Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jubb, and I'm chair of the committee. Let me first of all call out your names. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. And please remember to switch it off once you have done so. Councillor Owens, I think he's due to be here, but he's not here. Mark Dodgson, I think we have apologies from Francis Radcliffe. Thank you. I'm here. Thank you. Andrew Catto. Yes. Thank you. I'm here. Chris Rice, I think not here. Edward Potter. Yeah. Libby Lawson. Yeah. Good evening. Pamela Greenwood. Yeah. Peter Faro. Yeah. There have been apologies from Councillor Belton, Laura Paul Glaze on whose behalf Andrew Catto is here, and Roger Armstrong. Are there any other apologies? Just Councillor Osborne, chair. Next thing to say is following. Officers are also here. Lauren Way. Lauren Way, principal conservation and urban design officer. Barry Sellers. Barry Sellers, present chair. And Henrietta Kirkpatrick-Tice. Henrietta Kirkpatrick-Tice, conservation officer. And Councillor Owens has literally just walked into the room, and I'm sure can confirm her presence. Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward, thank you. Thank you all. Just to remind you that microphones should be turned off, except when you're speaking, in order to reduce any background noise or interference. And I do recommend that people turn off or put on silent their phones, to avoid embarrassment. Right. Are there any declarations of interest, either financial or otherwise? No? Okay. Now you've all received the minutes of the meeting held on the 7th of May. May I sign those as a correct record of the meeting? Yes? Okay, thank you. I think this would be a good point to raise an issue not on the agenda. The committee's terms of reference were agreed back at the end of 2022, when the former Wandsworth Conservation Areas Advisory Committee, with the awkward acronym WCAAC, generally pronounced WCAC, had its last meeting. And those were approved by full council, as I recall, at the beginning of 2023. Those terms of reference are faulty. It's been drawn to my attention in at least one crucial regard, in that they do not give any end date to the term of office of either the chair or the vice chair, deputy chair. I propose that this fault, if I can put it that way in our terms of reference, be discussed fully at our next meeting on the 10th of September, and that we propose, the proposal should be an amendment to the terms of reference, to state that the appointment of the chair and deputy will be for a 12-month term, or until the first meeting of the municipal year, whenever that might be. And the clerk will be, or one of his colleagues will be contacting you at some point between now and September to seek nominations, with an end date, I think, of the 26th of August. So, I seek your agreement to that proposal. Putting it bluntly, I should not be sitting here forever and a day, nor should my colleague Peter. Miss Radcliffe. Michael, it will be ideal to discuss it on the 10th of September, but I do think, actually, one year is quite a short time, and in any case, it should not, it may be a one-year period, but it should not preclude a second year. Can I just leave that with you? Certainly. I, too, was surprised at the 12-month suggestion, and I would be curious to know from committee clerk what periods other committees adopt for periods of offices of the committee. I would have thought at least two to three years would be a not unreasonable period. Again, and with possibly no preclusion as to whether or not you should stand again. But anyway, I look forward to hearing from you. Mr Catto, and then I'll seek a response from the clerk. Right, Andrew Catto. I just wanted to say, Michael, on that one, two things. In my experience on being chair of other things, two years is the absolute minimum to get your teeth into anything, and is probably the more sensible figure. But we also might consider taking, sorry to steal your thunder, Mr Potter, to take a leaf out of the RIBAs book and make sure that the new president chair or whatever it is is elected in good time to have some take-over time, hand-over time with the previous one. Committee clerk, please. Thank you, chair. The suggestion for 12 months was merely that that's ordinarily how most council committees operate. It may be that the chair, they're elected for a 12-month period, but they tend to serve more than one term. They're just re-elected every year. So that was the suggestion. It is, the committee itself will decide upon its own terms of reference. If you would prefer the election would be for a period of two years, we can perhaps discuss that at the next committee. But in any case, unless you put it into your terms of reference, it would not preclude the current chair being re-elected next year and beyond. Thank you very much. Is that agreed? Let us move on to paper 24205, which is the list of applications for our consideration. We start with one that I think everyone knows about, 20241322, the Glass Mill, 1 Battersea Bridge Road. Who's going to lead on this? Mr Sellers. Yes, I will lead on this particular application. Just to give you the context, really, for the site, this is the Glass Mill building on Battersea Bridge Road, the junction with the actual listed bridge itself, Battersea Bridge, and is showing the brief glimpse of the River Thames as part of that setting of the site. Distant building, the plan submitted for the distant building isn't in great shape, but it just shows the outline there of that particular building as shown. What I'm going to do is go through parts of the building itself in terms of proposals, and then go into more details in terms of the context and the heritage appraisal. Proposed ground floor. Now, we've had a long discussion about pre-application discussions. There were also two design review panels, and there were changes made between each design review panel as well, and also subsequently to the design review panels. In this particular area here, the front part, which shows you the restaurant, has been pushed back slightly to give more generous space to the public realm on the outside of the building. It does mean that it's a very small restaurant. In fact, I'd probably go as far as saying it might be just a café, as they're showing there, but it's a very small number of covers to that restaurant in terms of that size. As you go across the ground floor, there have been some changes from the previous plans with the design review panel because the lobby areas have changed slightly, and also