area.

If Councillor Pridham wants to start on this item, over to you Councillor Pridham.

Thank you very much, Chancellor Tom Pridham, Lavender Ward.

I would like to speak briefly on behalf of Rosalind Young, who is a next -door neighbour

of the property that the application pertains to. The main issue that she wants me to pass

on is that this application goes beyond what has previously been permitted by previous

applications in the area. That is because the extension of the immediately next -door

property that is referred to in the application was built beyond the permission that was granted

at the time. Therefore, there is a sense that the application that is here tonight, that

would be roughly of a similar scale, is sort of—but obviously what happened was that

I understand that we cannot do anything about that now, because it has gone beyond the four

years where it could be enforced. Nevertheless, it seems like a precedent is being set by

something where someone has gone beyond the rules. It is also worth noting that the two

other properties that were mentioned in the pack, numbers 63 and 67, as being of a similar

scale are actually on the other side of the road and therefore backing onto Eccles Road

rather than Lavender Sweep. And then also just a final point is that she was very concerned

about the considerable deprivation of light that would be incurred by this application.

So I think some of that is mentioned in the pack, but she was very concerned in particular

about the impact it would have on her kitchen, on her bedrooms and also the living room as

well. The main point is the first one I made. It refers to the application immediately next

door where the resident went beyond that application and that is now being cited as precedent as

such. There is definitely a feeling that other residents who have made extensions on that

road, I used to live on it and I know that a number of residents have made extensions

and they have stayed within the restrictions. There is a sense that someone has gone beyond

that, and that is slightly unfair, not only on the resonating meeting next door but on

other people who have played by the rules all the way through. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr Granger, have you got any comments on the application?

Yeah, I can try and assist. So yes, I appreciate that it may appear to be inequitable to not

build an accordance with your drawings for the building next door and build a scheme.

It's not wildly different to what they got approved. It's slightly taller, but certainly

the shape of the extension and the form is the same as what they got approved.

As Councillor Pridham rightly pointed out, it is immune from enforcement action courtesy

of the four -year rule. That exists. It is lawful. In planning terms, we do not particularly

look at these things in that it has now created a precedent. We cannot just look at every

every single decision means that the next one is right.

We look at every single application individually

on its merits.

So in this regard, the balancing of that rear addition

with an extension that would be of similar proportions

in design terms is a relatively obvious thing to do

and easy to arrive at the conclusion that no harm

to the architectural integrity of the building

would be exerted upon it.

In terms of the amenity impact,

The ground floor, there are roof lights, we have primary sources of daylight from windows

and vertical elevations and things like that.

There's a side window that has been, one serves two side windows, one serves a WC or certainly

non -habitable and one is a window, that side window.

The room, the case officer did a desktop assessment

and found some drawings from a while back

showing it was a utility room.

It turns out that that's not correct.

The case officer actually has been in that property,

but it was so badly damaged by fire

that we couldn't establish what that room was.

So this is taken on trust

from what the next door neighbor has told us.

It does actually serve a bedroom,

but these side windows in these rear additions,

They're never supposed to be the principal sources of daylight to these rooms.

There is a large window in the rear renovation that would be completely unfettered by this

proposal.

Side windows in traditional rear additions always would have served some non -habitable

function.

So realistically, they provide a secondary source of light.

There would be a degree of impact on that window, but given that the primary source

of daylight is this rear window, that's completely ineffective, we think that this proposal certainly

lies within acceptable premises.

Any other comments?

Councillor Govindia.

Thank you, Chair.

I think the real difficulty here is that

number 26 has got away with something

that they should not have got away with.

And that subsequent neighbors have decided

that what they can have, I will also have.

So can I be clear about this?

That this is not a situation of precedent

because I don't feel that using a

somebody breaking the rules as establishing

a precedent acceptable, but that treating this application

on its merits, as Mr. Calder could help out,

is what is being proposed such that quite irrespective

of what happened at 26 and quite irrespective

of that kind of abuse or process at 26,

Is this acceptable on its merits?

And secondly, can I perhaps ask Mr Calder to reflect

and pass on to building control perhaps?

That enforce, well, investigation of building control,

post -building control applications of what has been built

by aerial surveillance might not always be appropriate

enough and perhaps one ought to do more of physical visits.

But that's not relevant to this application,

but something for us.

Otherwise it looks like, it brings council into disrepute.

Somebody's done something, got away with it,

we have allowed it to happen, time's gone by,

and then somebody else comes along and says,

I'll have what he has.

I know it's in breach of the rules,

but he got away and I'm going to get away too.

I think that's the real fear in the local area.

Well, painted like that, that's perfectly true.

But as I understood it, Mr. Granger,

perhaps I got it wrong.

If you live in an ordinary terrorist house

like the one I live in, and possibly most of us here,

we expect our lightened views

from all the front -facing windows

and all the back -facing windows

to be relatively unobstructed.

