Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Monday 14 July 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee
Monday, 14th July 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

It is 7 o 'clock and so I'm planning to start.
The sooner we start, the sooner we get home this evening.
My name's Michael Jarb and I'm chair of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
Individual members of the committee, I'm going to call your names.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm that you're here.
and once you've done that, can you please remember to switch off your microphone.
I'll start in alphabetical order.
Councillor Ayers.
I'm here, hello.
Councillor Belton.
Good evening, and have a pleasant one, Chair, in the chair.
Councillor Owens.
Good evening, Councillor Owens, Northcott Ward.
Thank you. Mr Armstrong, Clapham Society.
Good evening, everyone.
Francis Radcliffe from the Friends of Battersea Park, Andrew Catto, Putney Society.
Good evening, Chair.
Edward Potter from the RIBA,
Libby Lawson from Tooting History Society, I don't see.
Pamela Greenwood, Wandsworth Historical Society.
Good evening everyone.
And Peter Farrow, the Wandsworth Society.
Good evening.
And we have the following officers Lauren Way.
Good evening, Chair.
And Barry Sellers.
Good evening, Chair.
And on my right I have Callum Wernham, Democratic Services Officer.
Good evening and just to confirm we've received apologies from Mark Dodgen this evening.
Thank you.
Could you please ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking?
And just to avoid any further sources of embarrassment, could you do something to your phone to make
sure that it doesn't make an unwelcome noise during the meeting?
Okay.
Declarations of interest, are there any declarations, either registerable or non -registerable, and
if so, can you declare them now?
None?
Thank you.
I think that takes us on to the minutes of the meeting on the 6th of May.
First of all, can I sign them as a correct record?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Matters arising.
I'll do it page by page.
First of all, item 2, matter arising from the previous meeting, the 26th of March, the
local listing review, is there anything further to report on that?
Work is still ongoing for reviewing all of the information that we have received. We
are putting together a list of buildings to be added to the local list which will then
go out to a further public consultation. That is one of the main work streams that we are
looking into at the moment. We will have further information in a later committee meeting on
what the date of that public consultation will be. So this will be new additions to the list
and I think Mr Sellers has got an update on another stream of that work program which was the
historic street signs. Yes Mr Sellers, we've been progressing with the engineers the historic street
signs project and done a survey of all the street signs in the borough and this is being
put against the list of ones that the engineers want to refurbish and replace and we've done
the consultations to all the many societies on both of those two proposals and we've heard
back from the engineers saying that they're really adamant about retaining all of the
the heritage street name plates.
There's quite a typology of street name plates as well,
which we can discuss another time,
but it's good news that they are being refurbished.
Thank you, Mr. Sellers.
Can I say from my perspective,
that of my colleagues in Buttersay at least,
we're very impressed and pleased with the results
of the survey and how comprehensive that has been.
So many thanks to you and your colleagues for that.
Expecting an update in terms of a press release
sometime this week, but I haven't seen that yet.
Thank you.
Also under former matters arising, Fersdowne Lodge,
is there any more to report on that front?
I can confirm that there is a current pre -application in with the council planning department which
is ongoing which is to deal with the matter of the very special circumstances relating
to the bar use as it's in MOL. I can't say more than that obviously because
the pre -application is confidential but that pre -application is being considered by planning
and conservation officers at the moment.
OK, thank you.
Finally, under the former matters arising,
the ongoing, or is it still ongoing,
appeal relating to Waterfall House?
So for Waterfall House, we haven't got an appeal decision
yet, but there is an official start date
to the beginning of that appeal, which was the 25th of March.
It's been allocated to Planning Inspector.
So they are progressing it as part of the Planning
Inspector at deadlines.
We should hear in a matter of weeks,
or at least in the next month, based on the time scales
that they usually progress.
But there is a bit of a backlog with Planning Inspector
appeals at the moment.
So we've got quite a few waiting to be heard.
But the good news is it has got a start date.
so the process has started to take place from the end of March,
so we should be hearing soon.
Thank you, and I think the delays in the planning
in spectra have been well reported in the press.
Are there any other matters arising from the minutes
Item 3, the terms of reference.
Item 4, the applications.
Item 5, decisions and future meeting dates.
I think that takes us through the minutes of the last meeting, which then takes us on
to the applications paper, 25267, and the first one is Heliport House, application 2025 -09 -07.
Who's going to lead on this?
I shall lead on that one, Chair. Thank you.
This is an interesting building in so far as it's the site of a five -story office and work building
just next to the heliport.
And it's a very confined site because you've got
the heliport industrial estate just wrapped around
the outside of the building.
In fact, there's been quite a change since the pre -application
on that building as far as they've acquired a further unit
in order to put the forward because when it came up
at pre -app, there was no affordable accommodation
and they've now acquired another unit
in order to make the building slightly fatter.
Still the same height, but 34 stories,
to include affordable accommodation.
So that's quite important from that point of view.
It's a building which sits in an emerging area,
I think, if you might call it that.
I mean, we've got, I think a slide may come up
which shows the context of the building.
Certainly, you see the conservation areas there
on the plan to the north.
It's quite removed from the conservation areas per se,
but that's not without its issues,
which we'll come to later.
And this shows the other designated heritage assets
within the vicinity of the building,
listed buildings and local listed buildings,
including across the water, which is only one
local listed building on the other side of the water.
There's also the Sands End Conservation Area
and the other conservation areas we had nearby.
And Bassy Square, Three Sisters,
and Bassy Park Road Conservation Areas.
That just shows you the Sands End Conservation Area,
which really wraps along the frontage to the Thames,
basically, the reason for its destination
is to retain that sort of outlook
in terms of its industrial nature, effectively.
This is the building, nothing of any great shakes, I'm afraid
It's a five -story building, which has a permission,
I should point out, way back when,
for a 15 story building above the existing
five story building.
That was by Will Orsop and that building
has been consented and implemented effectively.
So that's, although the implementation of that,
you won't see much on the ground effectively,
but it has been implemented.
And the proposal now is to go an additional
or 14 stories above that consent.
Now the building is located in a tall building zone
within the local plan and the parameter height
of the local plan is 10 stories,
so even the consenting building is above that,
but so they're going up to 34 stories,
so it's quite a departure from the local plan provisions.
This shows you the tall building and mid -rise zones,
which is very useful.
The purple one being the tall building zone
and the light yellow being the mid -rise zone
and it's right in the middle there of the screen site.
