Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

Apologies everyone, but we're going to have to start. The IT isn't functioning properly. If anyone's watching from home, I apologize to them, but apologies to you folks for keeping you waiting for a quarter of an hour. We'll have to make sure we don't have this problem again, won't we folks? Looking here, make sure this works in the future. What an evening, first evening of the year, I fancy sitting out in the garden and having a nice quiet drink and we're all in here. I do apologize to everyone, but that's the way life goes. So having said that, good evening and welcome to the July Planning Applications Committee. My name's Tony Belton, I'm the chair of the Planning Applications Committee and a ward member for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea. I'm going to ask the people on the top table to introduce themselves so that actually this bit isn't necessary. Oh, it is being recorded, isn't it? So, top table. Hi, Nick Calder, head of Development Management at Wandsworth. Good evening, my name is Duncan Moore, I'm the external legal advisor. Bruce? I'm Ruth Wright and the clerk. I will ask members to introduce themselves when they address the committee and officers equally. I've got the minutes of the last meeting, which Councillor Humphries has seen, happy for me to sign them, it's a great record. OK, agreed. Are there any apologies? I think there probably is from Councillor Govindia. Councillor Govindia, been a member of this committee for goodness knows how long. If you're listening, Rabi, I hope you'll recover from whatever you've done to your elbow, but if you miss a few of these, that won't worry me too much. I hope you recover personally. Right, moving on to the agenda. Sorry, before then, does anyone have any interests, pecuniary or otherwise to declare as regards to tonight's committee agenda? No interest. Good. Go on to the agenda itself. And the first item is a planning application from the housing department of the council for 12 new units of council accommodation in Roehampton. And I believe that Cathy Malloy is going to present it. Is that right, Cathy? Yes, thank you, Councillor. Over to you when you're ready. Is that okay? Where did you go in to share your screen? Maybe if I do that. I don't understand why that's not come up. No, where's your little presentation? Okay, thank you for sharing. Hello, everyone. My name is Cathy Malloy and I'm going to do an overview of item 1, which is in relation to Eastwood North Estate in Roehampton. So it's just taking some time. The application forms two sites within Auburn Square, which is situated on the east side of Roehampton Lane. So there's Roehampton Lane and located within the Eastwood North Estate in Roehampton, as I said. The estate is formed predominantly by three-story buildings with some five-story blocks known as Cromwell House and also Clipstone House down to the south. Across Roehampton Lane, there is Fairacres, which is a grade two listed residential block and to the east of the estate is the Dover House Estate Conservation Area. The site currently has an existing community building and also multi-use games area within the estate. So in terms of the proposed application, it forms two sites, which are known as N1 and N7, which can be seen here. N1, which is facing Roehampton Lane, is proposed as a five-story building accommodating nine units, all for social rent. N7, which is located more within the estate and located near the existing local shops, is proposed at three stories and would accommodate three units within that block. Just a quick overview of N1. It's an existing garage site and that currently is five garages. The playground, which you can see here, is also part of the proposal and that will be increased in size and also refurbished. And then Cromwell House, which is here on the map, that is the five-story building, the existing. So in terms of the tree removal required as part of the N1 site redevelopment, the main tree where our arborcultures have raised an objection is the Category B lime tree, which can be seen here. The other three trees are Category C cherry trees and they'd also need to be removed. And in terms of other removals, three Category U trees also need to be removed as part of N1. Just in terms of the proposed layout, this is just a brief plan, just showing kind of how it sits within the site. So you've got the main entrance here and the northwestern corner and then there will be a ground floor residential unit here at the bottom and that's an M43 unit. That is the existing playground, which will be increased in size and also upgraded as part of the development. And as I say, the building would accommodate nine units, eight one beds and one two beds. In terms of heights, this shows the height at five-story, five stories along Roehampton Lane. The site is designated as a mid-rise zone, so that identifies areas which are suitable for buildings up to five stories in accordance with policy LP4. Fair Acres, which is opposite, which is the Grade II listed building, is four stories and as you go along Roehampton Lane towards the hospital, you can see more evidence of more modern and taller buildings like the one below in the picture. And this is just a CGI visual of how that will look on Roehampton Lane with the additional tree planting, which is also proposed. And you can see the materiality there. It will be red brick, which will link into the rest of the estate and also some kind of picking up on the kind of art deco of the Fair Acres opposite. Then just a brief overview of N7. This is also a garage site. It's got six garages and it's surrounded by kind of two-story and three-story buildings within this area. The Dover House Estate Conservation Area is here to the east. And again, just the proposed layout, which shows on the ground floor, that will accommodate another M4-3 residential unit and the development consists of three units, two one-beds and one one-bed unit. And just in terms of heights, that's just a visual showing the heights in context with the neighbouring properties and showing the kind of picking up on the pitch roofs of the nearby properties. And again, that's just a visual to show that. And just really briefly, just some of the wider estate improvements which are coming forward as part of the proposal. This is the existing community building that will be refurbished as part of the proposal. The multi-use games area will be resurfaced and also repainted. Then in terms of the existing playground, that will be upgraded and then we've got a new playground proposed in the middle of the estate. And then in terms of that is where N1 is and then N7 over there. So just in terms of summary, we've got 12 units, 10 one-beds and two two-beds all for social rent, including two M4-3 wheelchair user dwellings. We've got various upgrades across the estate which I've just gone through. The units will meet passive house standards. We've got the proposal would result in the loss of nine trees. Three of these are category U but the main tree that would be lost is a category B lime tree on the Roehampton Lane frontage. But in terms of, you know, we have got additional planting proposed to mitigate some of that loss and also by diverse roots and ecological enhancements across the estate. Thank you, Mr. Molloy. This is part of the Council's Thousand Homes Program, small part it may be, but part of it, the officer's recommendation is to approve the application as it stands. And if that needs a mover, I'll move that. Any comments? No. Councillor Humphries. There I was being all polite waiting for somebody else to have a go and nobody said anything so I'll never go. Good evening, everybody. Councillor Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfields in Putney and opposition speaker on this committee. Thank