Planning Applications Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Planning Applications Committee
Wednesday, 23rd July 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

Good evening. It is 7 .30. I'd like to start on time for people's general convenience.
So welcome to the Planning Applications Committee, July 23rd, Wandsworth Town Hall. My name is
Tony Bellton. I'm the Councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea. I'm also the Chair
of the Planning Applications Committee.
I will ask members to introduce themselves
as they make contributions during the evening,
and that goes for officers as well,
but I think it's right to start with introducing the people
on the top table with me, starting on my left.
Good evening, I'm Nick Calder,
I'm the Head of Development Management at Wandsworth.
Good evening, my name's Duncan Moore,
so I'm the External Legal Advisor.
Good evening, I'm Becky Hickey, and I'm the Clerk.
Right, I have one thing one development has occurred
Which I'm sure interests all members so slightly unusually
I'm going to turn first of all to our legal advisor to keep us up to date about
developments as far as
Wimbledon
Tennis Club is concerned
Thank you, good evening members
The hearings for judicial review issued by Sabaldon Park were heard at the Royal Court of Justice on 8th and 9th July.
Judgement was handed down on Monday afternoon.
The claimant's application to challenge the decision of the Deputy Mayor to grant planning permission was dismissed on all three grounds.
There is a 38 -page judgement that I will be very happy to send to Mr Cawder, who can send
to you all.
I will also provide a summary to explain the main issue, which was the ground one point
relating to the statutory trust and the restrictive covenant, and whether or not that was a material
consideration in the determination of the planning application.
Following the decision being handed down on Monday, Sabre -Wendell Park made a written
application to the trial judge for leave to appeal
to the Court of Appeal.
On the train on the way up this afternoon,
I received a copy of the order from the trial judge
that refused that application,
but that's not quite the end of the storey.
Say Wimbledon Park have until the 22nd of August
to make an application to the Court of Appeal
for permission to take matter to appeal.
So they would need to persuade the Court of Appeal
that there was a reasonable prospect of succeeding on Ground 1, which is the ground that relates
to the statutory trust and the restrictive Government point.
Thank you.
That is a matter of great significance to all of us.
I am just about to say that anyone who has any questions?
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Just for other members and officers.
Can you introduce yourself?
Oh, beg your pardon.
Yes, Councillor Guy Humphrey is Councillor for Southfields in Putney and opposition speaker
on this committee.
Yeah, I was at a meeting last night, so I've got a further update on that which members
and officers might be interested in.
So I think the Save Women and Park campaign are having a meeting on Friday, if I'm not
wrong, to decide whether they're going to take that route to go down the route to ask
for an appeal.
There's also a further case which All England are bringing, and the opposition again is
Save Wimbledon Park campaign about the issues of the trust as a separate issue.
That's coming to court, I think it's got a date in January.
And there's also still outstanding the matter of the issues between Merton Council
and the all -England of the sale of the right and the other legal issues to do with that,
which is a separate thing, which again, that will have a court date at some point further down the line
probably next year.
So it's, as one of the campaigners said last night, it's set one to Wimbledon,
but two sets still to go, so we'll see where we end up
further in the next year.
You used a sporting analogy quite right,
and probably too, I was gonna say all is not lost,
all is not won, depending which perspective,
but for some people, a battle was lost today,
or a battle was won, depending how you look at it.
Okay, well, we'll no doubt hear more about that later on.
Councillor Humphries has seen the minutes,
is it okay if I sign them as a correct record?
everyone agreed?
Agreed, thank you.
Declarations of interest from any member
who's got an interest in any of the applications.
Oh, Council Humphreys.
Me again, sorry, yes.
I have to declare an interest in item two,
150 to 170 Penn with road,
so I'll be stepping off the committee for that one,
and if you call me back in afterwards,
because I have a relationship with the developer,
so I didn't want to prejudice anything in that one.
Thank you for that.
No other interests? No. Councillor Hedges is here to talk on item four as I
remember it. Because I want to deal with area by area, I'll take the Battersea
items, Battersea, the east area item, sorry, the west area items first and then
and move straight on to the one that Councillor Hedges
is concerned with, which is 70 Thirdly Road.
So we'll go one, two, four, three, five.
If everyone's happy with that.
Okay, thank you.
Move on to item one.
Sorry.
Oh, yes, I should say that.
Other apologies.
Yes.
Yes, is he away on holiday?
Otherwise engaged, good for him.
No doubt, we'll see him back soon enough.
Right, moving on to number one, Maryvale Road,
which is a variation on the previous application.
Seems fairly uncontentious to me.
Anyone got any particular comments or questions?
Councillor Humphries.
Sorry, I'll let someone else have a word in a minute.
Just a point of clarification perhaps
would be helpful slightly on this one.
So I understand from on the objections comments,
which were round the first time round
before they made amendments to the scheme.
And I think the principle objections were to overlooking
that was caused by a north facing window.
And just to be clear, because it wasn't a report,
just so people understand if they're watching in,
but that's, I understand, been deleted from the scheme now,
so the only additional window is the west -facing one
that's alongside the one that's already there.
That's right, isn't it?
Just so that people understand that the one
that was the main point of contention isn't there anymore.
Miss Richards.
My name is Ellen Richards.
I'm the team leader for the west area,
and yes, that's correct, and I think the applicants
went and discussed the matter and considered it further,
and they've amended the drawings accordingly,
which is also part of the late items,
just to clarify that the drawings have been updated
to reflect that.
Could I just make a quick comment, Chair?
Just to say, it's really good to hear,
and it's a nice example.
I wish all developers and neighbours
could have those kind of conversations first,
because it would make life a lot easier for all of us
if some of those things could be ironed out civilly
before it gets to the committee.
So thank you to all parties for that.
Thank you for that, Councillor Humphries.
Okay, is that agreed?
Agreed, thank you.
Agreed unanimously.
Moving on to the second item,
which is again, variation of conditions,
but perhaps slightly more contentious.
The Hundley,
170 Penwith Road,
and Councillor Humphries is leaving as he said he would,
which is fair enough.
So it's a variation of conditions.
Ms. Richards.
Thank you.
Just a quick summary really.
It's quite a lengthy report and detailed.
Much of the report actually tried to set out the history of the site that led to this application
that's before you this evening.
So essentially the application was refused by officers, the original application that
this one's linked to, because it was very much contrary to policy in terms of introducing
residential land, other uses on a site which is protected industrial land and
it went to appeal and the inspector approved it and this is the scheme. There
was two schemes but this is the residential scheme if you like that is
being varied. Under the approved application there were 17 residential
units allowed and eight of those were to be affordable housing intermediates or shared
ownership essentially and the remainder were to be market housing. There's been a lot of
to it and fro in over the recent years by the applicant to reduce the number of units
on the site, in particular the affordable housing.
One of those applications which was brought to committee
was actually for six units, affordable units,
and that was approved at the committee.