This shows the emerging developments of U City extract.
The building showing there in blue right in the middle
is the actually consented 20 story building,
not the proposal, because this just shows
the consented sites in blue, and I think
the under construction sites in yellow, if I remember rightly
so it's surrounded by quite a lot of new development,
which is all part of the emerging local plan provisions.
You've got the blue is primarily the Winstanley estate,
where you've got buildings up to 32 stories in height,
the leisure center, and the buildings to the right,
you've got the RAD, which is up to 24 stories.
On the left, you've also got 25 stories,
and just immediately on the right,
you've got the former Price's Candles site,
which is coming up out of the ground now, 25 stories.
So its context is that you've got quite a number
of tall buildings coming up around it.
I should say, on the far left,
you've also got the Lombard Wharf Tower,
which is 28 stories as well.
Just going through the floor plans,
there's three tiers of basements.
I don't know whether I've included all of them,
but basically there's a car lift that takes down
for blue badge holders to the lower end cycles as well.
and then go up to the basement, Fert number one,
and then managing up to the ground ground floor,
it's because of the affordable,
you've got two independent accesses always required
for any registered provider
for taking on board the affordable,
they need to have a separate access for that.
So the yellow indications there is to the affordable,
and the private tenure is on the left -hand side.
You've also got a substation right in the middle
of the front as well.
On the top part of the site there,
which is the left hand, well the north side effectively,
is access to a live -work space with a small cafe there.
And that's part of the re -provided space
that's being lost in terms of the commercial space.
But it's also on the first floor,
there's also a first section,
so a mezzanine floor as well.
The workspace floor there, and then on the right -hand side you've got the play space as well for younger children.
There are some issues with that I think in terms of how that's going to be used.
You've got the twin staircases going up and the lifts as well.
So it's quite condensed.
Here you've got the Metzenida floor I believe it is with the workspace.
Again, it doesn't re -provide the full amount of workspace
that's on site at the moment.
We combine the industrial and the offices,
so that is not within the local plan provisions.
It's under providing the amount of office space.
We can perhaps move on.
This is a typical residential floor.
As you see, they're quite angular in terms of the floors.
The idea being that each flat actually has its own balcony
and floor space for, external floor space for balconies.
So it's quite intriguing from that point of view.
But it does give it a lot of character in terms of the visual side of it
when you see it in three dimensions.
Then we're moving up to the roof space.
roof space we've got two floors on the roof space, level one and level two, and that's
to enable the residents to have views from the top of that space and around that space
is provided with a planting and safety measures as well around it.
The idea also is to illuminate the top as well, they're giving it the idea of having
a beacon at the top. That does fulfill one or two issues as well.
On this floor again further, a mental space coupled with PV's and air source heat pumps
on top of the building. There's a roof plan showing the PV's on that floor level.
Just all four elevations, they've actually improved the elevation slightly by having
the additional unit taken on board.
So it's a slightly fatter building, but at the same time there's more window space to
each of the floors compared previously.
I think sculpturally it's quite well -mannered in that sense in terms of the alternating
in tiers of floors giving variation
in the actual elevation appearance of the building.
Some are double height, some are single height,
and it wraps around the building.
And you see the top of the building has this,
it's a glazed top, about two, three, four meters,
the glazing around it with the uplighters
and the poles and that as well, vertical poles,
steel poles around the top, which I think does need
some further consideration to some extent.
This is a nighttime view, certainly,
and it has a slight illumination on top.
One of the rationales for their location effectively
was to be close to Clapham Junction Station.
It's only a 15 minute walk from that location.
And the beak and the tower would act as a way marking device,
not only from the station, but also along the Thames.
Talking about the beacons of the landmarks along the river
to justify their case for a tall building.
Again, a further context, given the proximity of the heliport.
Of course, there are a number of issues
which that does raise, of course, being
in such close proximity, not only the heliport itself,
but also the residential, of course,
in terms of the noise and so on, the dust and turbulence.
Just a quick slide about materiality.
Here you have the, well, they went through
a few iterations.
This one is probably the one that's preferred,
which was the steel, the dark steel girders
alternating on each floor with a recycled brick, vertical brick, then the grey brick
there and then the glazing. I think it's either double or triple glazed, I can't remember
offhand. Then the wooden soffits, which are quite visible underneath the balconies because
when you look up they'll be certainly very visible.
The site itself is right next to the Thames path and one of the key drivers from the developers
point of view is they want to try and enhance the walk itself.
There's a cycling walking route which runs by, which is part of the whole length of River
but it cuts in to circle around the heliport
and it doesn't look very attractive at the moment
and the idea would be to, as part of a public realm scheme,
which would be outside the red line,
to enhance the character and appearance
of Bridgecock Road and the adjoining footpaths
with plants and a shared surface for cycling as well,
cycling pedestrians.
A quick sort of elevation at night,
it shows the ground floor, the cafe,
alfresco seating for people sitting outside,
and then you've got the floors above there.
We move on to local views.
The consultants undertook an evaluation of the views
over quite a wide area of the borough
and also the adjoining boroughs.
They had zone and theoretical visibility.
That was required to ensure that they do look at each,
in particular view and also the effects
on all the listed buildings and conservation areas.
So that's quite a widespread area across,
say the borough and adjoining boroughs.
This particular one is taken from
Westbridge Road Conservation Area
and it's a cumulative impact
when you look at the various buildings.
And the one in green I think it is,
is the tower coming forward.
And again we would regard that
as having less substantial harm in terms of the impact
on Westbridge Road Conservation Area setting.
Again, it's quite prominent in this view,
which is looking down westwards along Batterley Park Road.
You've got the dovetail cottages on the right -hand side
there, which is grade two listed.
It's the west extremity of the Conservation Area,
so it's the setting of the Conservation Area,
which we feel is impacted by the building
in terms of its visibility.
So again, this is, that's your harm would be
identified as part of that analysis.
This one, again, looking from the north of River Cross
towards Cremorne Bridge.
Of course, Cremorne Bridge is a grade two star
listed building.
And you can see the tower right in the middle
of that particular bridge there.
It's CGI, but you also see it next to the Lombard Wall,
which is 28 stories on the western part of the bridge,
and also the emerging building on Lombard Road,
which is 20 stories, which is,
maybe not under construction, it's certainly consented,
but maybe not constructed yet.
So you can see the context of that,
but again, we would say less than a inch long,
because one of the significance of the bridge itself
is the fact it connects across the river
and it sort of impacts on that visibility
and the connection between the two sides of the river.