you, Mr. Molloy. We always welcome new homes and that's good to see. However, I'm just looking through the objections from residents on page 19 and lots of things that the existing residents who live there obviously aren't especially thrilled about. I just wanted to ask a little bit about the justification for the five-storey building. I don't think N7 is concerning especially. It fits in quite well with the existing topography that's around there. But N1, it does stand out distinctly on the end of that corner there and it's going to make a real difference to the view when you're coming up Roehampton Lane on the left there. So I just think, you know, obviously we've gone to five storeys because it's in the zone where that's potentially acceptable. But one thing I think that concerns me about going to five, if we'd gone to five storeys and we'd got a whole load of bigger sized family units which we've got predominantly around there and that's what we have a pressing need for, let's be honest, in the borough and in that area as well particularly. I just find it very disappointing that we've got so many one-bed units in that. It's actually 83% of the total that we're putting in there, 83% one-bed units. And folks won't necessarily know but LP 27, our policy recommends 40 to 45% one-beds. And Councillor Belton referred to the 1,000 homes programme of homes. And yes, you know, it's numbers, isn't it? So it's another 12 homes on the 1,000 homes programme, great tick in that box. But are they the kind of homes that we have a pressing need for in the borough? That's what I'm concerned about. We've got 83% of one-bed units and only two two-beds, no three-beds, no four-beds. I'm just wondering where that decision was made and where that balance seems to be appropriate to officers. Thank you, Councillor Humphries. Just taking on board the design issues and how we got to five storeys. We've had quite a lot pre-app on this site and the estate generally. Lots of options came through across the estate and that's why we're down to N1 and N7 and we've lost all the ones in between. So as officers we felt that this was something that we could support in terms of a development site. The site is in a mid-rise zone and in terms of we feel, I think, in the report we set out that it will be a standalone building. It's not trying to replicate the buildings either side and, you know, it's taking on design cues from Fairacres, the Art Deco, the curved and we think actually in terms of the overall design it will be a high quality design. Our design colleagues have been part of the pre-app discussions up to date and they've raised no concerns with that. In terms of the one-bed units, the footprint of the building itself and the actual development site isn't overly large. So that often dictates the unit mix and things like that. However, this is part of the Thousand Home Project where we're seeing a range of unit sizes coming forward. And the main thing on this estate is there will be downsizing if people are looking for smaller units and things like that. So there will be the opportunity to take on smaller one-bed units. So we have consulted the Director of Housing Strategy, Compliance and Enabling and they've raised no concern that these units would not be taken up or anything like that. Thank you. It's interesting you refer to the Director of Housing because quite by chance in another item on the agenda tonight, Item 6, the Director of Housing is praising the fact that of the affordable units we've got there, we've got a big chunk of larger units and family-sized units. So it's quite ironic that in our own development we haven't got any family-sized units. I just think it's an unfortunate trend that we're missing a trick and we've got to look at where our actual need is. However, having said that, I understand the justification, although residents that live there don't seem terribly thrilled about it. I just wonder how come the building - it does say in the report, doesn't it, that there's a negative impact on the listed building opposite. I mean, I get the thing about trying to make it mirror it, but it's taller than it, for a start, so it's going to overshadow it. It's not exactly submissive to the listed building opposite. I just think it's really going to stand out dramatically on that corner as opposed to the rest of the run where you go up, because the other five-storey building that's on the site is further into the middle of the site and not so visible from the outside. I just think visually, intrusively, it's going to look a bit weird sat there on the end. With respect, Councillor Humphries, I'm letting you have your say, because you're bound to, I understand that. But one five-storey - Roehampton Lane, most of us know it, and I was down there myself not long ago to look at it. One five-storey building on the corner of one of the block - oh, pull the other one, please. I mean, this is not going to make a big difference to - and as for the - I actually have some trust that the housing department will have worked out its requirements for one and larger bedroom units with some care. And as you, I'm sure, know, the big problems we have are the very small units and the very large units. Those are the big problems that the housing department has. Lack of both. So if there's one bedroom in some places and more than three or four in others, that's the way it is to try and even up the balance. But interesting point. Bat on, if you wish. Anyone else got anything to say? Councillor Apps. Thank you. I'm Councillor Apps. I'm Shaftesbury in Queenstown Ward, and I wanted to welcome the fact - I mean, it was just such music to see the words, you know, 100 per cent social rented homes in a borough where we need so many more social rented homes. It's a great thing to see. I also particularly wanted to welcome the new disabled units, also strongly needed within estates. And I'm sure that some people locally might want to move into some of these new homes and I know that there's a preference for local people where they have the need, so I hope that people will take that up. So really it was to welcome this and to say that this is one of the projects that are coming forward where we'll see a good deal more social rent available within our borough to meet a very big need that we have. And I'm glad to see that so many of the kind of aspects that are of local concern have been as far as possible taken into account, and I hope that will continue and that engagement and dialogue with local residents will continue to make sure it can be as sympathetically introduced as possible. Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor White. Councillor Ayers. Councillor Boswell. Councillor Owens. We don't all have to speak on this one, but there we go. Go on. Yeah, just to add on to what Councillor Apps said is that also the quality of the housing as well, that along with the regeneration that will go on down the road and other developments, this long ignored area of Wandsworth is getting really good quality social housing and I think that's to be really applauded. So, yeah, I mean, this is, I think, a really, really positive thing, and I'm pleased that it's happening in Rob Hampson. Councillor Ayers. I have a comment and a question. As it is a relatively small scheme, can we hope that it will be built fairly quickly without any dramatic delays? Sorry, Councillor, can you bring the mic closer to you? Okay. I'm from East Putney, the Councillor for -- shall I start again? Yes. Yes, please. As this is a relatively small scheme, can we hope that it will be completed fairly quickly without any of these awful delays we've had on larger schemes? So do we have a date for start on site and completion as an estimate, however vague would help? That's one thing I wanted to say. My comment is that the one bedroom flats