But if we happen to have a window in the side wall

because we put it there or we don't build,

we're not built exactly alongside our neighbors,

that can't really be safeguarded because it infringes,

infringes in a way the right of the neighbor

to build something similar to where you were.

So it's mainly the side view, the side element of it

that's your argument, is that not right?

Yeah, it's only the side element

and that's where the concern lies.

But if you look at all of the new constructionists,

particularly dwelling houses that we bring to committee,

every window on a side elevation

would be obscure glazed to 1 .7 metres in height.

So that deals with overlooking

and it also reduces an expectation

of any outlook from within the room and obviously there's, you know, the amount of daylight

coming in through obscure glazing is diminished. So there are expectations and if you benefit

from permitted development rights and you put a side window in, the rules state that

that also has to be obscure glazed 1 .7 meters from internal floor height. So it's everything

about discouraging people to or lowering expectations, certainly discouraging people for new build

in that regard, but lowering expectations

of the take of daylight from side windows,

where you've changed the function of a room

and it's a side window.

They simply cannot be given as great a protection

as principal windows within front or rear

facing elevations.

Response to my question.

Mr. Calder.

Yes, so in terms of what's happened next door

is obviously a material consideration, but the application is on its own merit. It would

not form a precedent for other blocks, but the fact that the two are joining, I think

it is material. You take that into account.

On the building regs point, looking at the building reg notice, it was not Council's

own building regs team. It was an approved inspector, so it would not be the case that

we can control if they do the site visits.

The extra point I wanted to bring in is just in terms of the enforcement rules.

We have talked about the four -year rule, which is applicable here.

The rules recently changed.

I am going to hand over to Mr Moore to get this completely accurate, but changes happened

which affect anything that is substantially completed after April 2024.

He has already answered it, Chairman. Prior to the Levelling Up and

Regeneration Act coming into force, a difference in time periods of

taking enforcement action, so it was four years for operational

development by building something, or four years for change of use to

a single dwelling house, but it was ten years for a material change of

or a breach of condition, that has now all been changed to 10 years.

So that should give the council a greater degree of control over developments that are

unauthorised and also give a longer period for affected neighbours to bring these matters

to the council's attention.

Well, that's interesting, but I'm not sure it affects what people feel about this particular

application.

Any other comments about them?

we've heard, Councillor Govindia, Councillor Pridham wants to come back.

Just one brief one following on from what Councillor Govindia said and I

understand that this might slightly sit outside of the remit of the

committee but I wonder what's your view on whether there's a danger that this

could, this kind of application being passed even if it is you know very much

on its own merits could undermine public confidence in the process as a whole if

they feel that there are others that have got away with something which they

were not permitted to do. There are other applications that come forward citing the

construction of that extension. I have had feedback from a couple of conversations about

this specific point, but they feel that it is not entirely fair. I do worry about the

impact that could have on the confidence that residents as a whole have in the process.

That is something I am concerned about in a general sense. I have made a particular

point of making sure we get as much publicity as possible for enforcement action when we

have taken. We have upped the number of press releases about that to ensure that you cannot

just get away with everything. Sometimes you get away with things like it has passed the

in a way that there's nothing we can do anything about.

But I'm very concerned about that, certainly.

And I think you'll find our enforcement officer

who's not here this evening would say

that we have one of the highest enforcement levels

in the country.

Second or top one?

I can't remember what he says exactly.

What is it?

It's certainly one of the higher ones in London,

I don't know, across the country.

But because you get different levels of enforcement,

We used to be some of the boroughs like Hillings

and used to have massive amounts

because they used to do the beds and sheds

and all that sort of stuff.

So yeah, but we're very high on it.

And I can talk about him because he's not here,

but he's very efficient both in Wandsworth and in Richmond

at undertaking a lot of breaches.

But absolutely understand your point.

And I think when we had the training sessions last week

and noted that these type of applications

whether they rely on enforcement issues or ones that have come about because of enforcement

are always difficult for officers and members because we want people to build in accordance.

We have to look at the merits of each individual application when it comes forward.

On this one we have assessed it, the impact, the appearance and it's not something that

we think as officers we can refuse, which is why we are recommending approval.

We are doing it through a public forum so the public can see and understand the reasons

for that. It's also occasionally the case that we take enforcement action and the magistrate

or whoever it is who decides it but usually a magistrate says the in his her opinion the

infringement is so sufficiently minor it's not worth getting them to knock it the cost

of getting them to knock it all down and start again or something like that that can be annoying

as well.

Councillor Justin Nine -Elms, just for the sake of clarity, will the next person in this

road who wants to have... he will then cite number 27 as his president and won't mention

anything about number 26 which was unfortunately allowed to go through without being spotted.

So what happens from a legal point of view now of this becoming a chain reaction?

And the original miscreants who got away with it for four years, doesn't get mentioned after

this, only the subsequent ones which were legally, if this gets approved tonight.