Again, looking from the other side of the river,
the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham,
this is the Sand's End Conservation Area,
although it's a park, quite modern buildings,
but as I said, the conservation was designated
in order to protect the area in terms of its industrial heritage and so on.
But the view out, of course, is quite changed in terms of the emerging buildings
on this side of the river with the CGI of the tower which is centrally there.
So it does gain less substantial harm to that setting.
Again, one of the additional views we asked for was one from Orball Street in terms of
the Three Sisters Conservation Area.
And again, you can see the building popping up in yellow there against the Lombard Wharf
Tower on the right -hand side.
So although there's already some harm to that view, I mean, we still say there's additional
Again, taken from the other side of the river, the Lindrop Street,
again gives a strong view right down the center of the road.
You see the tall building emerging.
Again, it's outside the conservation area, but it's close
to the conservation area on the other side of the river.
So that really sums up the evaluation really effectively.
Any questions at all?
Okay, thank you, thank you, Mr Sellers.
Are there, first of all, any questions about either the application itself or the presentation
that Mr Sellers has made?
Factual questions, no?
Oh, sorry, Councilor Belton.
I'm not sure whether Mr. Sellers will know
and it may not be fair to ask.
I'm not sure the impact in conservation terms,
but I sent a photograph fairly recently,
may have got to you,
certainly sent it to Mr. Calder
about digging for the palace
just there, I'm not quite sure exactly where that is.
Sorry, this is a palace of Archbishop of York
in the work period and there's been some digging
going on around it now.
I'm not quite sure where it is.
I've just done a note to myself to chase it up
to see if we can get any architectural remains.
But is it anywhere near here?
Yes, yes, this council is actually just the south of the site and we've been to the site and there is not not part of the
Palace at all, which is just a later development that was footings. So there's no there's no
Need to actually protect that those footings at all because it's not part of the regional palace
Comment
I mean if no one wants to start, Mr. Catto.
Good evening, yes my comments are not actually on the design or conservation elements of this,
but one to wonder why the council is even beginning to consider an application that quite clearly cannot be built compliant with the building regulations on fire.
Shall I ask that one?
I have been looking at the building in that sense.
I raise questions in my comments,
particularly in terms of the glass balustrades.
As you probably know, there was a,
something came out not so long ago
saying that glass balustrades weren't really appropriate
for buildings.
And they say that they've done all the tests
tests on the glass balustrades that makes it sound.
But it wasn't, in the fire report,
which you probably look at on the website,
that the fire report hasn't flagged that up
as being a particular issue at all, which surprised me.
And also the fire report says that in terms of evacuation,
everything looks okay from that particular point of view.
So again, I just think further analysis is required
on that perhaps rather than just taking it for granted.
I mean, I think, you know, some testing, I think,
further is required in order to make sure that is the case.
Because obviously evacuation from a 34 storey building
is a serious case of fire if it ever happens, you know.
Are there other points you want to make about building regs, buildability?
I just probably need to elaborate.
The building proposed, if you look at any of the floor plans, occupies the whole of
its site, pretty much.
If you look at the ground floor plan, for example, there's a play area, so -called, which
has one window that faces directly onto the blank party wall, what will be left after
demolition of the next unit in the industrial estate, at a distance approximately slightly
shorter than that between myself and Mr. Armstrong here.
If you were to build an identical building next door
to this one, equally close to its boundary,
all of the windows, 34 stories of them,
would be this close.
Building regulations say that walls that are that close
to boundaries have to be unopenable and fire -resisting.
And yet there are bedrooms, balconies, and so on.
The buildings next door are the industrial state buildings,
single story buildings in the industrial state,
and one of them is certainly the play space.
We look at the ground floor of the play space,
it's very close to the next door buildings.
There are issues with that space,
because ideally, children should be having
some external space to access,
and that's not possible at the present time.
I think the GLA have raised that as well
as part of their consultation.
But in terms of what happens in the future,
I mean they've done, it's part of the DAS
where you've seen it, they did show a master plan
which suggests, it's a very informative master plan,
but there again, you just don't know what's gonna come
forward in terms of how it's gonna be acquired
because I think all those units are quite likely
to be individually owned by companies
rather than corporately,
because I know the current site had to negotiate
to acquire two of the units.
So how that's gonna come forward in the future as a scheme,
but they've shown it with a taller building
on the south side of the,
next to, on the York Road frontage,
And then it's much lower development elsewhere.
I mean, it's without seeing something coming forward,
you can't evaluate that, of course.
It's just an idea at the moment, in terms of a master plan.
There's no planning aspect to that master plan at all.
But yeah, it's an issue.
Proximity is gonna be an issue, certainly.
Thank you. Could I, from a local Battersea Society perspective, make a few comments about this?
Firstly, I think it is, as Mr. Solos has outlined, quite an interesting design.
But as Mr. Catto has pointed out,
it does cover the whole of the site.
There is no space around this building at all,
other than the public realm of the Thames Path.
So there is an issue about the scale of the development on the site itself
with as
Mr. Sellers has pointed out the
the remaining single -story
Industrial units to the to the south
Which have not been bought
by this developer having bought two of them.
And this is a site which has featured prominently
in the current local plan, indeed in previous local plans,
as a site allocation which needs a comprehensive redevelopment.
A second issue clearly is its height close to the Thames and its location near to conservation
areas but right on the river and right next to the heliport itself.
And the heliporters recently put in a very detailed set of objections to the scale, essentially,
of this building, the scale and the height.
There is yet further issue about access to the site, which is vehicle access can only
via an unadopted road which the developers don't own
alongside the Looker's garage car sales room
to the sort of northeast of the site.
And that gives rise to all kinds of issues
about parking, deliveries and so on.
So as I say, there are a number of issues
that we need to consider,
and planning department and eventually PAC
will need to consider about this proposal.
Having said that, I think it is a very interesting design
by a very distinguished set of architects at HTA Design.
So I think the issue is about,
well, there are issues about not so much
the look of the building,
but about its scale,
particularly its height,
and its taking up of the whole of the development site.
So more to do with its location
and the density of the site,
as well as access to the site,
particularly the vehicle access to the site.
So I would like to have some thoughts from the,
from Mr. Sellers on this way about those issues.
Yeah, if you go to the site at the moment,
you'll see that it's actually quite congested in terms
of motorbikes, delivery trucks, and so on in that sort
of area around the base.
and that was very noticeable when we were on site
to look at that some time ago.