will help with the cascading of underoccupied large flats where they're trying to downsize. So I don't have a problem with a lot of one bedroom flats here and there. So let's have a start date if you have one. I think Mr. Richardson who is in charge of developments in the housing department, I think if you send an email to Mr. Richardson and ask him for a start date, I don't think anyone with due respect, I don't think Ms. Molloy could give a start date. But I happen to be talking to Mr. Richardson and he wants to start as many of buildings as he can in whatever time scale he can manage. I don't think it would be wrong to me to estimate what I -- but he'll get a response from him if you try, honestly. Councillor Boswell. Yes, just to add to what everybody else has said that this is to be welcomed and I'm particularly pleased about the play space and that it's going to be refurbished and that it will be bigger for the children there because there's not a lot of local areas for them to go to play. My question is about storage. It's on page 17. So it's very specific. I see that we have the storage sheds. We're adding 12 units but we're not going to have -- there's no new space so there won't be any more storage spaces and storage is always at a premium for people in London and especially in one bed units. What was the thinking there? Is there a reason why? I think in terms of the actual layout of the flats they've got in built storage so in terms of the minimum technical standards you have to have a certain amount of storage built in the unit. So they're actually built in the new units and then it will be storage for existing residents across the state. Thank you very much. And just one other on storage, I noticed that there's nowhere for bulky waste collections also said in the report that normally you would expect in a site of this size that there would be somewhere because that attracts fly tipping which is so unpleasant for everybody. Yeah, in terms of bulky waste provision. So we have put on a condition for further details of that. So just in terms of that condition. That's condition 31. Thank you very much. Councillor Owens. I just have a question about the removal of trees or just to draw attention to because enable have said on page 22 that obviously they're not happy particularly with the removal of the lime tree and just drawing attention to that because enable themselves have said not happy on that front. Thank you. I'm sure we all regret the loss of the tree. Yes. That's sad. But with that and other reservations people may have nonetheless a welcome development is it agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Is everyone else comfortably off in terms of temperature? It's a bit hot. This thing is more noisy than it's helpful as far as I'm concerned I wanted to switch it off but if people think it's too hot I'll leave it on. But can I ask people to get really close to the mics if you watch people on TV doing their song singing they've got mics strapped right in front of their mouth and make sure they can be heard because I'm having a little bit of difficulty with it. Now move on to application number two which is Atlantic house in Putney and I think that's quite an improvement on the previous situation when this committee refused it and it's come back again. With any -- do you want to comment, Ms. Richards, on the changes? Thank you, Councillor. My name is Ellen Richards. I'm the team leader for the west area. Yeah, members will be familiar with this site. This was overturned in December for a very similar scheme. The main reason for refusal was that the two of the flats located in the apartment block, the one bed flats didn't have any amenity space. The applicants have gone away. They've now introduced in -- set in balconies into the roof area. Again, we're not meeting the ten square meters that the policy seeks, but as with all applications and situations, we have to consider the balance between design and what -- how it would look as well. These are small mews properties essentially. Ten square meter balconies might be an overkill. So we're satisfied in terms of officers anyway that they have now overcome the grounds for refusal. So we've recommended approval. Okay. Councillor Ayers. I think this will fit in very well. The rights either side of this site have housing on the back land side, and this looks as though it will be at least a match for them, if not better. There's -- I think there's a lot of care being taken with this design, but I regret the basement bedrooms as always, but then I suppose there's not much else you can do. I'm in favor of this. I think it's an urbane solution. I'm sorry, there's no council rent in it. Okay. Councillor Colle. Thank you, chair. Councillor Colle for -- Councillor for St. Mary's ward. I just -- I also want to echo what Councillor Ayers said. I think this is much improved from the previous application. And so I'm intending to support it. I just wanted to know for information, because it wasn't mentioned in the report, it states that there's an increase in biodiversity net gain, and I just wanted to know what that increase was, because it wasn't mentioned, and what the urban greening factor is as well, if that's also included. You've actually caught me out. There is no reference to the urban greening factor on this. I'm not sure it triggers the need to actually meet that standard. So that's why it's less than ten units. And how about the biodiversity net gain? Again, it wouldn't have triggered it, because the application actually came in before that became a requirement. Okay. It's just because it said in the report that there is a biodiversity net gain, so it must have been calculated at some point. It would have been looked at by our ecology officers in terms of what the gains might be. The site currently is a car park. There's not an awful lot there. So in terms of biodiversity net gain, you generally look for a ten percent increase on what's there. In these kind of sites, any amount that you'd add would be an increase, because it's currently not got anything on the site. And the urban greening factor, as I say, doesn't trigger it in this case. But there have been improvements generally because they are introducing some greening and landscaping as part of the overall scheme. Okay. All right. Thank you. Happy with that, Councillor Kilkity? Right. Just about to say a recommendation is to approve, but Councillor Humphries, come in. Thank you, Chair. I still think, in honesty, that they're still trying to pack too much in. But bearing in mind the approved scheme and the refusal that we've had, it's difficult to say anything much about that. I mean, I know they are making that mueshaus two meters wider. So they are doing their best to pack as much in as they possibly can. But as I say, in the light of the context of the refusal that we've had and how they've tried to address the issues for that, it would be difficult to make a case to do anything else and say it's okay. I do have concerns, though, about the access for deliveries. Because it's a vehicle-free development, as it were, and also no vehicular access to the site. And it says in the report that the only means of delivering to it is on the red route outside on the main road. There's a couple of parking spaces bays marked out on the red route for deliveries. But that, I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, is not only just to serve this development, but we'll also have to serve the majestic store because they're losing their access to the warehouse at the back. So I really want to know from officers, do they feel assured that that is going to be adequate on such a busy main road for access? If you've got a lorry load of wine turning up for Majestics at the same time as three people having their Ricardo deliveries, it's going to be a bit