However, it was ultimately refused
because applicants refused to sign
the section 106 agreement,
because there was a condition attached
to the commercial element that retained that
to be a particular industrial use
rather than a broader Class E. However, the principle of reducing the number of affordable
units from eight to six was accepted by the committee at that time. And in the interim,
they've come back with another application that was refused that reduced the affordable
housing to two units only on site. That was refused by officers and it was brought before
members and agreed with officers' recommendation because that was an unacceptable reduction
in the offer. And so now they have come back again with just the residential changes. They've
kind of separated it from the commercial changes that they'd sought originally. And so now
we're left with six affordable housing units. They are all one -bed units and they're all
going to be located at first floor level, which is actually an improvement on the original
approval, because that split the affordable up to second floor and first floor. So this
will make it easier to be taken on by a registered provider. Applicants have confirmed that this
is the case, that they have found a registered provider that will take them on. So hopefully
that will come forward if this was granted.
Also, crucially, the site has pretty much been completed
and a lot of the residential units have now been occupied.
And the support letters that we've received
in respect to the application is actually from
some of those residents who are currently
sort of stuck in a legal situation
because things can't be finalised while this is outstanding.
It's not ideal and it is regrettable that we're losing a family unit as part of this.
However, taking all matters into account and the previous application that was approved
in theory anyway, is a material consideration now.
It's all pretty much built.
officers feel that on balance this is an acceptable proposal and the recommendation is to approve.
Not a satisfactory position as you've already said, Ms Richards.
Just remind me, the first permission was granted by Inspector. What date?
This is going back to, I think it was 2019,
that the decision came out.
So when you say we've lost a unit,
that's lost a unit relative to one
of the particular applications,
not obviously to the starting position because it just didn't.
The mix, yeah, there are two fewer
affordable housing units proposed now,
and as built, there was eight approved originally
by the inspector as part of that scheme.
So we've got a confusing situation with applications
granted by the inspector and by the council
at various times and an ongoing negotiation
because obviously the developers got issues as well.
But we now have, according to the developer,
an agent, that's the wrong word,
a provider prepared to manage the six affordable units, even if they are intermediate, and
we've been in negotiations and this is the best we can come up with. Yeah, okay. Well, I think
members might have views about that, so I'll open it to any member who's got comments about it.
Councillor Colkley. Thank you, Chair, Councillor Colkley, for St Mary's Ward, Battersea.
I am really dissatisfied with this.
I feel like it's got to the point where the developers basically built a non -compliant
unit and is basically then trying to use the residents who my heart goes out for that they've
been put in the situation but it's not the fault of the council if they do or do not
provide permission as they've been put in this situation by the developer building a
non -compliant unit mix that we didn't agree to.
And so now it's trying to get permission
and not only that, that this new mix isn't compliant.
It's six one bed affordable units,
which is 100 % whereas our local plan is 40,
it's around 40%.
So I feel like normally when we have violations
in the local plan, for instance,
if it's a council's own application,
it's because we're providing over and above
with say social housing or there's a clear benefit and then it's weighing up the benefits
versus the non -compliance with the local plan whereas this just seems to be non -compliance
and the only benefit is that we can forget about the application.
It doesn't feel satisfactory and it feels like it sets a bad precedent as well for developers
who are doing an application, modify it retrospectively and then be like,
oh we're too far along now, we're gonna have to sort of give permission for it.
So it feels really unsatisfactory to me.
I guess the question for the officers was the time we accepted the six unit mix,
that was 2021 was it or 2022?
So that scheme was presented to the committee in 2022
and it was subject to viability which was assessed independently by the council
and which confirmed that that was the reasonable level of affordable units that could be provided
at that time. So that fed into the officer recommendation at that point. Just to reiterate,
that was refused in the end because the applicants weren't willing to sign the Section 106 agreement
linked to a condition that was applied to the commercial element of the scheme, which
applicants wanted to be an open Class E use, which would have allowed all sorts of uses
there when in fact we were still trying to preserve an element of the original land use
designated for it which is as industrial land use and so we put a condition on there to restrict it
to those B1, B8 uses and that's the basis that the members considered it and were minded to grant it.
but the affordable housing element was accepted at that point on the basis that it was tested
through the viability process. I mean, officers are disappointed as well that this is the
case, that the applicant has gone backwards and forwards, if you like, in respect to the
overall number of affordable units. We did seek advice as well about enforcement action,
what would be any benefit if we were to refuse or take action against the fact that the works
had been undertaken and that there was six units now in place essentially at the site.
And through that legal advice it became quite apparent that it would be quite difficult to
enforcement action that would be justified in terms of the public interest, especially given that
in terms of the affordable units we're losing two units from the eight that was originally approved.
One of those was a family -sized unit but with quite limited amenity space provided.
Given the location and the layouts and the fact that there is still commercial,
or industrial uses proposed within the building
and on the site, then it's not the most ideal location
in any event for family units, if you like.
So it's all a balance.
And in terms of our advice given to us
in terms of taking enforcement action,
you still have to consider the expediency of doing so
and whether or not something is in the public interest
and the cost associated with that as well
and any impact that that might have on living conditions of those people who have now moved into the premises.
So it is all a balance and it is regrettable, but I think we've kind of gone through the process sufficiently
on this particular site now, particularly as it's occupied and fully built.
So that's why we've recommended approval.
Unhappy, no doubt, but we're in a situation we're in,
in this very difficult site,
well fairly difficult site anyway,
between Penworth Road, very heavily trafficked road,
and Thornset, I've got Councillor Worrall and Councillor Apps
and Councillor Ayres, and Councillor Pridham Way,
full house almost. Councillor Warrell. Thank you chair. Councillor Warrell,
Charles Spring Queenstown. Being new to the committee some of the questions might
seem silly questions but it would be useful to help me through the process.
What comes across in this is the lack of reliability in terms of developers in
actually holding to any agreements that we actually have with them. If we were to
What reassurance do we have with the developers
that they will continue all, as you've indicated,
they still try to negotiate around different things.
So there's a trust issue there that actually comes up.
The other question I have is, this has been accepted, rejected,
it's gone through different stages.
At what stage did the council have the powers
to actually stop the developments
because we're being asked to agree almost like retrospective development in this,
which to me sets a really, I agree, it sets a bad precedent.
And if other developers can see that they can go
down this road, then actually it opens a slight door for them.
So I suppose the other question is the guidance,
and I don't know who this would come to,
is what would actually happen if, continue to the steps,
if we actually said no tonight?
You've mentioned different things, but I'm still unclear.
If we actually voted against this tonight, what are the next steps we have to go through?
Mr Richardson, are you prepared to look into the future and predict?
In point of trust, we understand, and I think officers feel in a similar vein really, that
the applicants have pushed the envelope on this particular site the entire time.
I think, well, initially, I think officers felt very disappointed that the inspector
would have gone against what was quite a strong policy position by the council at the time
to allow alternative uses on the site in the first instance, and it went to public inquiry.
We had a very strong policy ground at that point that we expected it to be dismissed
as well rather than allowed, but the affordable housing provision of eight units was one of
the persuading factors, if you like, in that decision, even though it was completely contrary
to what the policy said then and certainly is in the new policy. But that's what we had
to work with and if you have gone through the history that the officer has set out in
the report, which is quite lengthy, it covers almost two pages, just to sort of give you
an indication of the amount of things that had to be considered on each case. As I said
before, with the affordable housing situation in 2022, that was, you know, an applicant
has the right to submit an application to vary a planning permission, and we as a local
authority have to consider it, taking all factors into account. Much of this depended
on the viability aspect, which they have to produce, they submit, and we get independently
verified by an independent assessor. And there were disparities between how much surplus
that the applicant claimed and our assessors. And so, you know, we did stick to the six
units on that occasion. On the following occasion, where they were reducing it again to two,
you know, again it was tested and we had no option but to look at that as a refusal. And
they didn't appeal that decision. So they have come back around. We are relying on the
viability that we previously accepted as being the position.