The ambition, I mean, it's set out
in the design access statement,
but again, it's not within the gift
of the owner of the site, of course,
because it's all outside the red line,
and it wouldn't need a legal agreement set up
with the owners, as well as surrounding owners,
in order to fulfil any ambition for dealing with the public realm
in terms of its quality, how it's laid out, accessibility and so on.
So there are issues there, how that could come forward, you know.
Mr. Farrow.
So, two issues, I hope I remember both of them.
Somewhere on the presentation you gave,
I think it was on the list of materials,
it said the materials used on the affordable housing
were the same as those on the expensive housing
in order that they would be treated the same,
which is pleasing, but I recall when you discussed
That's the ground floor.
You said there were two separate entrances,
one for the rich and one for the poor.
What was that the case?
That's correct, that's a normal requirement
in most tall buildings because the
rest of the providers for any affordable housing
normally want to have that control over the site
for their own entrance rather than being
to be pep potted within the overall development.
So the two entrances, there's very little difference
in terms of the quality of the entrances,
it's just that they are separate entrances, yes.
Yeah, okay.
I rather thought that this had been sort of frowned on
in planning terms, or if not planning terms, social terms,
that the distinction should be reduced rather than sort of,
they should be integrated rather than separate.
and there were, you showed a plan of the, as it were,
the for sale housing, but there are obviously plans
for the affordable housing, but you didn't put those up.
The affordable housing is part and parcel
of the whole design, it's all integrated,
but I say it's on the lift cores, the storage,
there's two lift cores and two staircases,
and they, I think, just trying to remember,
the four housing owners was on one,
the right -hand side of one core going up to a certain level,
I can't remember the level offhand,
and then the top level, it's all private tendencies.
Well, that's the case, nothing to do about it,
but I kind of find it disappointing.
The second issue related to the matters
as you raised earlier, Chair,
about the height of the building.
I'm curious to know, as I think Andrew Catto said,
that why the council have accepted it
as a sort of a valid application
when it clearly offends the planning policy
in terms of its height.
But back in the day, there was guidance about the density
in terms of habitable rooms per hectare and the like.
And even further back in the day,
there were plot ratio considerations
which determined the bulk of the buildings
that could be fitted on sites.
Forgive me, I regret I haven't looked thoroughly
through the application.
Is that dealt with, that is the density of the development in those terms within the application documents?
I can't recall off hand the actual density being specified there but it's obviously going to be quite high.
But then you have to look at the context in terms of what's going on around the site of the building at the moment
because you've got the 32 storey building just to the north of that building coming up from with Stanley
and you've got the other two buildings,
25 stores, as I mentioned,
already consented under construction.
So they've chosen that particular site
because it's probably central
to the other buildings around it,
which gives them a key spot, so to speak,
within the urban mixture there.
Except, as it were, the context is important.
The context is always determined by the previous building,
which is invariably taller than the one before that.
And it's a constant process of things getting bigger, taller,
and more significant on the skyline.
I do have almost a knee -jerk reaction, an adverse reaction,
to buildings of this height,
because I think they do create problems in the landscape of the area.
and I think in conservation terms,
this building will have a significant effect.
I'm saddened by the fact that we have to say,
because previous mistakes, in my opinion,
have been made in granting buildings of excessive height,
exceeding the planning policies of the local authority
and I believe the London Plan,
that we have to accept, we have no option to consider
this is acceptable because of other disasters.
I don't think it's a significantly good reason
to give it justification by saying it's a way marker.
I've never found it easy where applicants
seek to justify and sometimes the planners
seem to support them by saying people navigate
their way around London by looking up
and spotting a tall building and working their way
towards it when they want to get somewhere,
it's complete and utter nonsense.
And if that's the only justification
that they can come up with for making it significant,
then I think it's a very poor justification.
That said, and all the other reasons
that we've been talking about,
I think it will have an effect
on conservation heritage assets in the area
simply because of its height.
And I would object to it,
irrespective of any merits that it may have
in terms of being an interesting tall building.
Thank you.
Perhaps I might add to that,
that 34 stories is significantly higher than 20, 25 stories.
But Councillor Ayers.
Thank you, Chair.
You've made very well the point I was going to make
about the second class entry.
And I would disagree with Mr. Sellers
that the second class entry is no worse than the other entry.
It is, it's narrower.
It has a very constricted entrance.
The only open space on the site itself
is by the other entrance.
There's a little chamfering off of the building
and a bit of planting there, and it's wider.
But however, I have been convinced many times now
of the need for two entrances,
and I'm not objecting to that.
I am objecting to the lack of facilities
in the other entrance.
That was one of my things I wanted to say.
I also wanted to raise the issue of play space.
Is there any connection between the play space
in that dreadful back basement with one window with no view.
Is that connected to the other play spaces
on the upper levels?
In which case, one can forgive that awful space
if it were to be used for, say,
the sort of sleeping arrangement of Bey Yajurum.
But if they're seen as separate uses,
then I really object to that play space and the basement.
but usable if it's connected with the other one.
My final point is, also been made already,
it is a very clever design.
I'm impressed how they've got the wheelchair units,
the low cost units, two lift, two staircases,
and on the ground floor, a substation as well.
It's very ingenious, it's very beautifully textured
as well as sculpturally, but you can't have something
which is so big for its site that you can't have
normal spaces for normal activities.
And that ground floor plan up there shows you
Look at the size of that bin store.
Imagine that bin store.
It's a greedy building.
I'm sorry, it's a very greedy building.
And I foresee lots of negotiations about them saying,
well, we'll take off four stories,
and then we'll reduce the affordable housing by 50 %
because we can't otherwise make a double digit profit.
I can see that coming.
But that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Are there any points that people want to raise that
haven't been raised already?
Mr. Potter?
Can you put your microphone?
I was going to add about the consent of the Civil Aviation Authority.
It seems to me to be a very dangerous spot to land helicopters, quite apart from the
acoustic, the amenity aspect of the noise and racket from helicopters for the existing
residents and proposed residents.
I think it's too much on that site.
And in construction you've got the problem of, again, amenity, traffic, heavy construction
vehicles and motor traffic.
So I would be against it.
Councillor Owens.
Thank you, Chairman.
Again, on the heliport, I'm a bit confused,
because we had a proposal obviously for a tower,
a glass mill further down the river,
which we all discussed in a previous meeting,
and we were told that at that time,
that the heliport were fine with that particular proposal
because the helicopters take off and don't go,
effectively don't go east, they go in and out west.
and I was wanting to understand a bit more
because obviously the heliport have obviously
objected to this.