the access to the commercial community areas, the southern end have changed somewhat as well. So there are changes there, which you might understand from previous discussions. Moving up to the first floor plan, now this is the affordable workspace. Now one thing to say about that is the existing building is almost 5,000 square metres of floor space, and they're providing, I think, just over 500 square metres of floor space. So they're not re-providing what they should be providing as part of the policy, so this element is contrary to the existing policy in the local plan because they're not providing sufficient replacement floor space. Just to show you a quick section through the lower part of the building for things quite useful. We have the car parking to the ground floor and lower basement there, the cycle storage plant, and then moving up through, you saw the ground floors I showed you, then the first floor office space, and above that you've got divisions between the private flats and the affordable flats. Now, overall, there's 142 units in the building, of which 45 are affordable. That's 35%, so that's a fast-track method under the GLA's proposals, so they can go through that process. This is a typical floor plan, which shows you the prow area at the front there, a division into two units there, basically, and units running on both sides of the building with the core in the centre there, and the core to the workspace at the end there. I thought I'd also mention about the landscape. The landscape, if you can look at the area round by the bridge itself, and the embankment area, the previous landscape was done under a section 278 agreement with the previous owners, and it's not very good for people with disabilities. It's very difficult, very awkward, and that was one of the benefits of moving back the prow of the building at the front there, to give more generosity to the public realm, and also to allow some tables and chairs to come outside from the restaurant. But the idea, this walk space around it, you can get two wheelchairs side by side in a ramp, a gentle ramp, one in 20, about that. So that is compliant with inclusivity along that frontage there. On the actual front to Bassett Bridge Road, there's a sort of lobby area and area which is an overhang from the building, which protects the space. But at the same time, there's some planting going in there, and whether that's planting will survive at all in that location. I mean, there's certainly a GLA race question about that, and so are we. So that's a consideration for that point of view. There's also quite a strong slope to the street itself. So the steps are just outside the front of the main lobby. So if you're coming wheelchair, you've got to come up and then double back on yourself to go into the lobby area. So that's a little bit inconvenient there, but it's just dealing with the levels along Bassett Bridge Road frontage. This is a general CGI of that landscaped area, showing the relationship between River Thames and the prow of the ground floor and the first floor. And you see the upper floors are cantilevered with the two columns there, overseiling that. So just to give you an indication of that area there. And there are steps as well to going up, so give people an alternative, but the main thing is it's inclusive accessibility for people with disabilities along that river frontage. An overall view of the building. Now the building's gone through various iterations, both in terms of materiality and height. Just before the last DRP, they came in with five stories higher than what's being shown at the moment. In the end, they settled for 33 stories or 34, I think, if you count them at the top as well. So that is quite a considerable height for that location. In terms of the local plan, the area is allocated local plan for buildings of mid-rise, which is up to six stories. So it's certainly not policy compliant by any means. So 34 stories compared with six is quite a change to the local plan status. The building itself into two parts, really. The shoulder area above the podium with the main tower rising above that, and a very slight recess in the middle of that to show the differentiation between each side. And you'll see that emphasized when we look at some of the views of the building as well. On the top of the podium, by the way, there's a landscaped area for the play space for the children in the development. And it's below the acceptable yield. So the yield actually for the site is a certain amount, and it's below that. So they haven't provided sufficient energy space for children of the families that are going to live there from that point of view. Just in terms of materiality and that, we've been through several iterations from the beginning. The first one or two were of a very solid brick structure, and we felt that was quite heavy in its appearance. And they've come back with terracotta and showing the ribbing of the terracotta, along with steel, aluminium, and reinforced concrete to the piers at the bottom. The top of that podium area is a metal fence around the top there, because that's the play area. It's quite visible, I think, really, but there again, it's got to have a safety. You can't have children playing that sort of height without being safe behind that. Just another CGI showing the relationship between the building as a space with the Vassar Bridge Road frontage, and you can just see, as you look to the left, the relationship between that and the river frontage and the bridge itself. Now moving on to the heritage analysis, what applicants provided is a zone of theoretical visibility across the about two and a half kilometres of that part of London. And the dark blue shows where the building is visible from. And you see Bassie Park is coloured in blue, so most parts of Bassie Park is visible. And also parts of the Royal Hospital site and Brompton Cemetery, as well as a certain number of streets within the north of the borough, which is Kensington and Chelsea. Now, that plan also does show the outline of conservation areas as well, across the north of the borough, and also into Kensington and Chelsea, and also far north as Hyde Park as well. Now, I was going to go through several views, and this is an important one. I haven't shown before and after, because there's going to be too many slides, but what I've done is just showing the building itself, which you'll see bang in the centre there. So you've got the grade one listed Royal Hospital buildings, and the grade two Historic Park and Garden, and you'll see