I just wonder what happens?

Is it a domino effect now that they'll all be using the precedent, but they won't be

using the precedent of 26, they'll be using the precedent of 27?

So that's my question.

Can I first of all say, you can't say which was allowed

to go through, it went, it happened and we didn't know

about it.

Any comment about will it get used as a press?

Well I think the important one is that they're two attached

extensions so that they form a pair.

I think you'd look at separate ones and look at their impact

separately so not necessarily, you'd look at the material

considerations for a different site and it might be a

different set of circumstances.

Okay.

However unwillingly or otherwise, is that agreed?

Agreed.

Councilor Britten, you're quite at liberty to agree

or abstain, did you want to, you're happy with that?

Discussion, okay, move on.

Councillor Hedges asked to speak on this application, the next one, Endulsham Road, and the one

afterwards.

Councillor Hedges kept you waiting.

Thank you, Councillor Belton.

Dear Chair and members of the Planning Applications Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

speak today on behalf of residents of Western Lane in Ballam who strongly object to planning

application 2025 -0816 concerning the proposed development to the rear of 6 -12 Endalsham

Road, SW12. While residents are not opposed to development in principle, this proposal

raises serious concerns. Most notably, there has been lack of timely and adequate consultation

with Western Lane residents, despite the fact that the proposed development directly fronts

their homes. This has caused considerable frustration and a sense of exclusion from

a process that significantly affects their daily lives.

I would like to highlight five key areas of objections. The first one is policy and planning

concerns. The proposal appears to conflict with both the London Plan and the Wandsworth

application at number six Endlesham Road was withdrawn, suggesting long -standing concerns

about the site's suitability for scale of development.

Number two is design and heritage impact. The design is out of character with the semi -rural

and historic nature of Weston Lane. The proposed height is based on a single modern property

that does not reflect the prevailing scale. The lack of staggered frontages and bulky

gables are visually oppressive. Western Lane predates Endalsham Road and is a heritage

asset in its own right. The June 2024 pre -application design was far more sympathetic and should

be reconsidered. Furthermore, it is important to note that there are no terraced houses

on Western Lane. Therefore, the repeated references to the application to echoing the terraces

of Endlesham Road are both misleading and irrelevant. The justification does

not reflect the architectural character of Weston Lane and undermines the

credibility of the design rationale. Number three, inconsistent planning

standards. There is a clear disparity in how planning rules are

being applied. For example, the modest extension at number 32 was subject to

strict limitations on height and garden retention. This proposal, by contrast, seems to disregard

those precedents, treating lower -profile buildings as anomalies rather than valued features on

the lane.

Number 4. Procedural concerns. The application was submitted as rear of Endlesham Road, yet

site fronts, Western Lane. Only four households of the lane received notification. The recommendation

summary under reports objections and was uploaded before the consultation

deadline for the light survey leaving less than 24 hours before the meeting

this undermines confidence in transparency of the process and then

finally number five parking and accessibility the absence of on -site

parking is unrealistic for high -value family homes especially on a narrow

single carriageway street like Weston Lane. Borough -wide car -free policies are inappropriate

for this context. Local estate agents confirm that parking provision is essential for marketability.

If the committee is minded to approve this application, we request that the following

conditions are imposed to mitigate the impact. A publicly available construction management

plan shared with neighbours, construction via Nightingale Lane only, no weekend working

due to the proximity of neighbouring homes, restrictions on future use including prevention

of HMO conversions, developer responsibility for any damage to neighbouring properties,

erection of double height hoarding along Western Lane and assessment, if necessary, of restoration

of the lane surfacing, including cobblestones. In conclusion, this proposal represents an

overdevelopment that is out of scale, out of character and procedurally flawed. On behalf

of residents of Weston Lane, I respectfully urge the committee to refuse this application.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Councillor Hedges, for that typically well -argued case.

Can I ask, have you given Mr Grainger or indeed any other officer prior notice of those suggested

conditions?

Not saying, just helpful to me to know whether I can reasonably ask Mr Grainger whether they

operable or possible. He hasn't had time to see them. So have you seen them?

Have you got a copy of them? I've written them down and I think I've got an answer to each one.

Okay, if you've got an answer to each one perhaps it would be worth starting there and giving your

comments. So there is a condition requiring a construction management plan. The request of

construction traffic accessing only Nightingale Lane would be a matter to

strategically be worked out between people who plan logistics in this regard

and Mr. Tiddley's team who are experts in looking at how to construct sites

without unnecessary impacts on local highways networks would look at this and

look at the feasibility of how to get construction traffic in and out of that

The weekend work we would apply,

there is a standard convention across Wandsworth.

We share with a number of other boroughs

about when you can work and there is no difference

between this site in terms of when you can work

on weekends and the hours of actual construction,

whether it could be external or internal.

So that is just a pan -Wandsworth approach and to alter that would not be equitable.