And similarly, why do we keep allowing developers
to put forward plans which go against the local plan?
I mean, that's another one.
But yes, interested in the heliport, thank you.
Okay, are there any other points that haven't been raised
before I try to sum up?
It seems to me that we are, all the voices I've heard are again this building as it is, at present.
There are issues related, well the Heliport has put in a very detailed objection, as we know.
We're concerned about the impact on the nearby conservation areas.
We're concerned particularly about the height of the building and related to the height
of the building, its location on the river,
and also the way in which it occupies the whole of its site.
So it's a very dense, or as Councillor Ayres has put it,
a very greedy building in its location.
Sorry, can I just try and finish summarizing?
We are also concerned about access to the site,
which is not controlled,
and it is in the hands of others,
rather than the developers.
So we would be buying, as it were, a pig in poke
in terms of access.
I think, does that meet most of the points?
Oh, and the points about the facilities
on the two lower floors.
Councilor Ayers, I've missed something.
No, I don't think you missed it.
I think it needs a bit more emphasis, that's all.
that the density, the population of when it's finished
is going to generate so much traffic, delivery traffic,
not just people going to and from where they live.
But these people aren't going to cook.
It's going to be food deliveries, grocery deliveries.
I mean, and where are these bikes going to park,
or these vans going to, where are they going to park?
Are they going to go down in the lift
to the bicycle parks in the basement?
Delivery's going to be made by helicopter.
It's the future.
Ha ha ha ha.
I will take that as a joke.
No, my mind is a serious point
because one has seen it all around very dense.
I mean, masses and masses of food delivery bikes.
And vans too, which would have to go down
bridges Court Road which is a narrow heavily parked road not suitable for
large volumes of traffic.
Yes indeed indeed. Is that a reasonable summary of our objections? Is anyone
If I'm going to say that this is a building
they would not object to.
Okay, in that case let's.
Chair, just apologies for the ringing.
It merely proves that I'm technically,
I did try and silence the thing.
I thought it was silent, so yeah.
Me and technology.
Okay.
Let us move on to application 2025 -2138
Garages, Bursdock Road.
Who's going to lead on this?
Mr. Sellers again.
Yes, that's right.
It's an interesting small site in Bursdock Road.
It's really sort of tucked out of the way, effectively.
You can't really see the site from the street very well.
It's been subject of a pre -application
and the pre -application, they advised that if you're going
to include the rear gardens of 24, sorry, 25 or 26,
which it does, then it should be not of a single building.
They say it's oversized for the site.
that was what was the words we used as our recall.
But they've gone ahead and put the application in
and you see it's in the back land area
of the conservation area, Oxford Road conservation area.
To the north there you've got the alms houses there,
locally listed, and 289 I think it is,
the grade two listed building on the corner.
So, and then you've got the quite tight knitly grain
of the buildings and the conservation there,
particularly in Perstock Road itself,
whereas actually they're coming forward
with which is basically a two story detached house,
which is in terms of its footprint and massing and so on,
it's really quite an anathema really
to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
And the excess is very tight,
but I suppose, I don't know how they would have got cars
down there, originally, the four gouges at the back,
but it seemed extremely tight.
I'm sure the gouge is probably too small
in today's numbers in terms of getting cars in there,
but it wouldn't be used for access
apart from just for pedestrians and cyclists,
really, getting down that lane.
It's a very tight site indeed.
The idea would be to say if you look at the plan
coming forward, it says one single detached building,
irregular shape, very large garden effectively,
which is again quite unusual for the character
and appearance of the conservation area.
We've got a block of flax on the right hand side,
I think that's three or four stories,
four stories, I think it's probably four stories
as a member, and the rest of the plans in terms of
first, second, front, roof scape.
But it's a single building, and when you look at
the local plan, because local plan says under
policy LP7, for example, that you should amalgamate,
if you're amalgamating sites, then you should
have more than one building for that site.
and it doesn't really, you know, I think probably two small units might have been more appropriate
than one single large house.
But again, you could have had something also, well, in terms of design, it's a, again, doesn't
really fit into the conservation area in terms of its design either, because when you look
at the buildings around it, particularly in the streetscape of Bursloch Road, they're
very much, well, self -contained, very tight grain buildings, whereas this is just an open,
in one open large building in a very constrained site.
So really, I mean, I've got a great deal to say about it
other than to say the design is unusual
and it occupies a good part of that site.
And from a streetscape point of view,
you can't really see the views very much.
This is some CGI's or what they're proposing,
which is saying if you think of the character and appearance
of Bursock Row, for example.
He's not really in line with that particular
character appearance at all.
So, it should be much more well -mannered
and well -considered in that context, I feel.
Again, just showing the large garden
proposed around the building.
Here's the CGI's coming up.
So it's a question of really thinking about the impact of that particular proposal on
the character appearance of the conservation there and what the Métis views are.
Okay, thank you Mr Sellers.
Any factual questions relating to this proposal?
Okay, comments on it.
I'll start with Mr Catto.
Thank you, thank you Chair.
The Partney Society has seen this one.
We like what we see and are not therefore,
have decided therefore not to comment against it,
if you see what I mean.
The point to bear in mind is that that corner of Partney
was fairly heavily bombed in World War II.
So in fact, every adjacent building that appears
on the site plan that we were shown earlier is modern.
It's 1950s or 80s or similar,
and they're a mixed bag to put it politely.
So I think this site has no impact on any of the
historic elements of this conservation area,
because bluntly you can't see it from anywhere that matters.
As such, it is free reign and we rather welcome
that a local small -scale developer,
who should be encouraged, amalgamated the gardens
of several houses to create a back plot.
And I can assure Mr. Sellers that having designed
a similar back land plot now under construction,
myself, it's all about the daylight angles,
which is why the roofs end up the way they are.
You've got to keep away from everybody else's
rights of light on all of the boundaries
in the way that the developers of Heliport House
don't seem to have done.
Thank you. Mr. Farrow.
I very much support the comments. It looks like a well -considered attractive building and asset to the area. I'd happily support it.
So two supportive comments or supportive or neutral comments.
Any other comments that people want to make about this proposal?
Well, if not, I think what we're saying is that we are, if I can put it this way, content
to let this application go forward.
Is that right?
I prefer something a little more positive.
It sounds like damning with faint praise.