the building popping up in the sort of transverse view on the centre of the slide. So less substantial harm has been identified in that particular location. Similarly with the setting to the Royal Hospital elsewhere, from Royal Hospital Road, and this one's done by wireline. You see the blue wireline of the building showing that location. Again, looking at the north part of the embankment, looking across to Albert Bridge, through Albert Bridge, the spidery network of the Cable Stade Bridge, which is grade two star, and you can see the proposal there in its form, and again, less substantial harm has been identified to the setting of Albert Bridge. Beaufort Street, this is looking from north towards the building, a junction of King's Road, and it's quite a distinctive landmark building in that location. And again, you may want to have a comment on that one later, but it's certainly striking from that particular point. St. Mary's Church in Chelsea, again, it's the relationship, it's a wireline there, again, it's the relationship to the spire and the building that pops up adjacent to it. Again, it compromises the setting of the building, again, less substantial harm. Cross River from Camour Road, CGI there of the building, showing its stature and a very striking landmark, and its height is really apparent in that particular view. Again, from the embankment, not dissimilar from one looking down Beaufort Street, but just showing the building and its adjacency to Bassy Bridge, again, less substantial harm to Bassy Bridge in terms of its setting. View from Chelsea Bridge, Chelsea Bridge looking down towards the building itself, and it's quite a sizeable building in the centre for all of that picture there, and again, less substantial harm in its relationship to both the park itself, which is a historic park and garden, and also the river setting as well. Bassy Park, again, less substantial harm and garden, and a wireline here, again, less substantial harm caused by the height of the building and its massing, and so on. Bassy Church Road, the conservation area, Bassy Bridge Road, conservation area, and again, a very striking building at the end of that view, which would be, you know, if that was an AVR, then it'd be even more striking in terms of the impact on that location, as we'll see in a few further slides coming up. Just also, we wanted to see the relationship between the proposal and St Mary's Church in Battersea, Battersea Square, and again, there are two views there, which I've selected. One, it just pops up as a wireline to the right of the church spire, and it's also compromised by the Montreuverta, as you well know from previous discussions, and on the right-hand picture, you see it just pops up to the left-hand side of the Montreuverta as a CGI there on that one. Westbridge Road Conservation Area, again, quite a dramatic view, and certainly less than substantial harm for setting this conservation area. You've got the new RCA building on the right-hand side, and there's a local list of buildings, and there's also a list of buildings just around the corner on Westbridge Road as well, which are the Flint-faced buildings. So again, it's less than substantial harm, and it's a very dramatic, striking appearance. Couple more they've shown. One is looking down Exhibition Road, Kingston and Gore, and looking from Hyde Park. Hyde Park is a Richardson Park and Garden, Grade 1, and again, less than substantial harm, albeit at a low level, has been identified as the building pops up in that view down Exhibition Road. So that's really gone through a whole realm of things, really, and there's quite a lot there to take in. I appreciate that in a short time. You may have some questions at all about the proposals. There's been, I think, about 700 objections, if I remember rightly, so there's quite a number of people have made their comments known, and thank you for those people to make those comments, and my colleague in the Development Management team is going to have to obviously assess all that as part of a paper to the PAC at some stage. Thank you, Ms Sellers. Two things for me to say by way of sort of Chairman's remarks. Obviously I represent the Battersea Society, which has put in a substantive objection. I know that other organisations represented around the table have done so as well. I am not going to repeat the objections that the Society has made. The second point I'd make is that there have been a number of responses in support of the application, some of which, a substantial proportion of which, have been in response to advertisements on Facebook and other social media and on the developer's own website substantially telling people what to say and not including issues such as the height of the building, but concentrating on the supply of housing that will be provided by the scheme. But as I say, I'm not going to repeat things that have already been put in writing by my own Society, but I invite comments and suggestions. Sorry, I should of course ask, first of all, are there any questions for Mr Sellers before we go to the comment section of the discussion? Questions first of all. Mr Dodgson, who wasn't introduced at the beginning of the meeting, represents the Balham Society. Mr Dodgson. Just a quick, thank you Chairman. Just a quick question, Mr Sellers referred to earlier versions, sorry, is this not the first planning application or it is the first? Yes. Oh fine. Yes, when I say earlier versions, we go through quite a long pre-application procedure and the iterations change quite fundamentally from the beginning to towards the end of that process. As I mentioned, it started off with a very strong brick building over that sort of height and also there were two height considerations. They were evaluating 38 storeys as opposed to 33, 34 storeys, so that only changed right before the last design review panel to bring the height down slightly. And my second question is the mid-rise area to which you referred extends between where and where. Do you happen to know? Yes. What we've got. In terms of the Thames in particular. If you look at the local plan, there are two tall building zones just east and west of Batterbridge Road and this particular site is a very thin slither, just really to take in board the glass mill site itself, that's it. Both sides of that, I think it's 7 to 12, something like that, storeys. Yes. Okay, thank you. I think you had a question as well, Mr. Farrow. Thank you. The height of the building is given as 34 storeys. No, sorry, forgive me. Yes, it's described as a 34 storey