of a struggle there on the main road, isn't it? There is a large loading bay directly in front of the site in any event. It's just beyond the bus stop. And that is considered to be an acceptable point of set down and pickup associated with this scheme as well as the Majestic. And it's been looked at by our transport officers and it's also a TFL route, so it's been assessed as being an acceptable. In this case, they're welcoming the fact that it's car free. I'm sure they are. But the reality, you know, we have all these things that are idealistic aims, but the practicalities of life sometimes mean that if you're living there and the way we have increasing number of delivery vehicles driving all around the place, which is a good thing perhaps to stop us using our own cars to have deliveries for shopping and stuff like that. But with this number of units, I say, what have we thought it through? So what happens if a Majestic lorry is there which will fill up that bay in its own entirety and somebody turns up with a delivery? You know, on a practical level, have we really thought this through? I guess if we had loading bays for all circumstances and all deliveries all at the same time, the world would be a massive loading bay. But I take your point. Mr. Tiddley, you got any comment? Yes, thank you, Chair. David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy. I think, as Richard has said, Transport for London, who are the highway authority, have been consulted and they're satisfied with what's being proposed here. And as Councillor Belton has also said, you know, lots of things can turn up all at once and they have to make do. And it's not unusual to have red routes and double red lines outside properties and for people to have to work out how they adequately manage that. I suppose the only other thing to say is, as you picked up yourself, that the principle of the development here has already been agreed and highways and traffic hasn't been raised as an issue in any of the previous applications. I take the point. I just wish sometimes there'd be more common sense than just following the policies and guidelines, but that's just me having a moment and nothing to do with it. We can do any control over it on planning, unfortunately. Of course, lots of places in the States don't have any of these problems, but a city the size of London would then take the whole of southern England to fill in with parking spaces and so on, as you know. So take the point. Right. The recommendation is to approve. Is it agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Move on to items three and four. I found fascinating. Interesting. I can unusually ask Mr. Moore's to introduce items three and four, I think. Chairman, thank you very much indeed. And to Mr. Grainger for sharing the fun. These are the most exciting applications on this evening's agenda. I don't think members are going to be able to get their teeth into any planning issues here. These are largely technical in nature. I don't propose to add a great deal in relation to what's set out in the papers, which are very clear. I suspect that these applications have arisen either because the applicant Notting Hill Genesis is going through a refinancing exercise or perhaps even proposing to sell these two properties. This one, Bedford Hill and the next item, very similar in terms of the applications. There are no changes of use proposed to either of these premises. And there are no physical changes that are proposed to either of these premises. This is a requirement to remove two conditions on each of the operative planning permissions, one dating back to 76 and the other one, I think, to 86, which basically restrict the operation of those two premises to the council. But obviously it's being undertaken by a registered provider. They will still be provided by a not for profit registered provider. And in addition to the removal of the conditions, the applicants have offered a unilateral undertaking, which helps to secure that that will be the case moving forward. Another part of the application is a request for the unilateral undertaking to contain what's known as a Morbidgee exemption clause. Now, we've looked at many of those types of deed of variation applications that we've had before us. Essentially what they do is to give a lender to a registered provider sufficient comfort that if the registered provider ever defaulted on its loans, which I've looked at and it's never happened so far, but it would give the opportunity for the lender to be able to sell the units, but they would have to go through a process first. They'd have to be offered to the council first, and the offer would have to be open for three months. It enables the registered provider to raise finance against the property at a higher value, so it's not subject to a tenancy. So that takes up a fair proportion of both of those papers. I'm seeing members' eyes glazing over. I'm boring myself with this, but if there are any questions, Mr. Grange will be very glad to answer them. Chairman, that's all I have to say. Thank you. One question that was mentioned to me was, this is a planning committee, why does it have to come to the planning committee? Why can't it just be dispensed with in some sense? The reason is, Chairman, under the constitution, any applications which require a planning obligation have to come before the committee, unless it can be done through an SL83 process. Members may wish to consider the scheme of delegations to see if that can be extended. There are lots of applications that do arrive and are seen on your agendas that perhaps could be dealt with by officers, subject to obviously calling if any members have concerns about what's being proposed. I must say from my point of view, I think, I'm not quite sure about this, but I think I've been on the majority of planning applications committees for 50 years, and I don't think I've ever seen this come up, so I doubt whether there's any point in making a special case of them. Having heard that, Councillor Apps has a question. I read the housing officer's condition that it should make sure that these could be maintained if needed, so in other words, that the use wouldn't necessarily change without agreement from the council, and I was reassured by you saying that they would have to be offered back to the council on the basis of the loan. Would there be any kind of restriction on how much they could be offered for, though? Would we necessarily get a fair price? Generally with these clauses, there's a requirement for the lender, so the lender to the registered provider, to be able to recover the entirety of the value of their loan against the property and any costs attached to it, so that would be the minimum price that the registered provider's lender would look for it. But as I say, I don't know of any registered provider that has defaulted on loans that have ever required one of these clauses to be enacted, but the lenders do require them in order to be able to loan the full amount against the value of the properties. Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr Moles, for that, something which I understood most of, I think. I don't know if this is completely within the remit of planning it either, but I just had a sort of general question in layman's terms, if you could. Just how do we have reassurance that the safeguarding interests of both the council and any potential residents of these places will be upheld by the third provider, by the registered provider, because presumably there's a register and whatever, because it sounds like there's obviously a scheme of sort of checks that only people that are on a particular list or whatever will be able to do that kind of thing. I just want to make sure it's not carte blanche for anybody to rock up and say they could take this over and run into the home and maybe not to the standard that the council might do itself or something of that sort. That's just a slight concern for me. Good question, Councillor, thank you. I've had a look at one of the United Undertakings, the one actually submitted for the second application, item 4 on your agenda, but I suspect it's in identical terms as the one for this application. And there is a definition of registered provider that's referenced to the statutory powers under which these organisations are authorised and regulated, so it won't be another organisation who doesn't have the skills and doesn't have the authority to undertake that type of use, won't be entitled to buy the property and use it without coming back to the council for, firstly, to remove the unilateral undertaking, but also there'd probably be a change of use application that would accompany that. Thank you, that's really helpful. And one really parochial, small matter, which is a planning matter, I noticed there was one objection from somebody called Miss Lee Claxton, and in her objection on the website it says she asked a query about it, but nobody got back to her. And I've just slightly unanswered that, because I know officers are normally very good about coming back to somebody, but it says in her objection that she asked a question, but nobody's referred back to her, and I just wanted to check if that was correct, because it doesn't sound like our normal best practice. I can't answer that tonight. May I throw it out for Mr Grainger, please? Yeah, Mr Grainger. I can't tell you whether somebody's returned the call or not, but we have so much correspondence, we do actually say that we don't enter into written correspondence on representations on planning applications, but I could see, perhaps, it would have been pertinent to you. Not sure I picked that up, but essentially Mr Grainger will reassure Councillor Humphries tomorrow online, if necessary. I'm not picking it up very well, but he's satisfied anyway, he's satisfied. Registered providers, I mean, the largest group are the housing associations, aren't they, but the others as well. Okay, now subject to that explanation, better take this properly from the minute takers point of view. So application number three, 117 Bedford Hill, recommendation approved. Is that agreed? Application number four, 1 Lakewood Road, similar, agreed? Right, thank you. Move on to application number five, which is 44 Falcon Road, which essentially is a movement of Tesco's Branch and Falcon Road from one side of the road to the other, but I'm sure it's more complicated than that. Mr Grainger, do you want to add anything? I think you've summarised the proposal accurately. Sorry, Nigel Grainger, East Area Team Manager. Yeah, it's a change of views from a gymnasium to a retail store, and effectively the objective is to replace an existing Tesco with the same brand on the opposite side of the road. There are a couple of questions I know. Councillor Colkley. Thank you, Chair. I noticed in the objections, one of them was from what seems to be the leaseholder of the property, saying that the applicant has no legal right to occupy the premise. We hold a 15-year lease on the property and the legal right to occupy it. We don't require change of use and we'll be continuing to use the property for a gym for which we already have planning permission. So I know this isn't strictly a planning ground, but it is concerning that, especially considering that the Tesco already occupies a property across on the other side of the street that we're going to be bouncing out a gym and replacing it with a Tesco and there's not a lot of gyms in that area. The nearest one would be on Latchmere Road, which could be a substantial track for some people. So, yeah, I just wanted to raise that and ask if officers have any more context on this, because it just seems a little bit messy and I'm concerned about the future of the gym. Thank you. I think you, as you began your sentence, you said it's not a planning matter, which is totally correct. It's essentially, it will be a landlord and tenant matter to be explored in terms of the legality of the lease and the succession of that lease and what clauses that they have. But I think maybe a cycle or two cycles ago, Councillor Belton mentioned that provided that an application was valid and a certification was signed, he could make an application for a building in my back garden and the same principle applies here, irrespective of the legal position. This is a valid application with the correct certification and the application has to be determined against policy objectives, which we've done and recommended for approval. Well, I'll add a question. Presuming it were to go ahead, what would be the loading arrangements for… I mean, our test goes after all, it's a pretty large transporter of goods. I can set the scene. There is a loading opportunity at the front on Falcon Road and there are also opportunities at the Wirrung Kopok Close, but it's quite complex and I think the only person that has a grip on the timings and the temporary bus lanes would be our valued colleague, Mr. Tiddley. Ah, Mr. Tiddley, do you want to come? I mean, the loading problem is less than across the road because at least you can park around both sides of this particular block. The objective is that the large, fixed, rigid vehicles would load off Falcon Road and then the smaller seven and a half tonne vehicles, which would be restricted to two a day, would load from Kopok Close, but you'll have seen in the amenities section that it's quite an enclosed, slightly canyoned area, which, you know, it's lots of masonry and hard surfaces and the idea of unloading caged goods and wheeling them to the facility was unacceptable in many terms. I'm sure there's a few garage users who have an objection to… So we've sought to control that and the number and the timings in order to protect the residential amenity of those rear residential occupiers. Mr. Tiddley. Yes, thank you, Chair. And just to clarify, I mean, there's a bus lane, the yellow line loading restrictions, a whole host of regulations on Falcon Road, which are quite difficult to comprehend, but in short, you can load before 7 a.m., between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and after 7 p.m. Now, what's probably quite helpful is that the store thinks that they need between three and five deliveries, so it's not as if we have a whole load of deliveries and Mr. Grainger, as is common, has ensured that there's a delivery and servicing condition as well, so there's a need to put a plan that will show how that will be adequately managed. And I'd also probably say it may well be an improvement on the loading activity that takes place on the other side of the road, which is closer to the junctions. Okay. Councillor Justin. Yeah, Mark Justin, Councillor for Nine Elms. I just think this application would be looked at in a completely different light if the officers had told us something that I know, that before it was a gym, it was a Sainsbury's, so it's gone from a Sainsbury's to a gym to a Tesco's. What are we discussing, if it was good enough as a Sainsbury's? No, no, it's never been a Sainsbury's. What was it before the gym then? It was a relatively new building, and I'm pretty certain it was my ward for years. It's a relatively new building, and this moment it was built, it's flats above and a gym at the bottom, or empty probably for ages. I don't think it was ever a Sainsbury's, but is that? It was a, I believe, unauthorised car wash in its life and all sorts of things. It was a sort of an empty space, but the site was redeveloped. I read a scheme in 2014, so it's not that old. Okay, Councillor Humphreys. Sorry, Chair, just a quickie. I know Mr Grange has told us that it's not our business if it's a gym or a supermarket or whatever