I prefer if others agree to say that it's a pleasure to see a well thought out put together scheme on a site like this.
Okay, people happy with that?
Okay, let us then move on to the grapes, which is an application.
Well, there are proposals, there have been proposals for the grapes on Fairfield Street,
which we have considered in this committee before.
This is a slightly revised one, 2025 -1091.
Who's going to lead on this?
Ms. Way.
Thank you, Chair.
So the committee will be well aware of this site.
So the Grapes Public House just close to where we were cited
on Fairfield Street.
The building itself is grade two listed,
19th century, two story public house building
at the corner of Fairfield Street and Barshard Street.
As you're aware, it's within the Wandsworth town
conservation area and the buildings to the north
of the site along Fairfield Street and along Barshard Street
are all locally listed buildings.
So as Mr. Dub has already stated,
this has come to the committee back in 2023,
beginning of 2023, for an application within
in the northern part of the site,
which is currently occupied by some sheds
and is not, forms part of any of the gardens
in the public house, which is largely to the west.
The previous application that was brought to the committee
was for a two -story house in the location
in the same red line plan as you'll see here,
in the same location.
That application was refused by officers.
It went to appeal and was dismissed at appeal.
Subsequently, a further application was submitted in later 2023, early 2024, which was for a
single -storey house in the location, which was then subsequently approved.
So they do have permission on this site in the Red Line boundary for a residential building,
but albeit the reason why it was considered acceptable by the planning officers was because
of its two single -storey nature, which then seeks to maintain that gap between the two
the public house, the local interested buildings,
and recedes within that street scene.
What they're now proposing is subsequent to that permission,
they are seeking to introduce another story
on top of the single story building
that they have been granted permission for
and actually the footprint will be enlarged.
So you'll see the designations as I've mentioned,
and this sort of enclave of worker cottages
and Victorian buildings that have been encompassed
by the conservation area.
This is the building in question.
Despite its very modest height,
it is quite grand and quite a presence on Fairfield Street
by virtue of its detailing
and particularly the balustrade and the arch windows
that give it a sense of classical grandeur.
So this is the site, red line boundary with service yard
between the grapes and the red line site.
So this is what they're proposing
in terms of the site plan.
So you see you've got the single story building,
the access from Fairfield Street
and the additional story on top,
which is just set back from number 43.
Elevation drawings, so taking some of the cues
from the previous permission
in terms of that curved arrangement of the corner,
but effectively we're looking at sort of box
on top of the single story building
with like a pyramidal roof,
sort of very shallow pyramidal roof on top of that.
Some brick detailing and brick relief work
to this side elevations and on those curved elevators,
but quite simple facade treatment.
And the entrance will be towards the rear,
so the southern elevation here.
I've included, this is just a plan form so you'll see here the main premise of the proposals is to
add an extra bedroom which they previously had, didn't have permission for, so it was quite a
small house just a single bedroom. So now it's looking at a two bedroom property with a self -contained
home office included. It's illustrated street elevation to show that additional story and you
see here, the red line here is what they have permission for in terms of the
height and that layout. So they've brought that elevation down
slightly but it is wider than the previous permissions. It takes it right
up to the north part of the red line. So I've added this in just for this to
illustrate the difference between what was given permission for, this wasn't in
a presentation that we sent out to you on Friday where this shows you what was given
permission for in terms of the height and scale and actually the site location plan
here you see here that actually is much smaller building in terms of footprint and so therefore
you have a much larger space around the building for some modest garden but it stays at single
story and seeks to recede within the street scene behind what
will be a newly built brick wall along Fairfield Street.
At the moment, half of this boundary is brick,
and then half of is fence.
So there will be a brick wall along this boundary.
One of the reasons that was raised
is in terms of a concern from the two -story development
that we brought to the committee back in early 2023 was this set forward nature of the building
and the impact it would have on the three arched windows of the grapes looking down Fairfield
Street which is quite prominent detail as you're walking down Fairfield Street from
Wonsworth Town and Old York Road, Wonsworth Town Station and Old York Road and turning down towards
Wandsworth town.
So this is an illustration to show that they're seeking
to try to set building back to such an extent
that these three arch windows will be retained.
However, you'll see that two story element
there in terms of its relationship with the listed building
and the locally listed buildings next door.
And that's what we have.
We don't have that many CGI's in this apart from this one.
I'm going to put it back to our street scene because that's probably your best illustration
of what the proposals were looking at in its context.
In light of the planning context in terms of what they've got permission for and what
the Committee has considered in previous committees in terms of the two -story element of that
dismissed application, it would be good to understand what the Committee's views are
of this now amended scheme with the extra story on top.
Thank you.
Any factual questions to start with?
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, I'd like to know about the flat roof
of the single story element, whether that could become
a roof terrace or garden or some kind of washing line
hung out and stuff like that.
Is it actually pitched or is it an asphalt flat roof?
So the single story element of the development
is a flat roof.
It can be controlled, but in terms of the use of that,
can be controlled by virtue of condition
to ensure that it cannot be used as a roof terrace or any
paraphernalia be added on top due to the impact it might have on the quality of the build
and on the surrounding heritage assets. The first four element has got a sort of a pyramidal
roof, so there wouldn't be any ability for them to use that as a roof terrace. There
will be photovoltaics on that roof towards the rear part of that roof as well, so they
they won't be able to use that top,
the top roof either,
because of the nature of its design.
Any other factual questions?
Right, comments.
I'll start with Mr. Farrow.
I'm slightly conflicted because I think
if it was somewhere else,
it would be quite a nice building.
Nicely put together, I sort of like the look of it,
but I think it suffers from the problems of the scheme
that was rejected in as much as it's too big.
This is a site which I think would be better developed
in single story building, and I think that I would object
to it on that basis, sympathetic to the designer,
but I think that, well there are two things,
it's too big in terms of it being two stories
and it's probably too big in terms of the footprint
the area it occupies on the site.
The previous application had a rather splendid garden.
This one doesn't really have a garden at all.
It's like sort of a pathway around the building.
I think that they should be content
with what they were previously allowed
and not try and get a little bit more by trying again,
we would object to it on the grounds
of its bulk and height.
Thank you.
Does anyone dissent from that view?
Mr. Catto.
Yes, sorry to dissent,
but I think the case for a single -story building
is a weak one when everything around it
in that immediate block is two stories.
I would suggest that it's actually more in keeping
to catch up than to stay down.
If I may, I agree.