I think the main point I guess that we can rely on now is that this has been going on
for a very long time and I'm pretty sure that even the applicant and anybody, any investor
or anybody involved with this are probably at the point now where this is costing quite
a lot of money to just continue with the process any further.
and certainly with residents now living at the site with legal interest in the property,
one of the key issues associated with taking enforcement action would also involve having to serve all of those people with an enforcement notice
because they now have a legal interest in the property and in the land,
which is again another layer of a very difficult thing to justify as officers
and possibly as members as well that that is in the public interest. When six
of those units will be affordable units they're actually a very decent size
they're well above what a one -bedroom unit would require. They do have private
amenity space as well. They are single aspect, however, that was accepted by the Inspector
as part of the appeal initially when some of the floods indicated on the plans were
single aspect. So again, that feeds into the material considerations before officers when
they're looking at different applications. In terms of what stage enforcement action
could have been taken, building works commenced on the site not long after it was allowed
at appeal. They'd progressed quite a long way at basement and ground. There were two
separate proposals, developments that were subject to the appeal at that time and at
the public inquiry, one of them being more of a commercially led scheme. So up until
a certain point, we wouldn't have known even by going on site really which scheme they
were implementing. And that actually came into play later in the whole history of it
where they were using the commercial scheme that was approved by the inspector as an alternative
land value. So all of which is legitimate but still you know all of these are you know
I would say unsavoury. However that's where we've ended up at now and I hope some of that
has answered some of your questions. What are the next steps? It would be difficult to say really
apart from I am repeating the difficulty in justifying enforcement action at this stage
for all the reasons I have set out.
Thank you.
I was just going to add two things.
Trust is not a material planning consideration.
We cannot say that just because we do not trust them we have to assess on the merits
of the case.
We are not saying we do not trust them.
I'm just coming back on Councillor Warrell's issue.
If we refuse, there'd be likely to be an appeal.
They'll proceed.
The basis of what they built was on something
that we'd resolved to grant previously.
So it'd been very difficult to take enforcement action
against that.
It was only when we had to turn that into refusal
because they refused to sign the section 106.
So that's sort of a bit more of the context.
Sorry, Councillor.
Councillor Apps.
Yep, Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward.
Thanks very much for that.
I do find the situation rather worse than is reflected
by saying it's gone down from eight units to six units
because the original mix that was allowed for
was four one bedrooms, two two bedrooms, two three bedrooms,
which led to eight units and now it's simply
six one bedroom units, which is a significant reduction
in the value for local people,
and I think that's deeply concerning.
I would also say that it's sort of my worry is,
and I wonder if you could reflect on this,
is if we allow developers to basically
develop a different scheme to the one that's been agreed,
and then we end up saying, well, in retrospect,
given that you've already built it,
and given that these things are already set down,
then we kind of have to accept this.
Does it not really send a signal to developers
to go along with planning permission
and then just come back with modified schemes after building?
And is it not against the public interest
for us to approve plans in that way
because we might end up with more divergence
from future developers?
A way they may see Wandsworth as a soft touch
and think, well, we can just develop
what we intended to develop originally
and they'll just have to suck it up.
Are you happy to,
I think Mr. Moore wants to comment on that question.
Thank you, chairman.
I remember dealing with the planning inquiry
for this matter in 2020,
it was remotely dealt with because of COVID.
And members, when they read the planning applications report
on this, that the history of the application
would read like the context to an exam question. I think Councillor Apps is concerned and Councillor
Colpley and also Councillor Warrall, forgive me, raised concern about precedent and the
Council being seen as a soft touch. Firstly, this will not create any form of precedent,
so consistency in decision making for the authorities is important, but this won't set
any form of precedent for any future application. You've heard Mr Calder say it many a times
probably me as well saying each application will be dealt with on its merits and I don't think
the council couldn't be looked at giving a soft touch to these applicants. I think officers have
stood their ground very firmly on all these points as you'll see from the history to all the planning
applications they've been refused where they haven't been satisfactory and members have
supported those decisions. I don't think it's an ideal position for the applicant either I'm sure
that they would prefer to have got a capital receipt
for these units that are sitting empty.
And they'd also like to have put the commercial element
of the scheme to different uses.
But the county officers have really
stood their ground on this.
And I think whilst it's regrettable
that there's a reduction in both the quantum
and the size of the units that were initially offered,
I think the application before members now
is acceptable on balance.
It's not ideal, but it's certainly acceptable in the context of the planning history to
the site.
And I'll just reiterate again, I don't think it's something that will ever cause any form
of precedent or for officers and the planning department as a whole to be seen as a soft
touch.
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillors?
Yes, Councillor Pridham.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Tom Pridham, Lavender Ward in Battersea.
I'd like to firstly just echo Councillor Apps' concerns
about it potentially sending out the wrong signal
if people can sort of get away with not doing
what they initially said they were going to do
and then sort of us granting,
allowing them to do it after that.
But I guess my concern is about the residents
who are already there and I just wondered,
you mentioned the legal issues.
Is that primarily to do with what could happen
if enforcement action were taken?
Or are there other issues as well
that need to be considered in that context?
No, I was just answering Councillor Worrall
in terms of what could happen next
and if we were to enforce, that was another consideration
from officers' point of view,
because legally we would have to serve notice on everybody
and it's not just the applicants or the landowners.
They would have a legal interest.
The other outstanding legal issues, I believe,
a private there to do with the residents and probably their lenders or whoever and insurance
or whatever else and with the applicants. It's not a matter for you to consider here.
That's just to, this has been what a lot of the support letters have been about because
the residents wish to proceed to get to a conclusion on their own outstanding legal
issues that they are dealing with because as far as they're concerned they
are living there, the building is fit for purpose and they want this to be
resolved but it's not a matter for the Planning Committee to consider outright.
Mr. Moore wants a word upon this as well. Sorry, Chairman, there was just one thing that I've neglected to say and
Councillor Pridham has just covered the point really and it's in relation to
to developers not carrying out the development
for which they've been given planning permission for
and not sending out signals that applicants can do that.
I'll just reiterate the point about the developer
has pushed the envelope on this,
but they're entitled to do so.
They're entitled to submit applications
that the officers and committee members
are charged with determining.
So the law adds in quite a lot of flexibility
for applicants to change their planning permissions
via a number of different means.
Whilst some of these changes might not be
particularly palatable to councils,
there is that flexibility that enables that.
Otherwise, they'd just have to put in
completely fresh applications,
and it would just clog the system up.
So, sorry, I didn't add that initially, Chairman.
Okay, we've had a pretty, sorry, oh, Councillor Rorab.