it is, but I just thought it was, oh, Mark, can you hear me? Sorry folks, yeah, I know we've been told it's not a planning matter, whether it's a dispute between the gym owners and the supermarket, the potential new offer requires, but it is a planning matter, it's a change of use. I just thought it was interesting that we haven't got a comment from the EDO or from our new director of space on whether they think that's, because as Councillor Colton quite rightly says, the provision for gyms isn't very good down there, and we've got quite a lot of supermarkets. I just wondered if that had been, had we asked them for a comment on this one, because changes of use in these local areas are quite significant to the people. It just sounds like, oh, it's just another supermarket, but actually, and from what we've heard in the objection, there's quite a lot of people are unhappy that the gym might be going. I just wondered why there wasn't a comment from the EDO and the appropriateness of that change. The reason why we wouldn't ask, we haven't asked the EDO for a comment on this, because they would have to be governed on the suitability of the change of use in strict planning policy terms from the NPPF downwards through the London plan to our plan, which has a town centre first approach. So, irrespective of what they, you know, a wish list of potential uses, you have to go through this process of prioritising the town centre first, and if it's not, as the paper talks about in terms of the sequentially testing, which sounds quite grand and a bit scientific, but it discounts other sites to, when it's out of centre, such as this site, it discounts other opportunities in centres to make sure that the vitality and viability of the existing town centres remains or would remain vital and viable. So, the rules would have put, they would have to make that same assessment, not being planning officers, but we would have to tell them that they would have to make that same assessment, as we do, and arrive at the same conclusions. I understand that, and thank you, that's helpful. I just think it's odd, isn't it, that we thought it was suitable to be a gym before, and now we're saying, well, it's suitable to be a supermarket as well. So, obviously, within policy terms, it could fit as either, but it's just, I just thought it was interesting that there wasn't any comment on that thing which makes a difference to the high street. Interesting. But given that the application sounds as though it may not get very far for other reasons, but nonetheless, we have to process it, is the recommendation approved, is that agreed? Agreed. Thank you, agreed unanimously, I think. Moving on to the sixth application, which is Gwynn Road, and I think we have a presentation from Mr Grainger. You will do, just bear with me, please. So, for the sake of the recording, whilst you're getting that going, we're missing our nice, warm evening, sitting out in the garden. The green tree? Yes. You there? Me? Yes, okay. Gwynn Road. Excuse me. Okay, so this is item six, page 113, and it's 80 to 100 Gwynn Road. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing building to provide a part 20, 8-story building comprising 88 residential units in class EG-III light industrial use over the ground and first floors with landscaping, disabled car parking and servicing bay on Gwynn Road and other associated works. So this slide shows you the site plan, the red line plan of the application site. Directly to the north, sandwiched between the railway viaducts and the red line site is an existing storage facility safe store, and this is part of the allocation which I'll come on to later. Directly to the north of the site is Fred Wells Gardens and to the south is a Travis Perkins builder's merchant and to the left or the west of the site is Lombard Wharf and Oyster Wharf. So this is an aerial giving this a bit more context. I don't know if my cursor is going to... So the application site is where my cursor is. It's that rectangular area there with the safe store wrapping around the application site. This is more of a contextual 3D earth image showing the 28 storey tower of Lombard Wharf to the left of the slide while the 14 storey 28 Gwynn Road site is located to the right hand side where you can see the builder's merchants and the other developments surrounding the site. While a bit closer of a zoom in, this is more of a realistic angle of what we see albeit elevated and this is the rectangular parcel of land that the application site is dealing with with the safe store located around the remainder of the site. This is the site's allocation. So this is what the 2023 Wandsworth local plan has specifically looked at in terms of what development could come forward within this parcel of land. And you can see that the red line of the site's allocation, it's called RIV 8 within the policy documents. The area entitled warehouse with the rectangle is the application site while safe store wraps around. But you'll notice obviously from this site allocation that both of these site ownerships are within one allocation. This is a shot from the urban design study. This is a piece of work that was part of the evidence base for the 2023 local plan and analyzed the areas all across the borough, Pan-Monsworth, and assessed opportunities for various heights, tall building zones, mid-rise building zones, and this particular area within this coded area, TBB 1, I think that's A3 or A3, is the area of the subject study that we're dealing with. Now this is translated in real terms into the plan adoption into this, which shows you the allocation of the site in terms of a tall building zone. So you will see that the warehouse, the rectangular warehouse here, is entirely within the tall building zone, which has been found to be able to tolerate between seven to 20 storey buildings, whilst the safe store site lies out of the allocation or a large slice of the site lies outside of that allocation. And that's not even within a mid-rise building zone, that's within just a normal designation, so that would go up to four storeys. Without being regarded as mid-rise. In order to explore effectively the division of the site allocation, which is talked about in policy PM1, where the primary function of the site allocation is an attempt or a focus to bring the development opportunity forward in one entity. When that doesn't happen, then obviously there's an exercise that needs to be done in potentially envisaging what could actually be taken up in the parcel of land. And the applicant has gone through this in a master planning approach, of which this is the beginning of, I don't expect you to be able to read the text above, which is how the site has begun to be split up, resulting in an exercise in looking at the existing arrangements of the buildings on site, and then exploring where additional height could be tolerated or be positioned within the limitations of the tall building zone. And this slide encapsulates that piece of work in the blue rectangles and shapes, effectively. This sort of, I couldn't call it a square, it's more of a rectangle than the elongated rectangle up there, showing you that that's the application site, whilst the safe store sites is in pink adjacent, and where it faces the railway viaduct, obviously it would have to respond to the lower height allocation. So this is an example of what's required through master planning to potentially come forward with the adjacent sites. Moving on to the proposal itself, this is the proposed ground floor, where there is a degree of the commercial space re-provided, but obviously there's the entrances to the private sailing intermediate, which is from Lombard Road here, and the affordable rent, which is from the lobbies around this area, and the bike storage and obviously refuse stores because they have