building. My understanding is that the height of the building is 118 meters. In the local plan, the storey height is, the average storey height is assumed to be 3 meters, which makes this a 38 storey building. I'm curious to know how it's going to be dealt with when it's described in the committee report. It's 34 storeys, but the lower two floors I think are substantially more than 3 meters and it's disingenuous, I think, to ignore the height of the building compared to other buildings and simply give it storey heights where storey heights of adjacent buildings can vary. And when you have a building of this number of storeys, incremental or what might appear to be incidental heights in the storey can make a significant difference to the overall, well, not they don't make a difference to the overall height of the building, but they do determine a much greater height than is evident by just saying it's 34 storeys. That was a point and a question. The second thing I wanted to ask was in terms of the consultation, the pre-act discussions that have been had both with planning officers and possibly with yourselves. In the planning statement for the application, I think 11 pre-application meetings are referred to. I've asked whether or not these are available and been told that they're privileged, I believe. Asked these questions before, are they privileged for this application and will they be released? I'll answer your second question first and I've certainly seen pre-application letters contained within application documents, the applicant's discretion to do that. I'm not sure offhand whether we do publish the pre-application discussion. I have faith we do sometimes, but I can get some clarity from that from the development manager of that site. If I can just respond on that, Mr Sellers, my understanding is that the policy now is that once an application is submitted, then any correspondence relating to pre-act discussions should also be... Yeah, I think that's a recent change, but the other point is, too, is that there have been two design review panels and both design review panel letters, which I drafted and that, are on the website as well, so you can see from those two letters the changes and also compare that with what's being submitted as well. You refer to quotations in the planning application documents or pre-application meetings. There is, I think, a significant quotation in the planning statement submitted by the applicant, which refers to a meeting, I think, where the impression you gather from it is that the planning officers have been relatively favorably inclined to the application, and this contradicts what is written in the design review panel comments, and the reason that I am curious and keen to see these pre-application documents is because what so many people have commented in the objection section to the scheme is how clearly the application seems to ignore, almost defy, what appear to be the planning constraints and conditions, which are contained in both the London plan and the local plan. It's embarrassing, I think, that these pre-application things are not on the website. I can say from day one of pre-application meetings that we said that the proposal was contrary to the local plan policy, in fact, they did put a barrister in to the local planning public inquiry, if you may remember that, and they didn't get much joy from the inspector at the time, so again, but they persisted with that application and pre-application despite that, so we are where we are at the moment in that respect, and as regards your comment about the height of the building, in my comments to the development patrol officer, I did point out the fact that certainly the height is more than the technical number of stories in terms of three metres of heights, it would be for them to work that one through, but of course you can have a five storey industrial building with a single storey building, so you have to then benchmark these things in some way to understand how to deal with them. Thank you, thank you. One further question from Miss Greenwood. I'm trying to get this thing to work. All right, I thought it was green. Given the amount of material from that area, what is the archaeological coverage for such an application, because it's got outstanding Roman and prehistoric finds from around there, so what has been commented on that? Well, certainly there's been a series of finds, I think associated with probably Anglo-Saxon period and later in the past, and I think we rely upon the glass, for example, the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service for their input to the scheme, and I think they made a submission. I can't remember reading their submission in detail, but it's part of the Bassey Channel, I believe, area, so it's something to, they need to have a, certainly, when they do do any, if any got permission, then they clearly would be a detailed assessment of that. There is Roman material from the Royal College of Art building when that was built, and there are extremely prestigious burials from Battersea Park, which implies that there should be a very nice Roman building somewhere in the area, because if you have a stone coffin, you're wealthy, and they usually turn up close to villas and things like that. So there's something going on in Battersea, and they're all the prehistoric finds, like the Battersea Shield and other materials, so there's an awful lot from just around there. The actual site would have been, of course, excavated and dug when the glass mill building came in, because of the basement being put in, so there may be some detailed information available from that period as well. Yeah, and there should be stuff, there should be scraps left, at least, down to the natural and getting also some landscape archaeology out of it. I have no idea what Mark Stevenson has said at the moment. I think the point is well made, there are archaeological issues, clearly, in that location. Are there any other questions of fact before I open the discussion to comment on this proposal? Now, I've already excused myself from making any further comments than have been made in the Battersea Society's letter, but I know a number of other societies have made responses. Does anyone want to speak to them? Mr Catto. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Michael. Is this working? Yes, it is. Right. The Putney Society has already, you'll not be surprised to hear, put in a comment on this one, because it's been around for some time. And we basically emphasised the point that this bears no resemblance to anything that should be permitted under the local plan, which I think was the point of our letter. But I think what we also would like to see stressed is, once worth priding itself not so long ago on an environmental strategy and becoming a green council and all the rest of it, this building seemed, this application shows no sign of anybody having considered the embodied carbon of the existing building, which, by the way, is a prime candidate for upgrading because it fills most of the allowable volume under the local plan, and there's a good solid concrete frame of which, if it was designed for offices, is perfectly capable of taking residential loadings. So why not? I think that's something that must be answered before anybody even looks at a proposal. Thank you. I'll respond to that, actually, because as part of the assessment, there will be requirements