Any damage to properties or to Nightingale Lane, that would be a matter to be assessed

post -construction, but party wall agreements would have to be in place, especially for

number 36 because that would become attached,

but also 31 and any other concerned residents.

But that is a civil matter and outside of the,

outside of the planning regime.

The HMO conversion point, if it was a larger HMO,

we would need planning permission anyway,

but properties of this nature to think

that the cost of acquiring something like this

to actually have it as a smaller HMO, I don't believe is relatively possible, but it's part

of the use classes order. It could technically happen as a small HMO, but it would require

internal refitting in order for it to classify as such, and the cost would just not be feasible.

I just really can't see that happening.

Double height hoarding, I don't really have a view on that apart from a double height

hoarding, whatever a double height hoarding looks like, I can only imagine it being extremely

oppressive and potentially dangerous in high winds, so I think a normal hoarding would

probably be appropriate.

Okay, those are the comments about the conditions.

What about the general point that Councillor Hedges is making?

Do you have any comment about that in terms of your recommendations?

Well, I mean...

Sorry, I realise your recommendations are your recommendations.

It's contrary to everything in terms of its impact.

We think this is a perfectly acceptable scheme.

We've identified that it would exert no harm onto the conservation area.

It fits in in a respectful and has a rhythm and pattern

with a cottage vernacular that's fitting of Western Lane.

Its scale is appropriate at two stories

with accommodation at roof level.

Anything, the rear dormer and the single story extensions,

if you call that, it's not an extension,

it's part of the actual build.

But those elements, if you can imagine the buildings

without those as proposed to be constructed.

If they came forward as extensions,

they would be regarded as perfectly acceptable.

Yet the generally the overall

impacts on the spatial character of these four properties

on Western Lane as a whole,

and then you take into account

whether it preserves or enhances

the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Preservation has certainly in our view

been achieved in this regard and the proposal is considered acceptable.

Just in terms of the procedural points as well, I think if we look at the late items

there was reference to further consultation. That was purely on a sunlight and daylight

plan. We have set out the responses in there. Most of the objections were not related to

the sunlight and daylight plan, just emphasising that there are understandable concerns about

the development as a whole. We have addressed the issues of sunlight and daylight in the

report. In addition, we also put extra site notices up within Western Lane to ensure that

there is sufficient consultation. We have taken those extra sets to ensure that consultation

has taken place.

Clearly, I think members have to note the observations of the Barham Society and the

conservation heritage committee and Wandsworth Society. I think we are taking note of those

in terms of objectors and have to look at the case on its merits, given those objections

and given the benefits that may or may not be accrued.

Countess Justin.

In the artist's impression photographs we've got here,

they've got very neat private hedges in front.

Would it be possible for them to not have the hedge

and to park a car there?

And so that while that looks all very countrified,

in reality, there might be four vehicles

parked in front of those four houses,

which is not so pretty.

I imagine that would be possible.

Yeah, this is why one of the problems is that the actual front yards, they do slightly widen

out there.

I think the ones further south wouldn't be deep enough if anybody had that idea.

And they widen out slightly where it could possibly be entertained as an idea.

You will see condition 20, which is recommended for imposition.

It's entitled no extensions without permissions.

It's far more reaching than that.

It says, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country planning general permitted

development order 2015 or any order revoking, etc., no extensions, additions, enlargements.

and if you look at the late items,

I have recommended to insert the words hard surfaces,

shall at any future time be erected or constructed

at the dwellings hereby approved.

So that means it is completely controlled

and if anybody did want to adjust,

take away those hedges and hard stand

that front courtyard area,

it means that they would have to make an application

for planning permission which would be assessed on its own merit.

Can you remind me Mr Grainger what the ecological impact of this is in general? That's a specific

but what's the...

The BNG score we've got to achieve a minimum of 10 % on page 179.

Translate please.

Para 13 .9 is 15 .46%.

Translate please.

The P -A -

Biodiversity net gain.

So it's 15 .1 % largely because the current site

is concreted over, isn't it?

It is, yeah.

It's 5 .46 over the minimum targets.

So it succeeds in that regard.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Councillor Galindo, Councillor Ayres.

In fact, quite interesting, the biodiversity net gain.

Mr Calder is supposed to organise a training session for us.

I think even the chairman might benefit from it when you get around to doing it.

It's been outstanding for some time, Mr Calder, if I may.

Sorry to interrupt, but there are proposals to maybe change that process, so I'm holding

that back because there's consultation ongoing about whether to reduce it for

smaller developments like this. If you wait long enough everything changes

and I'm sure I'd benefit from all sorts of ongoing training. Thank you

Councillor Cabindia, I note that. Can I just turn to the more substantive matter.