Just a point of clarification. When you say we need to serve a notice on residence, what
does that actually mean so that we are clear? Because at the moment I am still unclear which
way I am supporting or against this and that is an important factor in my consideration.
I am sure Mr Mors will answer the question better than I would, but what I was referring
to is that there is a long way to go before we would get to the stage of issuing a notice
because we would first of all have to consider all of the issues involved, which is the legal
advice we were given previously, which I have referred to, and whether or not overall it
would be in the legal and public interest to actually get to that stage.
But if enforcement was considered to be expedient, then by the letter of the law
we would have to issue an enforcement notice against every person with an
interest in that land. But I'm now going to pass over to Mr Moles.
Thank you, Chen. I suspect that if members look to refuse this application, a
separate paper will come before this committee to outline the different
enforcement routes that can be taken,
one of which is the issuing of an enforcement notice,
a requirement of the statutory provisions
that everyone who has a legal interest in the land
will be served with a copy of that notice.
Whether the authority would expect people
to move out or not, I doubt,
but we can't completely write that off.
I think it's unlikely, but there are other options
in terms of the breaches of the Section 106 agreement
that will be dealt with by injunction,
and that won't involve the occupiers of the individual units.
But a detailed report would have to come back to committee members to get their approval
to follow any particular enforcement action.
In the end, Mr Moore, if there was dispute about that enforcement action, the final decision
would rest with?
The final decision would probably rest with the planning spectra.
I'd imagine it'll be twin tracked with an appeal
against the refusal to grant this permission.
So, and then it may not be the complete end to it.
If there's a point of law that the unsuccessful party
is prepared to challenge on,
then it'll go up to the High Court to deal with that.
Can I just say one word before Councillor Colquay comes back?
Sometimes sitting here in the Planning Committee,
I think we're inclined to forget one important element
of this and that's life from maybe the developer's
point of view.
I'm not holding out a candle for the developer necessarily
and certainly not in some cases,
but this one has faced a lot of changes,
a lot of difficulties, not least COVID
in the course of this period.
And there is a what he can afford to do element
to this as well, it has to be taken into account.
But you have to bear all these things in mind.
Councillor Colle.
First coming back to that,
while I do want to encourage development in the borough
and so do all of us,
I feel like you shouldn't be developing
on a plan and permission and then modify it
without getting a plan and permission as a general rule.
I wanted to ask as well about, again,
about the previous decision,
which was eventually refused,
but to allow the six units,
was this before our newest local plan was implemented?
It was, so.
I'm saying yes, I'm sure that's right, isn't it?
If it was 22, then it should be,
because if the local plan was implemented in 23.
So in that case, it is all very separate consideration
and the fact that we approved six units in the past,
it feels like we're having an entirely different local plan
and we're having a test net.
So I feel like that's also a bit of a moot point.
Any comment on that?
No, I was just going to say that even though in that period
from when permission was initially granted at appeal.
And the policy associated with the land use
and what the local plan had said at that time
hadn't really changed a huge amount in the new local plan
in terms of what should have been applicable for that site
in terms of its land use.
And it would still be a material consideration
and bear quite a great deal of weight
in any subsequent appeal,
because that is the starting point
in terms of what was allowed on the site
to be built in the first place,
which was already against.
I understand your point that your making
is associated with affordable housing
and the newly adopted or recently adopted local plan,
but that is what this has been considered against
overall the current application.
So anyway, I think.
So the point I was gonna make, thanks, thanks,
Mr. Richardson, that's very well.
The 2023 adopted plan for affordable housing
wasn't that dissimilar from the levels
from the previous adopted plan.
The difference was in the mix
because they all had to comply with the London plan as well,
which was the 35%.
So when we assessed the previous six units,
which are 32 % with a viability assessment,
that would have been similar to how we assessed it now.
The change will be with the new local plan,
which is obviously going into inquiry
at the end of this year.
That would make a big difference
because that's the step up to the 40 % or 42%.
So that's where the big changes.
it's very similar policies that we assumed
from the previous original consent to the 2023
when we looked to this and resolved to approve in 2022.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Yeah, it's meant that it does feel
like two different contexts and that, you know,
as we all say, would judge in each application
by its own merits and not the precedent
of what may or may not been accepted in the past.
And I just wanted to make that point.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand that.
Surely you have to do it on the basis of the plan
at the time that the process started.
I mean, you're concerned about retrospective changes
on the building.
Any person with an interest would surely say
you can't judge me retrospectively on change policies
when I started in a different era, isn't that right?
Sorry, I haven't put that very well.
I think we're maybe getting points a little bit.
Sorry?
I think that's the retrospective plan
is against the consent for eight,
and I was talking about the consent for six,
which is before that.
Oh, okay, all right.
Right, well we've had a pretty full discussion of this,
and obviously no one's totally happy
including the officers.
But we're in a situation where on balance
the officers have recommended that we approve.
And that's a position that I accept
and I think we ought to approve.
So can I ask for those people who wish to approve
the consent as it now stands?
Please show.
That's five votes to those against.
to two with one abstention, I think, yes.
Five votes to two with one abstention.
Thank you.
Move on to, oh, yeah, right, okay.
Okay.
Now, I think that's Miss Richards finished.
Good night and see you next month, no doubt.
If we move on to item four, which I've lost the paper for just momentarily, item four
Thirlley Road and I think that Councillor Hedges wants to discuss it.
Councillor Hedges.
Thank you, Chair.
Dear Chair and committee members, thank you for allowing me to speak today on behalf of
residents of Thirlley Road and the surrounding streets in Ballum Ward who are united in their
strong objection to planning application 2024 -3766. This application has caused real concern,
not just because of the proposal itself but also because of procedural impropriety. The
planning notice was posted in the wrong location and the Council mistakenly published an approval
decision before the consultation had closed. This seriously undermined trust in the planning
process. Worryingly, the committee report omits important context. At the pre -application
stage officers stated that the existing building was made neutral to positive contribution
to the conservation area. This has since been revised to neutral with no explanation. We
urge that the original advice letter be made available to members. There are also factual
inconsistencies. The report lists the building's construction as both 1920s and 1930s and 1940s.
While it refers to comments from the Council's Heritage Officer, none are included in the
internal consultation section. Without clarity on heritage input, members cannot make a fully
informed decision.
Turning now to the substance of the objections, number one, conservation and character. This
characterful 1920s house within the Nightingale Lane conservation area. It is
not derelict or harmful, yet would be replaced by a larger, bulkier, taller
building that is clearly out of keeping with its surroundings. The proposal
undermines the architectural variety the area seeks to protect and sets a
damaging precedent for other conservation areas. Second point is
residential amenity.
The proposed structure reduces boundary separation
from 3 .5 metres to 1 .9, increasing Ridge and Eves heights
by over two metres.
It will dominate and overshadow neighbouring homes,
particularly numbers 68 and 72.
The daylight and sunlight report, even while flawed,
shows a 57 % loss of daylight to windows at number 72,
nearly triple the BRE's threshold for noticeable harm.
Point three, environmental and ecological damage.
The scheme removes 90 % of onsite trees,
including healthy mature specimens
and a category B crabapple tree,
providing valuable screening.
These trees contribute to biodiversity and air quality,
yet there's no proper assessment of their loss.