• certainly the GNFA have asked the question about the lack of re-provision of the office space, and they would obviously want to see a demonstration, and so we would, in terms of why the building couldn't have been refurbished in that regard. And their arguments of pre-application have been that they did put it on the market for a long period of time, and it was deemed to be unsuitable by the market. But that's something, obviously, for them to put details in. If I may, just to follow up on that one, if you're going to vary the local plan to even consider this, why not vary it to say, actually, providing a small amount of office space in that location is probably missing the point, and that one more floor of flats might allow a six-story building to be viable. Other comments, Mr Dodgson, and then Ms Ratcliffe. I think my main comment, which I imagine, I hope, will be shared with other members of the committee, or many other members of the committee, is that it's just too high. I've seen this great river Thames that we have running through the city, and vistas absolutely obliterated. If you look west from near Parliament, now, Big Ben has now got a backdrop of a whole forest of tall buildings on the edge of this river. There is no sense of what lies behind the river, beyond the river, in any shape or form, and I think it's the thin end of the wedge to suddenly have this point suddenly appear near to Battersea Park, destroying, you know, a bit of the river that so far hasn't been destroyed. So, I know it's a rather basic comment to make, but I think it is the essential one. Thank you. Thank you. Ms Ratcliffe. Thank you. I mean, my comment is essentially the same. I don't want to repeat what we've said in detail in our response, but, basically, it is that we very much agree with the more detailed points that the Battersea Society have made. But from our perspective, it is a very treasured landscape between Chelsea Bridge and Battersea Bridge on both sides of the river. And to put a building like that at the corner of Battersea Bridge completely desecrates that rather sort of sacred area with Battersea Park, the Royal Hospital, the Thomas More Church, those sort of low lying buildings that are so harmonious and so sort of precious to London along that area. And the other point is, I mean, what is the point of a local plan if it's not enforced? What is the point? We feel that the park is a listed building with clear views or clear-ish views. And those views as you look towards that building will be completely different. Thank you. Any other comments? Councillor Owens. Thank you. I concur with obviously everything that has been said. I also know, obviously, we've had 600 objections, but I also know as a local-- I'm not a local Councillor in that ward, but I know from colleagues, obviously, that they have spent an awful lot of time talking to residents and have had an awful lot of names of people who object to this, et cetera. I'm just curious on the point that you made about the support in terms of the supply of housing and the numbers of people through social media that had supported this. Because you often find with this sort of thing that lots of people support things and sign up to things, but they don't necessarily live locally. You might have support for this from all over the country, I don't know, but it's very difficult to check, isn't it? Thank you. Actually, we can check, so I can look at all the objections and ones that have supported it, and they're all over the country, and most of them are cut and pasted using the same material. Excuse me. I think that we should keep the discussion to members of the committee. Sorry, Mr Chair. I was just adding the information, but we can see where these comments are. Yes. Sorry, that was the objections, but I was just curious about the point of support for housing. Yes. From all over the country. Yes. And the objections were over the country as well. Yes. Okay, thanks. I mean, it seems to me that the case against this building is essentially on three grounds. Firstly, on grounds simply of overdevelopment of what is a very small site, and the claims that are made for the nature of the building basically come down to we've got to build this sufficiently high because the site's so small, which is, of course, a non sequitur. Second objection, it seems to me, from what has been said is obviously the height itself. There is no building of equivalent height within two miles of this building, so it will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. And I think on those grounds alone, it is objectionable. And the third key reason, it seems to me, is the impact, therefore, on a number of important heritage sites and conservation areas, several of which have been mentioned, others of which I could cite, such as Chelsea Physic Garden, Chaney Row, the Norman Shore buildings along the Chelsea Embankment, and so on and so on and so on. So I think on those three grounds alone, I would have to say that I find this building utterly objectionable, and I think it should never have got to this. Does anyone want to put in a word of support for this proposal? Well, I would like to compliment the applicant on their sheer bloody cheek, because as you said, and as others have said, it's difficult to know how it could have got this far. A significant amount of work has gone into putting this application together. If you look at the case file on the council's website, there are, I don't know how many drawings, reports, and things, and the reason that I was questioning the discussions that the applicant had had with the council prior to the submission was it's difficult to think that they could