Councillor Hedges mentioned a couple of things. Clearly the construction

management plan is provided for here. Can I stress the need for it on behalf of

residents. Western Lane is very narrow. At its southern end, it's got a 90 degree turn

and any large vehicle trying to manoeuvre that turn would really find it very difficult

and I'm sure Mr Tiddly would say that the ideal exit and egress should be from Nightingale

Lane. It's such a basic and obvious fact that we ought to actually embrace it rather than

say, oh, I don't know whether we can do that.

Because it makes it so plain and so simple.

I think it'd be also helpful to let the residents

have the standard hours of work so that,

I'm not suggesting we change them,

but that the residents should have them

so that they are aware of it.

And perhaps also when the construction management plan

is agreed, that it's shared with them so they have.

But my substantive point about this application

goes back to the phrase Mr. Calder used,

which is about the rhythm and pattern of Western Lane.

In fact, there is no rhythm or pattern in Western Lane.

Virtually every building is an add -on

in the rear gardens of Endelsham Road.

I think in the limit distance past,

number 22 was at one time the only house

which had been built in the back garden

of one of those houses,

and subsequently houses have been added.

and they have a variety, and because they have a variety,

the lane retains a certain amount of rural charm

from the days when it was not a made up road

once upon a time.

So I think it's a bit much to say

that this respects the rhythm and pattern.

It doesn't.

And the next question really is,

which is I think what the societies

are also concerned about.

So this will be the only bit of Western Lane

apart from the southern terraces,

the masonet blocks in the south.

This will be the only bit which will become a terrace.

And I think that is a concern that the residents have

and I'm not sure that's been sufficiently addressed.

How can adding the only terrace

to a variegated variable place make it less variable?

I mean it just adds another variation, doesn't it?

So in fact, no, no, no.

instead of four variations,

you have added just one variation,

that's what it is, Mr. Councillor Belton.

I mean, I'm not particularly averse

to the rear gardens of these properties being built on,

and I am not averse necessarily

to redevelopment of those,

but I think it's the type of development that's proposed,

which I think irks the residents,

and I'm reading through their comments

and reading through the comments of the societies,

that is exactly what, there is no rhythm or pattern

in that western lane, and a bit of it's been introduced

here, and I also make one further point,

which is that I think the local residents have a feel

that they have done their bit by opposing its own,

and they've got the conservation, the amenities societies

involved, I do think that the amenities societies input

but seems to have been a matter of process.

And I don't feel that the report

gives it sufficient credit and worth,

but that's my observation.

I think both Councillor Apps and Councillor Ayres

both wanted to speak.

Take Councillor Ayres.

Okay.

I think this is a very good scheme.

I'm sorry, you gentlemen and people, you lady,

don't like it.

I think it's very well done.

I think the series of drawings is very good indeed.

The drawings are much better than many drawings that we get shown.

It shows everything from every angle, which I think is to be applauded.

I like the houses.

I like this chunk of little terraces.

I think when you say the lane has no rhythm, okay, that's okay.

It has no rhythm.

well, a little bit of stabilization of that non -rhythm,

I would have thought would be welcome.

And how you can fight something which was a car park

instead of having housing, which is good quality housing.

Well, good, I'm glad you're not, thank you.

I will stop talking then in that case, thank you.

Councillor Habs.

Yes, we were reminded in this report of course that we have a presumption in favour of sustainable development and this certainly looks like sustainable development to me.

As somebody who lives in the Shastri Estate I would say it's perfectly possible to have a cottagey effect with terraced housing.

It's a beautiful example of it and there are many other examples across the borough.

I noted that the houses are deeper than some of the neighbors

and slightly higher than the next door, I think.

But I looked at this and thought there was enough space

for that to work well.

Generally speaking, I would say,

oh, and I also noted already that there was

a construction plan and fully supported that

knowing that the space is tight.

And we'd hope for that in any case,

but it's particularly important here.

And generally speaking, I thought there,

It's really quite a lovely development

and I hope it looks as it does in the pictures

when it's complete, thank you.

And perhaps Mr. Granger, perhaps not,

but perhaps you can remind me if you know

just how many small site residential developments

with the plan has us making in what time scale.

It's a terrifyingly large, well, terrifying.

It's a very large number and this is a very small impact on it, but we need to find places

to put houses, don't we?

You're right, Chair, and I think we've got that in 1 .2 on page 166.

So we're looking at over the life of the plan.

This includes a provision of a minimum of 1950 homes per year until 2028 -29, including

on small sites.

The small sites provisioned across the entire plan period will account for a minimum of

414 homes per year.

So whatever the disadvantage, and actually I don't think there are any because there

are ecological gains as well, the housing gain has got to be important in my view.

Is the application approved?

Councillor Humphries, I beg your pardon.

There was I being all coy for once. Thank you, Councillor. I just want to say one specific

thing. She spoke first. She is the first person who actually said the objections to this scheme—none

of them, I do not think, are saying there should not be anything built on this site.

They just do not think this is the appropriate scale for what is going on there. I do not

think anybody has implied that anybody thinks anything should not be built there as a point

of fact.