Residents have reported seeing bats and newts,
both protected species, but there are no ecological surveys
or mitigation plans included.
Point four is construction impact and structural risk.
The proposed 25 month build will mean prolonged disruption,
noise, dust, access issues, particularly difficult
for vulnerable neighbours, including one
with serious health concerns.
The basement excavation in London Clay
raises serious risk of subsidence.
And then the final point is obviously policy conflicts.
The application conflicts with local plan policies LP1 to number 3 due to harm to amenity,
character and design, London Plan policies D3 and HC1 for failure to conserve heritage
significance and the National Planning Policy Framework which demands demonstrable public
health to justify heritage harm and none is offered here.
In conclusion, this is a flawed application, procedurally and substantially.
It brings no public benefit, yet causes real and lasting harm to heritage, to neighbours, to biodiversity and to trust in the planning system.
Residents support thoughtful and sensitive development, but this is not that.
We urge you to refuse this application or insist on a fundamental redesign,
reduced massing, restored boundary separation and protection of trees and ecological assets.
Thank you for your time and standing up for the integrity of our borough's planning process. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Hedges. Persuasive as ever.
Mr Grainger, do you wish to introduce or comment on this particular application?
I can introduce myself, I'm Nigel Grainger, I'm the East Area Team Manager.
Just a short overview of the proposal.
Thank you Mr Calder.
Demolition, this is for the demolition of the existing two -storey dwelling house within
the site and it's a replacement with a three -storey plus basement dwelling.
The proposal obviously requires the total loss of a building within a conservation area
which is a heritage asset and its replacements.
The legal tests that are required to be given regard to in order to arrive at a conclusion
whether the loss of the dwelling house is acceptable or not has been assessed within
the report. The standing point is that the proposal does have a neutral impact. That
matter has been cleared up that Councillor Hedges referred to in the late items in terms
of whether it has a positive or a neutrally positive impact on the conservation area,
as I said in late items.
But officers are of the view that the harm caused to the CA with the loss of the building
would be at the very, very lower end of the less than substantial harm scale, whilst the
replacement building would preserve the overall character and appearance of the conservation
area.
The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions recommended at the end of the report.
Mr Sellers, do you have anything to say about this application from the conservation specifically point of view?
Barry Sellers, Principal Urban Design Officer. Yes, Mr Chairman.
We looked at this building from the pre -application onwards
and obviously we use our conservation area appraisals
as a guide to assessing the significance of buildings
in conservation areas.
The conservation appraisal for 19 Yale Lane
is back in 2007 and predates those conservation appraisals
where we formally identified on plans
in the conservation appraisal positive buildings,
negative buildings, and neutral buildings.
So we were not looking at it from that point of view.
However, when we're looking to judge the building
in terms of the conservation area,
if you look at the area around that particular building,
you've got the local listed building number 68 next door
and across the road.
Clearly, and all the listed buildings are cool,
just down the road with the St. Luke's Church.
They're all very positive buildings,
so there's a clear case there.
and when we're looking at the architectural quality
of this particular building,
it's an arts and crafts building.
1920s, I think you said it was 1930s or 40s,
but actually, the maps show it to be on the maps of 1930.
So it was obviously built probably about the later part
of the 1920s in terms of construction.
It's got cavity walls, I understand, anyway,
from that point of view,
so that puts it in terms of that category.
But it's a building, it's a pleasant building,
but it's been messed around somewhat.
It's rough cast and brickwork,
but they've all been painted over.
There's no particularly architectural features
like some of the adjoining adjacent buildings
in number 68, for example,
it's got the fine turret and the architectural gems
that go with that.
So I think neutral is a fair category to be honest.
Okay, thank you.
Any questions or queries about this particular application?
Councillor Justin.
Hello, Councillor Justin.
I just want to know why it is taking 25 months to build this.
To put that in context, the Empire State Building was built in 13 months for a long time, the
world's tallest building.
But apparently this property here is going to take 25 months and the relevance of that
is the sheer hell that the neighbours on either side and the rest of the street will endure.
Now that is an interesting point, but we are specifically excluded from taking disturbance
into account in the law, for goodness sake, in consideration of planning applications,
as I think you probably know. But it's an interesting point, why should this take 25
months, perhaps we'll get back to that in a minute.
Councillor Humphries.
I was going to defer to Councillor Apsley because I've had a tough day already.
Philip Ayres, Labour, East Putney. I think these existing buildings had a rather short
shrift from my colleagues. It's obviously a modest building, not as big as its big neighbours,
but I don't think that's to its detriment. It's still quite a large house. One of the
arguments is that it's inconsistent, it's not the same as everybody else in the road.
Well further down the road towards the Common, there's a recent very modern building in White
Brick, which I must say I congratulate the brave planners and architects for giving permission
for. It's on the same side as the road, it's quite a big property, and it's white brick
and concrete and not at all like its neighbours.
I do not think that consistency is a significant issue
to make it the same as the other buildings.
For instance, this rather charming number of 68
that we all like so much,
that's not the same as its neighbours either.
So I don't see why one of the reasons
for disregarding its value
is to say it's not the same as its neighbours.
Can I say, Councillor Ayers...
Sorry, and anyway, I do object to demolishing
a perfectly usable building to build another one
which is two and a half times the size.
Councillor Ayers, I think you're in the business.
You know that there's no grounds to stop anyone
demolishing their own house or their property
unless it's listed or conservation area specifically
and regarded as valuable to that conservation area.
There's nothing, there's no, it may not be what you like,
but we actually have no powers to stop people doing that,
do we?
And you wouldn't expect those to have, would you?
I'm just arguing with the terms that they.
Okay, just with the terms, all right.
Councillor Humphries.
Thank you, I'm quite glad I let Councillor Ayers go first,
because she said something that I was going to say as well.
It's an interesting point.
I hear what you're saying, Chair, that yes, of course,
it's not a listed building.
It's not protected, particularly.
It could be knocked down, or it can be knocked down
if it's considered right.
But it will still have, we mustn't neglect the fact
that it will still have an impact on the conservation
area.
To what degree, what's up for debate, isn't it?
2 .29 on page 100, it says it will cause harm.
will cause less than substantial harm.
So I don't think it's a question of it causing harm or not.
It's what degree of harm it's going to cause.
It also says, to back up Kanthi Dreyer's argument,
nobody's trying to make out it's the finest
and grandest house in the street.
And that's the whole point.
It isn't.
There's much grander and fancier buildings surrounding it.
But it says in the, again, it's 2 .8 on page 96,
where it quotes from the conservation area appraisement,
I quote, a rich diversity of different architectural styles,
which combine harmoniously to form a pleasing and diverse townscape.
So yes, we're not looking at a uniform terrace here,
and the loss of a more modest building,
I would argue does have an impact on the conservation area,
because it will fundamentally change it,
particularly with the bearing in mind that what's being proposed to replace it,
and as Mr Cawdor will remind us in a minute,
I'm sure we're judging everyone in its context of the particular application.
In this particular case, what's being proposed to replace it is undoubtedly a much bigger pastiche.
It's not an original building. It doesn't have the scale even superior to its existing neighbours on either side.
So the scale of what's being proposed I think is out of proportion to the site itself.