It's surrounded by two -story buildings,
but it was and has been for some considerable while.
sort of single story, I think that is what benefits
the area, the pub standing distinctively as it does
and effectively the garden area of it was
and the buildings to the north.
I think that's the composition that I would very much
prefer, again sympathetic to the applicant in seeking
to do what they've done, and I think they've done it well.
But as I say, only in as much as that
I think the proper development of the site
should be single story, would I object to it.
Could I ask a question which I should have asked before?
Do we have a CGI which
would show the effect as you proceed south along Fairfield Road on those
three very distinctive arched windows and the view of them. All we have is
this image here which is not a CGI so to speak but a hand, a drawn CAD
a CAD drawing to show the location of the development,
which is in yellowy orange.
So that doesn't give you any detail of the development,
just gives you its sighting and height
in relation to those three arch windows
to show its setback nature.
We don't have anything more than that, unfortunately.
And those are the images to show the existing context,
albeit they're quite pixelated because of the nature
of this being quite a small drawing that was provided.
So this is all we have in terms of that impact.
So the answer to my question is essentially
that it would not obscure the views of those,
what seems to me the most important aspect
of the sighting of the building.
Mr Potter.
Thank you.
I think the general site arrangement is fine, the space around the building.
There's two minor comments I'd like to make.
That is the roof shape I think should be
like its neighbours. The pitch should be slightly
higher or sharper, added to which
I think the single story bit should be pushed back
by about 300 or so from the facade of the two story.
The single story should be pushed back, yes,
300 behind the two story bit to be a step,
step in the facade.
That's it.
Okay, so we have different views on this.
What I like about this building is that it's not trying to ape the buildings next to it,
but it's very sympathetic to the styling. I think it's elegant and graceful. I agree
its position on the site could be improved. I think that would help it. But in terms of
whole area, the whole conservation area. I really want to see as many single houses introduced
into that area because otherwise it's just going to be an endless forest of towers from
Swandon way down. So that area is a sort of last little enclave of small, dense domestic
buildings which I like very much so I would like to encourage this to go ahead with a
few amendments which have been discussed.
Can I try and square a circle by saying that essentially we have comments to make about
about this application.
There are some concerns about the detail of the location
of the building and particularly the relationship
between the ground floor and the first floor, Mr. Potter's point.
We do not, we're sympathetic to a two -story building
so long as the impact on the environment
of the grapes can be minimized.
Is that a reasonable attempt at squaring this circle?
So we're commenting, we're not saying yay or we're saying nay, we're just commenting.
Is that okay?
Thank you.
Do I have a failed career as a diplomat?
Let us move on.
Don't try to answer that question.
2025 2022, the London Rowing Club.
Who's leading on this?
Thank you, Chair.
Last one of the evening.
So London Rowing Club within Putney Embankment.
So the site itself is a three -story building
constructed in around 1871.
It formed one of the first rowing clubs
to be built along the Putney Embankment.
One of the reasons why it forms part of the local list,
as you see here,
is also within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area.
Other things to notice,
is there's a set of bollards just to the east
or southeast of the site,
which are actually listed in this location here.
So this is the building in question.
There's been some alterations to the building,
but largely it has retained
its original Victorian character.
And the subject of the application
is this first four balcony,
and it's the one area of the building
which has been quite considerably changed.
So if you see in the heritage statement there's quite a lot of information about this building
and some previous imagery and historic images of the building.
The current balcony, first floor balcony here that you'll see is modern and has been greatly
altered from the previous balconies.
It's got a modern balustrade timber, it's not in the best of conditions and previously
the previous balcony had a canopy over it,
which when you see up front,
when you go actually onto the balcony itself and look up,
you can see some scarring where the canopy
was there previously.
There's a very large flagpole right in front of the building
historically wasn't there.
It was further to the west of the building,
but has since been moved towards the center of the building
and now forms quite a distinctive feature
as you walk down Putney Embankment.
And it's a typical arrangement with the boat houses
at the ground floor to allow the boats to be drawn out
and straight down the slipway into the Thames.
And then the first floor being a lot too large open rooms
which allow access onto this balcony.
So there's another image here to show that
the location of the building in relation to the abankment
is something to make you aware of.
There are bollards in front of the site
which are in a slightly awkward angle
because of the nature of the site and the red line boundary,
a lot of these bollards have been truncated and cut off.
So this is the existing front elevation here
to show you the existing balcony
with the very large flag pole
right in the center of the building.
A section through the building to show
how its relationship with that balcony
and the main function room at first floor level.
And the proposal is effectively to replace that balcony completely, extend it outwards
so it will wrap around the central flagpole and reintroduce the balcony or the canopy.
The canopy will not extend to the same depth as the balcony, it will actually extend to
the original depth of the historic canopy that was on site.
The detailing of it is sought to try to pick up some of the cues from some of the old photos.
So the detailing of the balustrade will be very similar to some of those historic photos
shown in the heritage statement.
Here shows the sections, you see the increase in depth here, so the current balcony sits
roughly around this point here.
So they're extending it out, the flag bowl will be retained and it will be wrapped around it.
but the canopy will not extend out that full depth,
largely because of the flagpole, but again will be
sort of three quarters of the depth of the canopy.
The main premise of this application is to just
to improve the facilities at the Rowing Club,
this being quite a well used space,
because it's connected to the main function rooms
of the Rowing Club.
So it really seeks to try to enhance those facilities
within the club and improve upon them.
They have weddings, et cetera, at the site.
Any noise disturbance associated
with the use will be heavily controlled by conditions,
so they'll have restrictions on how long they can use the balcony
for to try to protect the residents surrounding
so that there's not just noise disturbance at certain hours.
And here you go.
The first four plans, as shown, the existing balcony
balcony and the proposed balcony, and that increase in depth taking you all the
way up towards the flagpole.
You see the line of BAM bollards here.
It doesn't say, but it does say in the Heritage Statement that those bollards
will be restored.
That was a request at pre -application stage that those bollards
will be restored.
They are seeking to introduce that.
It may not be obvious in the plans, but it is set out in the Heritage Statement
that that will be sought, and it can be conditioned that we try to make sure
that that takes place.
It was subject to pre -application engagement
and changes have been made following that pre -application
engagement.