One other thing that she did say, which Mr Grainger did not quite allude to, was that

You talked specifically about the restoration of the cobblestones in the street, which is

something that is not covered by a party wall agreement between neighbours. On that specific

point, can we make sure that there is any damage during the course of construction?

Does the recourse to put that right, being a part of the heritage -listed building? Let

us do that one first, if we could.

I simply cannot answer that question because I do not know what happens to highways and

and how to identify that a particular cobblestone

was loosened by a construction vehicle or not,

or by another vehicle.

I don't know if Mr. Tiddley has any experience of this.

I'm just looking at it, and you're right, Councillor,

we'll need to probably do some photographic survey

of before and after and ensure that any breakages

or any repairs that are needed are undertaken.

But it's got nothing to do with this application directly,

and whilst you're doing it,

you could do it for Stonnell's Road off Chatham Road as well

and no doubt other places, not the only place.

Okay.

Sorry.

I hadn't finished actually, Jay.

Sorry, go on.

That was my first point.

Well, you know, despite, you know,

I agree with a lot of the comments that have been said

that they're perfectly nice and fine houses

and they look attractive

and the pictures obviously look nice and all that.

What my query is is what Councillor Hedges

and the residents apparently are saying is are those the appropriate houses in this location?

I think that's the key thing that we may have a disagreement with officers about in the

recommendation. Absolutely agree they're very nice houses, well designed, all the rest of

it, but you would see those in a bigger scale street with a more continuous form of that

kind of development. If you look at the drawing on page 160 above the CGIs, that does give

you a better indication of how those will appear as a block in scale and mass on the

on the streetscape there, which is very varied.

And I can see why they put the projecting fronts on there

to try and break it up and whatever.

But it does still appear like quite a solid terrace.

And in the photo, you don't see where that photo

is taken from, it's almost the other side of the street.

So they will be quite, in my opinion,

quite an imposition on the streetscape.

And undoubtedly, as the immunity society, the war said,

will have an impact on how that view to the conservation area

and will materially change it.

So I think my point is that yes, they're fine,

but it's the right house in the wrong place.

And for that reason, I think I might

be willing to vote against it.

OK.

Those in favor of the recommendations?

One, two, three, four, five.

And those against?

Two.

I only saw two hands, actually.

I can't see his hand from where I am.

Those against?

Just two.

Thank you.

I know I am semi -blind nowadays, but I saw that better than anyone else did.

Thank you.

The right hon.

Councillor Mayford and Councillor Hedges wants to address us again.

Thank you, Mr Chair, members of the Planning and Applications Committee.

Thank you for giving me the time to represent Ballin Ward residents of Calborne, Airedale

and Mayford Road, who are united in their strong opposition to the planning application

2025 -1197.

The application concerns the proposed demolition of existing garages and construction of new

dwellings to the west of 79 Mayford Road, SW12. The proposal has caused considerable

distress to local residents who live adjacent to or near the site and who will be directly

affected by its impact. I would like to highlight the following four key reasons why we believe

this application should be refused. One is failure to comply with policy LP34, industrial

land use. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is no longer

viable for industrial or related uses. Policy LP 34 of the Wandsworth

Local Plan 2023 requires robust evidence including at least 18 months of active

marketing to justify the loss of such land. No such evidence has been submitted.

The garages while currently underutilised still provide valuable

storage and light industrial type space. Their loss without proper justification or reprovision

is contrary to local and regional planning policy aimed at retaining employment land

in urban areas.

The second point is unjustified removal of protected trees, Policy LP 56. The proposal

involves the removal of two category C trees protected under tree preservation order 194

slash 1994. Policy LP56 clearly states the protected trees may only be removed where

there is sound arbery cultural or structural evidence justifying their removal. In this

case the only justification offered is that the trees interfere with the proposed building

layout. This is not an acceptable reason under planning policy. Furthermore, the applicant

has deferred replacement planting details to a later stage, giving no confidence that

the environmental loss will be properly mitigated. Additionally, whilst T1 tree is not being

removed, it is being heavily pruned, which could impact its future health and life span,

creating further degradation of the environmental impact

of this proposed scheme.

Point three is procedural irregularities,

questionable validity of this application.

The red line boundary of this application site

includes land that is legally part of 35 Airedale Road.

However, no notice has been served

on the owner of that property,

which is a basic legal requirement

under planning regulations.

applications. This oversight renders the application procedurally flawed and potentially invalid.

Beyond the technicality, it also raises concerns as to whether the scheme is genuinely deliverable.

As established in recent planning case law, including Newcastle City Council versus Secretary

of State for levelling up, deliverability is a legitimate material consideration in

assessing planning applications. The final point is point 4, overdevelopment and loss

of amenity. The proposed scheme builds right up to the site boundary with minimal consideration

for its relationship to surrounding homes. It raises serious concerns about overdevelopment,

future maintenance access and the long -term impact on neighbouring properties' light,

privacy and outlook. This is especially troubling given the quiet residential character of the

and the proximity of long -established homes

that will be directly affected.