have got this far without some kind of hint that it was worthwhile. When it so clearly doesn't conform to the local plan, and I hope that we will be able to see the pre-application discussions at some stage in the near future, and preferably before it goes to committee. You said that you didn't want to elaborate on what you had submitted, and I don't want to do too much the same as what we have done, but we have said we believe it to be too tall, and I hope, unless there's any disagreement, that's the unanimous view of this committee. Our concerns, as indicated in our title, is on conservation and heritage. Mr. Sellers indicated in his presentation that the effect on lots of significant heritage assets was likely to be less than harmful. Forgive me, I can't remember the exact terminology. No hesitation in agreeing with him. It's a tall building, but it's not going to be visible from a lot of the important sites that were indicated on the map in a significant way, but it is going to be very significantly influencing its immediate surroundings, both in Wandsworth and across the river. The council is commissioned from, is it Arup? A study which is referred to by the applicant, I can't remember the name of it, you might be able to refresh my memory. The urban design study? The urban design study, thank you kindly. There are definitions of how tall buildings should be judged, and on every one of those definitions this fails, and in that study there is an image taken across the river showing the Fosters building adjacent to it, the next door neighbor to the building, and we have the RCA buildings behind. These buildings are not presently, I think, locally listed or nationally listed, but I submit that they are likely to be at some time in the future, and that the effect this building will have on what are significantly buildings by world renowned architects is going to be devastating, and I think that I would suggest that our committee's view is that we should also consider the immediate environment as well as the environment that included the heritage buildings that you helpfully listed as well. You said you utterly disapprove of it, I think I would like to second that. Sorry, I don't see much point, candidly, on extending this discussion further. I think the view of the committee is very clear. I just ask, do you have enough info for an effective minute? Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr Chairman, can I address the committee? No, no, I'm not allowing. Could it be very clear that our objection is strong? It's not just an objection, it's a very strong objection. Okay, let us move on, and I hope we can have a fairly brief discussion on this item, because we've considered it before at a meeting. I think it was only two meetings ago, certainly not more than three, on the flower store outside Clapham Junction Station. Over to you, right. And I hope we can be quite quick on this. Would you excuse me, I'm sorry, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. As you mentioned, this is in relation to the flower store outside Clapham Junction Railway Station. The location is marked in red on the map on the screen, as well as the surrounding designated heritage assets, including the Clapham Junction Consolation Area, shaded yellow, and a list of buildings surrounding it include the Clapham Grand Theatre, the Ardean Hobbs Building, and also the Fulcrum Public House. I'll already give a very brief bit of background, that as you say, this application had been presented at CHAC on the 28th of November, 2023, which was an application of the replacement of the existing kiosk with a new kiosk, following enforcement action, following an expiry of a five-year permission, which had been granted in 2017. This application was recommended for refusal at Planning Applications Committee on the 22nd of February, 2024, but that was withdrawn prior to the committee, as the applicant wished the admission for 10 years instead, and that is what has come forward. This is an application for a proposal to retain the existing flower store for a temporary consent of five years, and so are a few photographs on the screen showing the flower store in situ at the entrance to the station, and then views from looking east along St John's Hill with the flower station in front of the station, and then a view looking west along St John's Hill with the Clapham Grand listed building in the background, and then finally a longer view looking east along St John's Hill with the Ardean and Hobbs Building in the background. Then a 3D view of the kiosk, which is going to be the same as the existing with the same branding and advertisements on the side of it as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, the committee expressed a strong view against the proposal for a new, very slightly smaller kiosk back in November. Thanks for the reminder as to when it was. Do we want to change our view on the merits or demerits of keeping the existing kiosk? Now it has to be said, somewhat decrepit around the edges. Is that? I don't think it particularly adds to the street scene there. And I know it's not our remit, but I do feel it does, you know, it's in a key position and the entrance to Clapham Junction, I know it's got another entrance now higher up, but it is actually, it does impede the flow considerably. And so I'm quite surprised on other grounds, aside from what this committee might have, I'm quite surprised that the council wants to continue with it when there's an oversupply of retail space generally, and I feel sorry for the florists, probably it's quite a good deal for them, but I'm not sure it is ideal, but that's just my comment. Thank you. Mr Cather? I understand you're being sorry for them if they get evicted, but at a time when it is widely known that there are empty shop units left, right and centre, I suspect they can sell flowers somewhere else, very close by, if that's what they choose to do. It is just, if we can go back one picture, look at the junk on that pavement, it's not just this kiosk, it's everything, it's, you know, because the kiosks there, the cycles have been allowed, because the cycles are allowed, the BT cabinet's been allowed, because that's there, there's a rubbish bin, you know, the whole thing and all of it where the pedestrian flow should be at its greatest, it's all got to go, frankly, if we have, if the panel has any influence. It is clearly, I mean, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, this is slap bang in the middle of a conservation area, and you could hardly say