And I think that's something we should be as a legitimate grounds for complaining as to why this isn't acceptable in the conservation area
so it's two things the scale of what's being proposed which is out of character in that conservation area and the
Weight we give to the value of the existing property. I know there's a report from the engineering there
commissioned by the
Applicants and he would say it's about to fall down wouldn't he there's cracks and such like in that but it would be perfectly possible
It's I think it's rather a shame. We don't have
Councillor White's still on the committee,
he was always arguing, precipitously, didn't he,
for not knocking down any building that was on the site.
And in the, a further point perhaps from nature,
on the ecological benefits, we're told a lot about
the sustainability of the new building,
and evidently as a new building,
it's going to be more sustainable going forward
than an old building, but that doesn't refer
and take into account where it says it's much superior.
Of course it would be as a new build,
that doesn't take into account the impact
on the environment of knocking down the demolition
of the old building and the building of the new building, which will cause a big impact
on the ecological industry.
If you put that into the balance as well, it's not such a shining example of sustainability
that it might seem on the surface.
I know you won't necessarily accept the words for it because why would you?
But according to the figures here, it pays for itself in ecological terms in two years.
Now even if that's woefully exaggerated, it still pays for itself.
Do I see someone else?
No one else?
No one else, okay.
Can I say, first of all I think that the new building
looks like a contribution to the conservation area myself.
I don't actually think this particular building
is particularly attractive at all.
But that really doesn't matter.
The point is, is there anything to prevent
someone demolishing and rebuilding.
The shortage of time, just let me remind you,
last month we accepted demolition of a building
put up less than 20 years ago and its replacement.
So we do accept it as perfectly reasonable
in certain circumstances and it seems to me
to be quite reasonable in this circumstance.
It's completely up to the members of course,
but I don't see any particular,
we've got the official advice saying,
well official advice, the conservation area
offers a view that it's not making
a particular contribution to the area
and there's no particular reason to safeguard it.
But I suspect, well we'll see.
The recommendation, are you coming back,
Councillor Humphries, or?
Yeah, Dawn.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, there was a point which Councillor Hedges
referred to, a different point perhaps,
which we should put in the mix as well.
And it was a legitimate point of Councillor Hegge's
very much so, is the impact of the removal of the trees
as well, which I think Herk figures it was 90 % of the trees
on the site that are being removed.
That's a staggering percentage.
I think it's, what is it, 14 trees out of 17
are being removed.
That in itself, not only ecologically,
but in the impact of that,
as it's gonna affect the conservation area,
which if you've seen the driven past
or seen it in any views at all,
it's a very green and developed site.
but that will change the impact on the streetscape
significantly, because a lot of those trees
are at the front of the building,
and only one is being retained.
Okay, right, you've seen the recommendation.
No other contributions.
Those in favour of approving the application?
Five, those against?
Sorry, six.
And those against, three?
Councillor Pridham voted for it in these.
So that is also approved, thank you.
Move on to, or move back to application number three,
which is 7 Blenkhan Road.
7 Blenkhan Road.
Is there any introduction to that or,
do we need an introduction to that?
No introduction, okay.
Any comments on 7 Blencon Road?
Many of us have had strong objections from a neighbour.
Should be mentioned and discussed, I think.
Councillor Worrell, Councillor Colclay,
Councillor Ayres, Councillor Humphreys.
Right, Councillor Worrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to clarify a couple of points.
On page 53, we have considerable comments from the Conservation
and Heritage Committee, who are actually
against this proposal.
And we also then have an issue with the tree officer
around the removal and location of the trees
and the potential damage that would be in relation to us.
So those two comments are just it
would be useful to have some comments on.
But my main query is the issue of the bedroom,
stroke box room, stroke who knows what.
It's my understanding from this is that
the development would actually lose one particular room
which is at this moment habitable.
It's been advertised in the past
in terms of estate agents, et cetera, as being a bedroom.
it'd be useful to clarify whether just the removal
of a door, moving a door around,
then changes this whole aspect.
It feels like they're playing around
in terms of to try and get this through
and losing actually a usable room
in terms of accommodation and moving from three to two.
And it'd be useful just to have
some clarification around that.
Mr. Grainger, there's two elements I think to this.
First of all is whether it is in your view or in general terms a three or two, and secondly
what impact that would make on the application in general if it was assumed to be three as
opposed to two.
Thank you, Chair.
Well, obviously that was your last question out of three, so we can go back to the second
and first if once you've listened to this explanation that I'll try and keep on an
understandable almost human scale because there are things and there are a lot of things
you can do to a property without planning permission. So therein lies the nut. But
there is an adopted policy in our local plan called LP 25. It's related to the protection
of existing housing stock. So that policy has a primary function in terms of resisting
the loss of family size accommodation. So that's three bedrooms or more. The assertion
that the neighbouring occupiers made is that the flat in the attic space, or there is a
flat in the attic space.
It's three bedroom, and then the rest of the property
is a larger four plus bedroom existing unit.
So that's the assertion.
What we are looking at in terms of an actual legal submission,
so that is supported by a signed application form
and an existing survey and then a proposed set of drawings.
So we are looking professionally,
we're assessing the existing survey and the proposed drawings.
So within that process, we go and visit the property,
we go inside of the property,
and to that end, a senior colleague within my team
has observed that the top floor flat is indeed, as laid out physically,
a two -bedroom flat with a walk -in wardrobe area. Now the estate agents
particulars and we've all seen estate agent particulars that describe various
rooms as various things and have various capabilities and various sizes but there
is some evidence to indicate that at some time that room had a bed in it and a
wardrobe, but no planning permission is required to internally modify an existing lawful unit.
So that means that everybody here could subdivide one of their main rooms as a bedroom into
two units or knock them through into a three bed house into a one bed house.
Obviously that wouldn't be a particularly wise thing to do, but it is not a matter that
is regarded as a material change of use,
which would require planning permission.
Excuse me.
I think that may have got it.
So within that context, we have to work
on what professional planning officers are observing on site,
what the existing survey has shown,
and within that context, the top floor unit has been shown to be a two bedroom unit with an ancillary walk -in space.
So on that basis, no conflict with policy LP 5 can be identified because it wouldn't result in the loss of a family sized unit.
So the reprovision of the two bed unit which goes from the attic down into a basement area
and the rest of the floors occupied by the four bedroom unit.
As an equilibrium exchange of units,
there is no tension with policy 25 in that regard.
The trees matters that you have raised.
There are a lot of replacement specimens
and that's all indicated between pages 64 and 65.
There are category U trees,
which are basically dead, dying and dangerous.
So there's no need to replace those.
But the replacement trees that I think there are eight,
two category U trees,
eight new trees to be replaced along with
the rather technically challenging,
but from what I've read, very possible translocation of magnolia,
TPO magnolia tree in the front, which I've never actually read a specialist
translocation methodology statement before from a specialist firm, but what
they do in terms of how to stimulate growth and all of that business, it
sounds over the period of time it's not a matter of just literally getting stuck
in and trying to extract it and put it somewhere else. This is a really, really, you know,
to stimulate the root growth in order for it to be at the, you know, the rudest of health
it possibly can be before it's planted. It was very interesting and it obviously provided
us as officers with a lot of comfort that this can succeed, especially with the firm
that's already looking at to translocate that tree.