to be able to be wheeled out at grade. This is the commercial space above, and we've moved to, this is ground first, this is the second floor plan showing the first of two amenity spaces, and this is the amenity space above the seventh floor, so our eighth floor. The proposal would accommodate 88 units in total, 22 of which would be affordable housing units, providing 35.4% affordable housing, and out of that split 74% would be social rent, while 26 would be intermediate tenure, and that's calculated by habitable room. Again, this is the commercial floor area, just a highlight in pink, and as part of the policy requirements, there is an exercise to be done in trying to visualise how the commercial space could come forward, not as one entity, but split up to accommodate small and medium enterprise businesses who want larger or smaller spaces as such, so this demonstrates how the space could actually be adapted to accommodate end users. And finally, a render looking north from Lombard Road, as though Travis Perkins wasn't there, and this shows the ground floor, and the quality of the design with facing brickwork and cast concrete ground floor colonnade, with obviously there is no difference between the private sale and intermediate block in terms of design and quality, and that of the social rent block in both materiality and in design. And a longer view, again, with Travis Perkins in the foreground of the proposal. And to conclude, the proposal is considered compliance in officer's view and accords with local and London plan objectives, and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions, and a section 106 planning obligation and GLA stage two referral. Well, the application is compliant with policy, and has the officer's recommendation for approval. Do I have any comments? Councillor Colle, Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. As this is in my ward, I've been following it for a while. I want to say, and I think this is the opinion of officers, it's a shame that the two sites can't be developed together to get something that's a lot more coherent, and still in the hope that, regardless of this application, hopefully they can put something forward together. But as a stand-alone application, I think this is a good application. I like the architecture and the way it looks. And, of course, the social housing increases welcome, as well as the good environmental benefits. I've always found that Gwynn Road has not much biodiversity or trees on the road, so I think that it will really help with the streetscape. I just wanted to note that there was around 48 neighbour objections, so I wanted to ask officers if they could sort of sum up in what areas were the objections from residents most prevalent and sort of what the response was to them. Well, I think obviously we've summarised all of those areas, but I wouldn't be able to... Each concern is given the same amount of gravity and planning merit as any other. So to say that 40 of them were all about daylight and that's obviously concerning to a number of people and only one person raised biodiversity, we still take it equally as seriously. So I think in that way, I think it's best to be equitable about the level of objections and deal with them all in that regard. Okay, I appreciate that on the type of objection. I was also wondering if sort of was it a particular, was a particular block nearby that they were more concentrated in? Then there's a relatively new 28-storey tower to the west and I think a lot of occupiers objected to the potential impacts of the proposal within Lombard Wharf. Everything that has been most impacted in the normal British until the world reverses itself, everything to the north and east is Fredwell's Gardens and the railway lines, as far as I can see. It's a bit difficult to see whose daylight it has a big impact on, frankly. Is that not right? Well, that's more sunlight, Councillor Belton. So daylight, diffused daylight works in very different ways and this is when we start talking about it. There's still nothing there other than Fredwell's Gardens and the railway lines. You'd be surprised, I mean we've gone into, I mean without preempting any questions here, but there were failings in terms of daylight, strict daylight, which is different to sunlight from Lombard Wharf with the presence of the tower because each of the units that face the tower have balconies. Now the BRE, the Building Research Establishment guidance allows as part of an exercise to recalculate daylight loss by removing notionally removing the balcony and then recalculating and then all of those windows serving habitable rooms all passed and that's something that you'll see throughout planning assessments where there are balconies. Yes, you were telling me earlier that there's a difference between 98% and 97% so I do accept there is a difference, but okay. Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as Councillor Caulfield said, there's a lot to welcome on this application. On the design factor, I particularly like the sort that's gone into the arches at the bottom to echo the bridge and things like that. Because it's unfortunately okay to get things plonked in front of us if there's just something off a template that's been put down and I think there's some careful thoughts going into how this is going to sit in the context so that's very good to see. And again, as Councillor Caulfield said, I'm fortunate that an arrangement couldn't be made with an adjoining site, but hey ho, that's what happens sometimes. I'm pleased to see this coming forward at last after a long gestation of time. Couple of queries on specific things. I'm concerned about the light industrial space. And as Mr. Grainger was saying, it's been left pretty sort of open at this stage, sort of shell and core so that depending on the occupiers, it could change in its necessities. I just want to make sure and have some reassurance perhaps from him that there's nothing that we might agree tonight that would prejudice the future of that light industrial space and we wouldn't want it to come back later and say we couldn't find a tenant so we're going to ask to convert it into RESI. I think we've got, colleagues will probably be aware, we've got a lack of light industrial space in the borough so I'm very always concerned when we have a site like this coming forward that we have a re-provision and that is here in theory. But I just want to make sure how robust that is that it's going to have a viability of light industrial space in the foreseeable future obviously without a crystal ball to know who the tenants might be.

• Certainly it's a totally valid point, but you have seen within the assessment and how we've pointedly referred to the use of the ground and first floor as that light industrial within that use class and then captured the use within conditions so that all of this is geared to ensuring that that comes forward for the intended use as light industrial. So moving forward, for whatever reason, and we've all seen this, but there would be further applications and further assessment and further opportunities to really drill down on reasons as to why something wasn't going to end up like that. But the policy position now within the 2023 plan is so robust in terms of marketing evidence and everything that you need to change the use that it's quite a high bar so the retention is looking very, very, the commencement and retention is looking very good.
• That's reassuring, thank you Mr. Granger. It's a bit of a theme of the night but my other concern as far as the viability of the light industrial is the deliveries and access and again, it's all street-based servicing here, nothing on site at all. And again, do we think that is going to be adequate for the amount of businesses that might be in that quite significant amount of space?