In addition, the proposal also creates

a poor quality living environment for future occupants

with a strong sense of enclosure

and limited privacy due to the tight infill site

and overlooking from neighboring homes,

an unresolved issue from the previous two -story scheme.

In conclusion, this proposal not only fails

to meet key planning policies,

but also disregards procedural safeguards and offers insufficient

environmental or community benefit to justify its negative impacts. In addition

not to mention, Councillor Belton just mentioned earlier, expect the light at

the front and the back to be relatively unimpeded. This also should be

considered for Calborne Road. On behalf of local residents I respectfully urge

the committee to refuse this application. Thank you for your time and

consideration.

Thank you.

Mr. Calder, I see here on page 189

that this application, sorry,

a similar, larger application was considered

on the 26th of February this year.

I think Councilor Hedges was probably there.

Remind us what the decision was

and what the implications of that decision were?

Well, the application was refused by committee

overturning recommendation from officers,

of which that is now at appeal.

So we're waiting for the outcome of that appeal.

But we refused that on the height, scale and mass

and proximity to neighbours.

So a lot of the issues that Councillor Hedges has raised

have already been addressed and found to be acceptable.

So we should focus on the matters

to see whether this scheme has overcome those issues of height, bulk and mass.

In the context of deleting the pop -ups, they no longer exist. This is a single -storey structure

contained within the site boundary treatments and walls.

So, Councillor Apps. Thank you very much. And just to refresh your

I've got memory, Councillor Rookby was here last time.

I believe Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton

were unavailable.

Just on the issue of the trees,

I was a bit confused by this because

where I read it, and in fact this caused me some alarm,

the trees that the TPOs,

the Tree Preservation Orders applied to

appear to have gone.

and that actually these trees are newer trees.

This actually caused me some concern.

I recognize the fact that if they are different trees

and that the tree preservation orders don't apply,

but I did wonder what happened to them

and I would like to see a system which,

in fact, the Environment Committee's looking at

where every tree is recorded and residents can

make an application so that they can put online

any new information about trees because it is of concern and in fact I would

like to see the loss of trees through development actually counted on an

ongoing basis so that we can see the impact of this. For example mature

trees bring great benefits than young trees and counting the number of trees

that are lost is something that the tree wardens would very much like us to look

at. But that's a bit of an aside. What I really want to get clarification on is

are there tree preservation orders on the trees

that are being removed or are these trees

that were previously on site?

I was also slightly confused about the industrial use

of the land, I'd kind of assumed that residents

wouldn't want the land to be used for industrial use

at this point because that might not be a nice thing

to have against your own residences,

but perhaps that's mistaken.

And those I did think I looked at it

and on the basis of it, I looked at the key paragraph

which is 2 .20 on page 200, which sets out

that the new plans deal pretty comprehensively

with the objection that we made collectively.

And so I have to draw attention to the conclusions

on page 209, 16 .4.

which I would have to agree with officers

that essentially this plan does deal with our objections

whilst I understand that this kind of development

is of major concern for residents.

Thank you.

Right, any other comments?

Councilor Govinda.

Frank, go on Councilor Govinda.

I kind of wasn't going to make a comment,

but I thought I'd make an observation

that Councillor Rigby is not here.

I mean, it's completely irrelevant.

I think what was important was that we had the views

of the local residents put to us last time

and we respected those views and we took a decision

that the two egregious elements of that scheme,

which was the pop -ups, as Mr. Calder mentioned,

have now been removed.

What I want to be clear about is that does that mean

the number of units proposed now is fewer

and therefore will be a less of a imposition on the site.

And I think in view of all of that,

I mean I'm content to approve this scheme,

but you know I just find Councillor Abbs' introduction

about Councillor Rigby's presence and absence

and all of that stuff completely irrelevant

to a mature conversation about planning.

I was only reminding the chair, Councillor Govindia,

that's all I was doing.

I was just reminding him because he thought,

he misremembered, but.

I know he's an older man,

sometimes he doesn't remember facts,

so I don't think you need to remind him.

If we were all told not to reminisce about things

in the past, you and I, Councillor Govindia,

would have to spend the evenings in silence, wouldn't we?

These things just happen and it doesn't matter that much.

You're quite right, it's a complete irrelevance

and all sorts of things are that you say and that I say,

but Councillor Aps just felt like reminding us,

that's fair enough.

Now, nonetheless, Councillor Aps and you

supported in effect the recommendations,

so don't let's get too much of a fuss about it.

Councillor Humphries.

Thank you, Chair.

As we've been told, the reason for our refusal last time has been addressed comprehensively

in the report and that's satisfying to see and I'm pleased that at that extent we've

got a win for the residents because they've got a less imposing building in front of them

with this application, two dwellings rather than three dwellings which is absolutely correct.