that what's there at the moment is compatible with a conservation area environment. Is there any more to say, Councillor OWENS, it's not exactly your board, but not far from? Thank you, yes, I agree with what's been said, particularly now that, you know, so much work has been done on the Arging and Hobbs building and it's getting so much smarter in the area and it's all looking, you know, the pavements have been improved and particularly on St John's road as well. I don't know, I might be missing something, but how is this different to what we had in November, because this thing here is for a temporary period of 10 years and obviously November was, was it five? Was that right? Yes, this has, since the agenda was printed, it has been altered to, they're now proposing a temporary period for five years and the application which was considered by this committee in November was for the replacement of the existing kiosk with a new kiosk and that was following the expiry of a five-year consent which had been granted in 2017. So basically, last time they wanted a new one, slightly smaller, now they want just to keep the existing one, right. Okay, is there any more to be said on this application? I am going to sum up, yes. I think the grounds for objection here are it's complete inappropriateness in a conservation area, that it is unsightly, that it is cluttering the pavement, that it obstructs the entrance to the station, that it obstructs the view as you come out of the station to buildings that are certainly meritorious in the conservation area and for all those reasons, it is highly objectionable. And for 10 years? No, it's only five, they've reduced it after the initial application, they've reduced it to five years. Okay, but that doesn't help their cause. Okay, let us move on. Something a bit more substantial, who's going to lead on this, the power station. Before, is it Lauren who is going to lead on this, I should make clear as Chair that what will not be reflected in Ms Wei's presentation is that there have been further discussions between the power station and some of her, not the conservation planners, but the case officers as it were, about some significant revisions to the design of the building. I happened to be invited to a meeting at the power station yesterday afternoon, which outlined those revisions, proposed revisions to the proposal, they will not be reflected in Ms Wei's presentation, nor are they available on the website at the moment. And I think discussions are continuing between the case officers and the power station to resolve some further issues before they are put up on the website. I should also perhaps just emphasize, I'm sure that Ms Wei will mention this, that this is a reserved matters application, outline permission for the two buildings already exists. This is for detailed approval of a design that is significantly different from the design of the existing two buildings in Phase 3 of the development as designed by Frank Gehry and his chums. Okay, over to you. Thank you, Chair. It is quite helpful to give that background, because as you know, whatever comments do come from Jack, do get fed back to the case officer, so if we're in a stage of still negotiation through the application stage, then these can be fed back and form part of that negotiation. So I will provide an outline of what the current application is, as it is on the public domain. As Michael has said, there are negotiations in place to consider amendments to it. By way of background, as Michael says, this is a reserved matters application for the power station site. I think everyone within the room knows this site pretty well. I'll just give a bit of background just for completeness. So this is the site towards the north of Battersea Park Road. It's classed as 3C within the master plan, which was originally envisaged in 2011 and was envisaged by architect Raphael Vignoli. It was since, in 2021, we had a Section 73 application, which was known as the Future Phases application, which was presented to what was WCAG at the time, which sought to make amendments to the maximum parameters plans within the original master plan from 2011 and also make changes to the design codes. Before that time, we have phase one, which is the hand on one side of the power station, which formed phase one, which has now been built out. And then the refurbishment of the power station itself formed phase two, which has now been completed in its full form. And then this is the site just to the south of the two geary blocks that form phase 3A and 3B. So this is just the red line of the site as you'll see here. This just gives you a quick outline of what the site is in relation to the rest of the master plan and specifically the power station, the Grade 2 star listed power station, which is obviously the main subject of why we've brought it to this committee. And as I stated, this is just giving the outline. So you have a look, you've got 3C here, which is the subject of the application site. You have phase 3A, which is the geary building that's now been built out. The foster building, these are the foster buildings named after the architects that have been tasked to their design. So you have foster building, which forms this sort of swirly building that goes down towards Bassey Park Road. Here on the other side, we have within here, that's a CGI of the original 2011 master plan. That's an indicative master plan. The design code was quite heavily detailed for that master plan. So it does give a quite clear indication as to what that design was going to come forward as. And then this is the CGI, indicative CGI, of the 2021 master plan, which was consented under a section 73 application. So just giving you some context, you see here, we've got the built out geary blocks of 3A here, and then the foster buildings, which slope around the side. And then see the recently opened power station, tube station. Another view here. So there is, if you can see my cursor here. So in this plot here, which is 3D, that's what we class as the flower. That was the only phase within the master plan that was done under a detailed application rather than an outline application as a kind of signature piece within the southern part of the master plan. So moving towards the reserve matters application. So this is setting out the detailed design of the proposed 3C site, which is, as you say, to the north of Battersea Park Road. So this is looking at the site from Battersea Park and towards the site. So it's proposed as a single podium block with a single