In terms of the comments by the CHAC, Conservation Heritage Advisory Committee, they are on 53.
The Heritage Committee objected to the scheme that has just been approved. They also objected
to this scheme. We do listen out and we do listen to their points. A lot of the points
that were made by the advisory committee had been picked up by colleagues and there has
been a significant degree of negotiation on this proposal. There is a replacement number
of units. We really are looking at extensions and excavating a basement. The revisions that
have been obtained by officers in order to overcome initial concerns that professional
officers had, along with the advisory committee, we think that we've achieved a highly contemporary
yet successful set of interventions, along with the restoration of some particular positive
heritage features that go to a modern approach at the rear, not competing with the overarching
period of the dwelling house whilst the restoration of the front elevation which
is a really positive thing for the conservation area so it's within that
context that officers have been in the position to be able to conclude that the
proposal is acceptable. Thank you. Councillor Caulkley I think.
Was it Council Coley?
Yeah, just one quick one.
They mentioned that the side unit
was to have a green roof on this development, I think.
Yeah, the extension to the house was also going to have a green roof in it, so I was
wondering if I didn't see any explicit mention of the green roof and the conditions.
Usually when there's a green roof we normally have as a condition to include our details
of the green roof and landscaping, so I was just wondering why there wasn't that there.
Point me to what paragraph you're looking at, Councillor, please.
I'll show you, someone else can take a question while I try and find it.
Okay, that's fair enough. I thought someone else had their hands up, but I didn't take
note. Councillor Humphries.
There are some positives in the scheme. The removal of the metal fire escape and the reintroduction
of the canopy over the veranda or porch, whatever you call it, with the columns is definitely
a plus. As Mr Grey just said, I applaud officers for the work they have done to try to ameliorate
the scale of what the applicant is trying to do. Personally, the addition of a modern
I think can sometimes work very well if it's done to highlight the difference between the two, if it's done well.
Where I do have a concern with this one, it's in the drawing that we got separately.
It came off the bottom of the page of the proposal of the front elevation, which was on the little addendum that we got,
which has got the drawing of the front elevation on it.
I don't think the one in the report, you can really see it, it's gone off.
No, we've only got the roofline on the bottom of it.
But on the one that we got as a separate piece of paper...
...I think what jars with me, principally...
...is the visibility and the standing out of the side extension...
...on the right -hand side, reading it from the front there...
...with the wooden extension on the side.
And I just think it's unfortunate that that coincides exactly with the porch...
...and the portico that I was talking about, which is an improvement.
And then they put this modern extension right beside it.
And I think it spoils the reading of the house...
...with the gap with next door particularly.
And that's the part that I particularly have...
I know officers got it set back further.
But I thought if it was set back even further perhaps...
...it's only 1 .2 metres, I think.
It's not significant if set back that much really.
And particularly in that drawing, it shows it really clearly.
I think that jars with the context of what was going on.
if that had been further back or further restrained,
the part at the back of the house,
I think is, I don't have a problem with that,
but that side part, I think,
really does spoil what's got real integrity
as a preserved building,
and that bit of the street carries that theme through,
and it's a shame that part is there, I must say.
Any comment, Mr. Granger, or just?
Again, I mean, it's something that is a matter of
how much the, I mean, you're quite right with 1 .2 metre setback, it's just the
quantum of how much of that presents to the elevation. We didn't think it was,
if it was two storeys, if it was really readable then that would have obviously
not been something that we would have encouraged and we don't think that the
overarching quantum of that square meterage of elevation is so harmful
to the overarching character of that elevation that we think it's
accepted we think that that is a tolerable element of the scheme.
Councillor Pridham did you have your hand up?
Yes I was just wanting to seek a bit of clarification on how we sort of think about and apply LP
25 with regards to family homes so am I correct in thinking that we have to
apply that on the basis of how the property is being used at the time so
it's currently being sort of used as a two -bed flat and that's how we should
consider it but if it had been being used as a three -bed flat at the time
then we would have to think about it in that way rather than...
So obviously the only sort of evidence we have to the contrary
that it is a three -bed flat is how it was advertised by estate agents
and we think it might have been used that way in the past
but that's irrelevant because we're making the decision on the basis
of how it's being used now.
Correct.
So that's why I made a big thing about the submission of a plan
of sign and planning application form with the existing unit specified,
the existing drawings submitted in order to support
to what the information has been, you know, states on the planning application.
So it's that suite of information that we work upon.
Council Colleagues, have you found your reference?
Yeah, so it's in the application details, the fourth paragraph down.
At ground floor level, a single storey.
Sorry, where are we? Which page?
Sorry, page 49.
So it's in the actual application details, the fourth paragraph down.
and says, a ground floor level, single storey side
slash rear extension is proposed, da da da da da,
and then at the end of the paragraph it says,
the flat roof would incorporate a green roof
along with roof lights and slot roof lights.
So normally when we have a green roof,
we normally include a condition that says
the applicant needs to provide details of this green roof,
how it's gonna be maintained, et cetera.
So I was just wondering why there didn't seem to be
a condition for this one from our side.
I believe it's come back to me, but the way that the flat roof of the extension is configured
is that the roof lights, the actual quantum of the green roof, it's not large enough to
warrant a specific condition in order to seek its retention because the biodiversity net
gain of this has all been assessed as a separate entity and the overarching carbon saved on
this scheme is above the 35 % that specified by part L of the building regulations.
It's not as though the entire rectilinear roof of the area is green roof due to all
of the other components that are actually within the roof.
I understand that but surely if they've made their application we want to encourage the
grooms to be put in.
Thanks Councillor.
I think in terms of it I'll just have a look at the plans myself and there are three roofs
that are proposed to be green on the side and on the rear.
While Mr Grainger is absolutely right that some of them are dominated by roof lights
I think it is probably worthy of getting further information.
We can do that through the landscaping and the the enhanced the ecology enhancement condition as well
But we'll put an extra reference into the flat roof just to make sure okay. Thank you
Thank you, Councillor
Thank you. I just want to pick up on council pridhams question. I'm around LP 25 and once again, it's a silly question time
But it's good for clarification
so is it my understanding that in any
in any place, if I wanted to make, change the planning,
sorry, going back to this particular thing,
with this bedroom stroke walk -in room,
if I change the use of the room two weeks
before I made the application,
then the application would stand
because I've made it two weeks beforehand,
which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole process
is that actually I can get around a number of conditions
by just technically changing the use of the room
a day before an application is made. Is that correct?
That is entirely correct. They could have knocked it down through entirely to one bedroom.
But it doesn't need planning permission. That is the essence of this. It doesn't need planning
permission. If we were controlling development that closely, you couldn't anyway, because
it would need... How would we ever know? To the state to start to try and control people
doubling or minimising or the use of rooms swapping a kitchen over there to a kitchen over there or you know a living room
It's just it doesn't need planning permission. It's the the essence is about the lawfulness of the self -contained unit
Okay
No, we've got a legal view as well. Mr. Moore. Well, I just wanted to point out chairman and in
I just responded to Councillor Warren's last point there
about LP 25.