The pre -application actually sought
to have staircases either side of the balcony
so that you didn't have to go inside of the building
to go up to the balcony and the quite large staircase
at the other side of it, which did then,
in that combined with the increase in depth,
did provide make it quite a bulky and assertive feature on the front elevation. They've taken
those two staircases off and they've also made some changes to the design of the balustrade
to look at something that's more akin to what was there previously. So finally just some visuals of
the balcony here to show it in its context and the increase in depth. Now are the changes proposed
And this is a cross -section to show that the balcony and its increasing depth with the
canopy with retractable warnings proposed.
It can come forward and back.
And then the design of the balcony, which again can be conditioned in terms of detailed
drawings, but they have picked up some of the detailing of those previous images that
they found in the Heritage Statement.
Within the actual building itself, there's a big image of the rowing club which shows
the actual balcony, the original balcony as well, which is included in the Heritage Statement.
So given it's a locally listed building, one of the most prominent buildings within this
particular conservation area as well, I really welcome the committee's views on what they
consider of this application and where they think it's appropriate for the locally listed
building and the conservation area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions of fact to start with.
Councilor Ayers.
What's so special about the bollards?
Wasn't necessarily, are you talking about
the listed bollards or the ones in front of the building?
Why would you list bollards on this?
It says two miles to London or something.
It was just that they looked quite run down
because the bollards had been cut.
So by reinstating the bollards as they were,
because they are there, but they've been truncated.
So it just means that then those features are reinstated
as they were, rather than it being quite,
it looks unfinished at the moment.
So it's just an extra feature that they're going
to reinstate as part of this proposals.
Hey, any other questions?
Comments?
Mr. Catto, I think you're Bailey.
It is indeed. The Partner Society have already written in support of this application.
My only question in any sense is,
and if you look at them, the historic photos that have been provided with the application,
you will see that the original canopy survived until about 1970.
So there's plenty of evidence of what should be there, used to be there.
Indeed, the shape of the building with half -round windows
separated from the French doors is designed entirely
to have a canopy.
So we thoroughly welcome the reinstatement of the canopy.
And I welcome the balcony with a provisor
that there's not enough detail on the scale of the drawings
at the moment to see if the railing is really gonna be
as nice as it sounds from their report.
Any other comments about this?
Again, I would very much like to support
the Putney Society's comments.
It seems a good proposal, nicely done.
Anyone want to add to that or?
No?
In that case, I think we're approving of this application.
Yes.
That takes us on to item 4 on the agenda, paper 25268, which summarises the, well, gives
an account of the decisions.
I'm just going to go through the decisions that have been taken on applications that
the committee has considered in the recent past.
160 Falcon Road, which we discussed last time and approved, and planning commission has
been granted.
Number 2, 7 Vicarage Mansions on Queenstown Road.
We objected and the decision was to refuse, so that is welcome.
Number three is 6 to 12 Endlesham Road, the gardens at the rear, to which we objected
and it went to Planning Applications Committee which in the end after a debate granted planning
permission.
I feel almost that I needn't say anything about number four, the glass mill.
It will be firm in most people's memories.
We still don't know whether an appeal is going to be submitted.
We know that they have said that they will appeal.
No appeal has been submitted as yet.
in my understanding, is that right?
Thank you.
Number five was Tootingbeck, 100 Tootingbeck Road,
a building that has been before this committee many times.
We objected to some of the details of the application,
but again Planning Applications Committee after some debate granted approval.
And number six, the Battersea Power Station, which we commented on,
and again Planning Commission was granted by delegated authority.
And finally, number 794 Bolingbroke Grove, which we objected to, was refused and they
went to appeal and the appeal was dismissed, which I think we should welcome.
planning
Inspectorate doing its job
Any comments anyone wants to make on any of those decisions
Francis
Just a point of clarification for all my benefit at any rate is there a time limit
for
appeal against the glass mill refusal I
Think it's six months from the app from when the application has been
Refused for be refused by the local authority. They have that period of time to decide whether to appeal. I
Believe so. Yes, so six months. Thank you
So sometime before Christmas they've got to get it in.
Is, sorry, Peter Parro.
Sorry, just one thing about the Endlesham Road that we objected to.
I wasn't present at the meeting but I supported the objection, I will support the objection.
I watched online the Planning Applications Committee consideration of the scheme and
we've mentioned before that the committee does not seem to give significant weight to
what it is that we say and I think that was apparent in the debate on Edensham Road that
our opinion, I think, was not given the weight that it should have been.
I know that's something that you have yourself felt sensitive to in the past.
So I just wanted to know whether or not you think it is a point that we should record,
if indeed you agree.
I think probably that is a matter for an offline conversation with the chair of the planning
applications committee.
As you were.
Any other?
However, however, I think I can understand that comment
in all sorts of ways, but the committee gave it fairly
broad consideration, as I remember it,
the person sitting behind me was rather supportive
of this committee's observations.
Did I get that right?
You were, weren't you?
Rather supportive.
So it was considered, but there were other things
to be borne in mind, including the gain
of a certain number of residential units
and other attitudes that committee members,
planning applications committee members,
considered to be more significant, perhaps.
They weren't of course looking at it
just from the point of view of the impact
on conservation area.
It's a broader sweep.
So I wouldn't say we ignored the comments at all,
but I can understand why you might feel so bad.
Thank you.
So we've had an online word from the chair of PAC.
Is there any other business?
In which case I simply draw your up. Sorry
Sorry chair just to
Raise the fact I don't expect the committee because none of you will had chance to see these things
Just to raise for information
That in the last couple of weeks have been two new applications concerning listed buildings in Southwest 15
One is for 26 Bessborough Road, which is grade two listed
in 1938, housed by Colin Lucas of Collin Ward and Lucas.
And the second is for new disabled access
and lots of solar panels on the roof
of the Methodist Church in Putney.
We, as a panel, supported the Methodists' proposals
and are neutral on the Bedsborough Road Bounds,
which looks like a new owner doing the right thing
by a long suffering house.
But I don't know if it,
obviously these would be long since decided
by the time we next meet.
Sorry, you did signal in advance
that you wanted to raise that,
and I'm sorry I forgot about that.
Is there any other business?
In which case can I remind you that we meet again on
The 8th of September
And
I'm told that it will not be in the council chamber, but will be back in committee room
which is slightly more comfortable, certainly, I have to say as chair, it is slightly more
comfortable for me.
I'm a little older in here, though, believe it or not. Sorry, I was just going to say
you can give my apologies perhaps to the committee chair for that occasion. I will be on holiday,
I'm glad to say.
Thank you very much everyone and thank you for your attention this evening and I hope
you don't melt when you get home.