And that's thanks to ward councillors and the activities of the residents, they've got

a win. Unfortunately, when you get to win the first -time round, the source is that the

second -time round you are going to get another win. The window narrows, as most of us know,

are more experienced in this kind of thing, which is unfortunate for the residents' expectations.

I think, again, I agree with colleagues that there was very little here, if anything.

Perhaps the residents would call it a draw, actually.

If you live there and it is your house, it is always a win or a lose, I am afraid. I

I just wanted to make a comment, because again, the Councillor has referred to that as well,

on page 209, 1604. The bottom part of that paragraph, and this is just a comment for

officers and you Chairs, and information rather than a direct thing to do with the application

itself, is that we are all grown -ups here, and I do not think there is a need to put

that in print at the bottom of that paragraph, we all understand the implications of what's

going on. And if you were reading this as a member of the public, it does sound slightly

threatening the language used in the second part of that paragraph, which I personally

regret and I think we should just look carefully at when we write these things, what we actually

write because that last sentence of the paragraph there I think is unnecessary, let's put it

that way. We're all aware of the situation and we understand the sensitivities of the

development. We do not need things writing down that might result in an appeal and might

result in the ward of it. We know that. We understand that. We do not need it spelling

out in print, which might appear threatening to a member of the public. It is just a comment.

That is interesting. I just had a quick look. I do not think that does any harm to reminding

members of that occasionally.

Like I was talking much earlier about deferring,

potentially deferring an item we chose not to defer.

It actually costs people out there our decisions.

It costs them quite a lot.

Yeah, okay, I know you know it.

I'm just reminding everyone.

So I think being reminded is not necessarily a bad thing.

I was just wondering if I could get an answer to my question about the tree preservation orders.

I doubt whether you can, frankly.

Yeah, I can.

So, it's Para 13 -4, so it became apparent on site that the TPO from a long time ago,

in between 1994, these Falsicaceous and two lime trees, at some point,

One of them looked so young it could have possibly self -seeded, but the actual age of

the trees certainly weren't from 1994 when the TPO was placed on them, so they're not

the original trees.

The degree of felling and pruning within the site is identical to that considered last

time.

there has been some additional pruning which our Bora culture up to one specimen which

our officers have found to be acceptable but the absolute basis is identical to that previously

considered and we consider this to be an acceptable element of the proposal.

We do now have, and it's available on our website, the locations of all the TPOs.

You can just do it on the Map in Wandsworth site.

We can map those.

There are circumstances where a TPO doesn't need consent to be felt when, for instance,

it's diseased and it's dying or has died.

There might be a circumstance, we don't know, sometime in the past that these were

replaced or at least one was replaced because it was in such a poor state of

repair and bearing in mind the industrial nature of that previous site

wouldn't be surprised.

I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about

GPOs. One was being failed in my ward and not long ago and the public were

outraged but there was no notice on it and the council officers out on every

street every day watching them, the person who owned it

was just cutting it down.

And I'm not even sure they knew, but they stopped

pretty quickly when someone informed the council.

I think we should all remember that we are the eyes

and ears of the council, every one of us in a way.

We haven't got people out there marshaling

every tree every day, so it's difficult.

Anyway, that's enough about the application.

Is it agreed?

Applications agreed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hedges.

Move on from that to decisions paper, paper 2192, sorry, page 2, paper, let's try again,

paper 25233.

23. Any comments? The closure of investigations paper.

I would like to point out that Palmer Crescent features in this list, on page 223, 76 Palmer

Crescent, the works without permission. It was immune from enforcement action. Just having

considered Palmer Crescent earlier. It is spreading around there.

Good one, Councillor. I have to give you credit where credit is due. Any comment?

That was for a dormer extension, which was completed more than four years ago and is

or is immune from enforcement action.

Good ball, good batting.

Councilor Ayers.

Sorry, 221.

I want to hear about the trees that were

in conservation area without notification consent.

What was done to the trees?

Is that the Daltree Road ones?

Daltree Road, yes.

What happened is that there were works carried out into these trees without a notification.

Usually they are trees in the conservation area rather than the TPO, so you should do

six weeks' notification to the council before doing works to them. They did not, so tree

officers went out and confirmed that the works that were taken were not harmful to the health

of those trees. We did give the owners a formal warning to remind them to go through the correct

process of the trees in the conservation area, but there was no action to take.

The Prime Minister's words are not in the report.

Any others? No. In that case, we will move on to the last paper.

closed appeals. Any comments? No. Thank you and good night and hope you have a

good July if you have your holidays in July. If you like me you wait until

September we've got a long way to go yet. Good night.

you

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

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

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

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 26 June 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications CommitteeThursday, 26th June 2025 at 7:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Planning Applications Committee
Thursday, 26th June 2025 at 7:30pm