• Mr. Tiddley being asked again, I think.
• Thank you, Chair. It's never ideal when developments are effectively proposed servicing from the street. And in this case as well, the disabled parking is on the street. Ideally, you would like those activities to take place off the road for all sorts of reasons. That said, it then becomes a matter of the planning balance and the overall weighting that members want to give to concerns. We've having assessed it, we're confident that the scheme can work. We may as well have an opportunity that the scheme can work. We may as a highway authority ourselves need to amend the parking restrictions and loading restrictions and the timings of yellow lines outside the site and that's something that can happen over time. There is a proposal here that we think is deliverable and workable but that doesn't preclude the council from having to do what it generally has to do to make traffic and parking and servicing work.
• Thanks, Mr. Tiddley. The experience of Mr. Tiddley showing through there and again, that future proofing, so we've got that flexibility to try and make it work as best it can when it needs to. I have one other question, if that's okay, Councillor Wilson. Again, it's reassurance really 'cause it's addressed in the report but again, the pretense for the site next door if it does come forward safe store so we're not going to prejudice any development potentially on that next door site. It is really close. It's a meter away in some points. And indeed, so I just want to be absolutely assured again that nothing we're going to decide tonight would prejudice that site being able to come forward to fulfill its potential.
• Certainly, that's why I went through so many sites to try and show you what the designations are. So the way, what's different between all the proposals that we've seen before and now is that the 2023 local plan has effectively, it's laid out what the built envelope next door would potentially be. So they've got to work within those parameters as the applicant for this has been strict with themselves and not tried to exceed the high parameters within the plan within LP4. So we don't, the exercise that the applicant has done in master planning, it may not obviously there are blocks but we will work with the applicant to ensure that they can maximize the potential of their site within the allocation and we think that can be done if this is approved.
• Thank you. Thank you, that's helpful. I was completely conscious of the fact those windows on the elevations facing the site which again, but they're secondary windows if something did come forward because they have another option. So that's good to see and thank you to officers for working that through with the applicant to make sure it becomes something that is workable.
• That raises a question that had occurred to me anyway. Years and years ago, there was a power, I'm not suggesting we pursue this, I'm just asking as a matter of interest, there was a power to compulsory purchase for planning reasons. I can remember actually considering that a few times, a long time ago. I've never heard of it for 10, 20 years. This is still a part because we're talking about the second site being so close. If we really felt so strongly that it was impossible, is there still a power to compulsory purchase for planning reasons?
• Yes.
• There is.
• Chairman, that would be, well, it's quite a process that would need to be followed, but yeah, the council has CPO powers and it could look to exercise them, but as I say, that would require quite a lot of investigation, a number of different resolutions, but I think there is a power.
• I'm sure for fairly obvious reasons, the council hasn't done that for the previous 44, in that chief's case, 46 years, so we'd have to be learning from scratch, so forget I mentioned it, I just am out of interest.
• Councillor Melton, don't let the power go to your head. (laughing)
• Councillor White and then Councillor Apps.
• I think Councillor Apps is first.
• Oh, okay, Councillor Apps.
• I was going to say to the chair that I think one of the places that he would prefer to be tonight, like myself, is at the Battersea Society annual reception. And I was interested to see, and sorry we can't be there, but interested to be able to sort of represent some of their comments in, that they've made about this development and it very much goes along the same lines as Councillor Humphrey's around the difficulties of that road and the difficulties of space and the lack of a stand for either loading, unloading, deliveries, you name it. I think it is of concern and I think that we need to look again at the road sooner rather than later because it's already quite difficult to cycle down Nevermind Drive. There's a lot of conflict. So I would ask that maybe that's something the transport, if we go ahead and approve this, and approve this scheme, that's maybe something the transport team could look at relatively soon. Thank you.
• I'm sure Mr. Tiddley will have noted that. Will you, are you, oh you still want to, go on.
• Holding my stalk.
• Councillor White.
• I'm talking to my stalk. No, I'm just very much in favour of this. There's a couple of things that really catch the eye of the environmental solution. I think it's excellent. And also it meets our affordable housing emerging policy around a split of 70 to 30. It goes above that, so that's excellent. It's just a pity that the affordables didn't hit our emerging plan for 50/50. But we can't have everything and in general it's a good scheme.
• Okay, subject to all those comments. Agreed, agreed. Thank you, that concludes the planning applications. Can I move on to the main agenda? And fairly quickly, there's the decisions paper, is that noted for information? And the closure of files, papers, is that agreed? And closed appeals, is that agreed? And moving on to the tree preservation order, and there is a paper actually, paper 24203 on page 201. Has anyone got any questions about that or is that agreed? Agreed, that's agreed. And then finally, the AELTC update is a letter from me to the planning officer at the GLA. And just to put people in the picture, just asking people to note this, in fact, just for information, but the AELTC went, you will recall that the GLA have effectively called in the application to consider it. The AELTC have made certain suggested improvements and as a matter of courtesy, perhaps they have to, the GLA told us about the improvements and I wrote back, advised, obviously, I think Councillor Humphries has seen this already, saying that whilst we welcome these small changes which were indeed an improvement on the previous application and made a little bit more territory, more open to the public, it wasn't sufficient to overtake. Our main objections, so we stand by our principal position. That was it. So really for noting, really. Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair, very helpful. Just a quick question. Have we got any idea on timeline so far for the GLA? I certainly haven't. Have we any idea on timelines? We don't have any ideas at the moment. The AELTC were pushing for a July inquiry. That's obviously not going to happen. I suspect they wanted it straight after the GLA of Wimbledon fortnight. I would have thought it was going to be September at the earliest, probably late September, because we need to advertise it and consult. But I will, as soon as I get a date, I will let all PAC members and the lead members know as well. Their first estimate was presumably before they knew a general election was going to happen as well. I suspect that might have had an impact, yeah. Okay. Thank you and good night. [Applause]