Had a look at the explanatory paragraphs to that policy
and the purpose of that policy is seeking to resist
the loss of units through amalgamations.
Now, flat A and flat B are going to be re -provided
as two self -contained units.
And I think, not necessarily a red herring,
but I don't think the issue about the third bedroom
really bears the weight that's being put upon it
because of that point about the reason why LP 25 is there.
I would also say that it could possibly be the case
that the applicant has caused this issue
or their agent has caused this issue
by having the words in connexion
with the reconfiguration of existing two flats
because these physical works could have stood on their own
without that additional complexity of reconfiguration.
So for the issues that Mr. Grange has raised,
I think it should be determined on the basis of flat B
being two bedrooms.
That's what the senior planning officer observed
when he was there.
Thank you, Chairman.
OK.
I think that clarifies it all.
I hope so.
That clarifies it all.
Okay, everyone, Councillor Humphries.
One last thing, but it reminded me as we were talking about rooms and such like.
I'm going back to my side extension, I'm afraid, Mr Grainger.
In Mr Natman's email, he makes several points about the loss of light to his side windows
in that quite large and high side extension going round there.
I think it's 4 .8 metres in height.
So it's a significant impact on his light.
But it says in 4 .12, I just wanted to make sure
this is actually right, it's the rooms again.
So it says it's a kitchen side window
that's gonna be mostly impacted by that.
And they have other windows to the rear
which aren't impacted.
I just want to make sure that's absolutely right and clear
because it would make a significant difference
to those rooms if that were the only light
that they were gonna get from those side windows.
The lower ground floor side window would be impacted on.
It would lose a significant amount of its daylight.
But the size of the rear window is so large and completely unfettered by development.
I think a very telling statistic is the notion, the quantitative notion of the daylight distribution
test where the amount of daylight within a room is actually calculated at a horizontal
plane, which to you and I is a table, but the BRE come up with funny words for things.
But within PARAS 4 .4, from 73 .29 % of the existing daylight distribution within that room, it
would be reduced with the impact on that side window to 69 .93%, which is a significant retention
of daylight distribution within that room. The other window that's impacted serves a
circulation stairwell or staircase. It's a non -habitable area and the guidance just simply
requires us not to give regard for that, irrespective of how pleasant, unfortunately, or what activities
take place in that hallway?
In any event Mr Granger, I have a small part of my house that extends beyond the neighbour,
but I'm not allowed to just put in side windows to overlook in effect their back garden, am
and that's not very normal and it's not necessarily something we particularly
protect is that right? It is right the the change in the permitted development
rules to the part one in 2015 any any dwelling house so an existing dwelling
house doesn't apply to flats but if it's a dwelling house a house to you and I
any new and any you're allowed to extend maintain etc a property but any new
window, you put in a side elevation, automatically now has to be obscure glaze to 1 .7 metres
high from finished floor level and fixed shut. So that is the way that the government applies
or the importance that the government gives to side facing windows and the impact and
what it does, the knock on impact of then asserting that you benefit from this light
and therefore your neighbour loses any opportunity
to ever improve their property.
Okay, if there are no more,
the recommendations to approve,
does everyone agree on that?
Agreed unanimously, yes, yes, agreed unanimously,
thank you.
Move on to
We're Chetwood Road, application on Chetwood Road, item 5, page 123, if you're on that,
with again, variation of conditions.
Any particular comments?
Councillor Humphries.
Sorry, this has been bugging me, this one.
I missed the discussion earlier, obviously, but I might have heard a little bit of it
while I was outside, but it's the point of principle
of what's been agreed and what's been built.
And I understand Mr. Raybould's not with us tonight,
but there's obviously an enforcement action
which has perhaps precipitated this application
coming to us.
But my main beef, and perhaps Mr. Grey
can assist me with this, is that the drawing
we've shown as what has been built
as opposed to what was supposed to be built, which in itself is significantly different and lacking in detail.
But I didn't get a chance to do a drive -by on this one, but on Google Earth, it's showing what's been built out.
It's even simpler than what is shown in those drawings.
The lintels are really plain, it doesn't have the eaves hanging down over the side of that kind of thing.
the sills between the pairs of windows are single sills on the windows.
They don't go all the way across as they do in the drawing.
So actually what we've been shown is not even what we've got.
What we've got is pretty rudimentary concrete lintels and nothing else.
And that I think is a particularly aggravating factor
as to why this should be deemed acceptable
when it is so far different from what was shown in the drawings originally,
even in the other drawings.
That is precisely what 16 people that wrote into us shared your view, Councillor, but
I can say because I've seen it with 100 % confidence that what you observed on Street View, whatever,
is simply not that is they took the scaffolding off too early, the hoarding, and they revealed
an unfinished front elevation and they realised that some of the window voids were not in the
same place as approved and all of the decorative features that are now there
and look like that front elevation weren't there and the entire front elevation looked dreadful.
It looked totally dreadful. Who wants to see a flush concrete lintel, you know, with stuff
just coming out of it.
So that is not what's currently there.
All of the decorative features that have been shown
in terms of the plasterwork lintels
and the other features above the main door,
it's all in place now.
And it looks, it's remarkable the change
in terms of finishing and elevation.
So with confidence, I can say that the overarching appearance
of this building has been greatly improved.
I'm relieved to hear that.
However, I still find it irksome, shall we say, that it is so markedly different from
what we were supposed to get.
And I know we're talking about degrees and what's expedient and all the rest of it, but
the look of the building, again, it's going back to what people put on the table when
they come to this committee, isn't it?
The reason why we voted for it the first time around, because it sat very comfortably in
and what's built doesn't.
The proportions of the windows are still completely wrong
with the rest of the street that's in there.
And it's been done, I take Mr. Grainger's point
that what's been done has been done well enough,
but it isn't what they said they were going to build.
And I still think as a matter of principle,
that isn't what we should be seeing
coming into this committee.
I wasn't expecting you to respond to that,
but that's just my point of view.
Any comments?
Well, I mean, we would have to repeat the words
that you were out of the room for,
if they could pre -see colleagues then maybe.
I think so.
All right. Is the application approved?
Is that no? Okay, fair enough.
Those in favour?
One, two, three, four, five.
One against, two against.
Oh, sorry, sorry, I beg your pardon.
I beg your pardon.
Four against five in favour.
I beg your pardon.
Okay, move on to the other papers.
First of all, I was persuaded by one member of the Council to break the papers up into
separate bits.
I think it was a mistake for me.
I think it doesn't work for me.
So moving on to the paper 279,
Decisions paper, is that agreed?
Anyone got any comments, any questions?
Agree, noted, okay.
And then from that on to
paper 25 to 80, any comments, any queries?
No queries noted.
Right, and then moving on to 25282,
tree preservation orders.
Now, I'm sure we're gonna disagree
on trees preservation orders, aren't we?
Everyone happy with the tree preservation orders?
Yes, and I think I skipped one,
which is paper 281.
281, in which case, Councillor Humphreys,
you got something to say on that paper?
Yes, I think we ought to,
we did talk about one of these the other day,
didn't we, it was mildly interesting.
But I think we've looked at this one
and concluded all for information.