floor, and then you have two blocks rising above it either side. And then as a consequence of it being a two separate blocks above the podium, you have this view now to the southeast chimney. This is showing you again a CGI view of the building in terms of its detailed design, looking at the site with the power station within the background, that southeast chimney. It is designed by the Frank Leary and partners, so the same architectural firm that did phase 3A. The intention is to continue a similar sort of design to 3A with this idea of this sort of flowing kind of movement facade that's introduced with some elements that are brought forward and some elements that are brought are recessed. Again here, just to give you another view from Prospect Place to give you an idea of the design within its context of the Geary development. So 3A just to the right site, and this is the flower, which is the only element that is out in detailed design. So just in terms of landscaping, so you have green spaces on the top of the podiums and on top of the blocks, and then you have a landscaping area within that podium. Some of it will be private space, some of it will be public space to allow to spill out of tables and chairs for some of the commercial units. And just to give you an idea of some of the build out in terms of ground floor plan, we've got a retail and food and beverage space on one side, which is laid out in green, and then we have a community hub on the other side, so it's a bit of a mix. And then just a typical residential floor plan, just a good indication of how it's going to be laid out. So a kind of standard floor plan with the central core and corridor with residential blocks leading off from that central corridor. And this is quite important because this just shows how the new reserve master's application and the detailed design sits within the maximum parameter envelope that was consented as part of the 2021 application. So the maximum parameter envelope effectively is the maximum amount of development that can sit the maximum height density. The main difference here was that as part of the parameter envelope, there was a great, there was a sort of greater amount of flexibility. So there was a slight increase in height at this point within the master plan because it was considered to have less of an impact on the setting of the power station where the views are mostly from that north bank of the river looking back towards the power station in its chimney stacks. They also wanted a greater amount of flexibility with the parameter envelope to allow for one single block of that building or as they've proposed in this reserve master's application, two blocks that sit once alongside each other or on top of a podium. So this gives you a good illustration of what was an indicative massing proposals for phase 3C as part of the future phases section 76 application. Important to note, this was just indicative. So this is just one idea of how that maximum parameter envelope could have been built out in terms of detailed design based on the design codes that were agreed as part of that section 73 application. And then what's proposed as part of this detailed reserve matters application and the difference between the two. So the section 73 applications gave it a bit of an indication of the scheme being a little bit more like the Fosters building. So that sort of sweeping development in a similar way to what has come forward as phase one as well and similar to what was as part of the original Vignoli master plan, which sort of had these sort of sweeping blocks, which then became slightly different when we had phase 3A. So as part of this detailed proposal, we're looking at a scheme that does then looks at something that's a lot more like phase 3A and the geary building and that kind of continuation of that kind of movement of facade. But the one thing to really point out with the difference between these two is the fact that there are two buildings here, which allows that kind of sliver of a view towards the power station and its chimney stack in addition to the views from the two boulevards, the boulevard and prospect place. Thank you. If I could be allowed even as chair to make some comments, I think the Battersea has submitted an objection to this application. The good thing about it is that they have not pursued the idea of a single block, which I think would have been pretty disastrous in terms of the overall design of the southern side of the site. So that's welcome. I think a second thing to be sort of relieved about is that essentially the materiality of the proposal is very similar to the very striking existing built-out geary buildings with their sort of slightly wonky appearance, which I think have worked quite well. And I know that not everyone agrees with that, but I think they are distinguished buildings. I think the thing that we were very disappointed by was that the essentially curvilinear look and design, certainly from the exterior perspective of the existing buildings, was not being replicated in these proposals. That as one objector has put it, this meant that it looked really like geary light rather than full-blown geary, and that therefore the new proposals sat rather awkwardly with the curvilinear forms of the existing building, but also with the fifth building that would sit between the new proposals and what has been built out, sometimes referred to as the tulip, which is extremely curvilinear in form. So moving from pretty square rectilinear kind of structures, which is obviously much more efficient to build than a curvilinear building with winter gardens, so-called, that are very much built as sort of mini-promontories around the various corners of the building. No curves in the current structure as proposed. We have discussed that, in fact, with one of the geary architects in Los Angeles who sought to persuade us that ten years on from the original design you don't necessarily replicate what you were doing a decade ago, which is fair enough, but it's really the relationship between the design of the current proposals and what's being built out that we objected to. I would have to admit that because this is a reserve matters application, I think if we were to pursue the objection to the nth degree, they would go to appeal and they would probably win. So we were quite pleased when they came back at us and said we have rethought some aspects of the proposal. I'm not going to talk about those now because that would be improper. What we have to do now is to respond to what is the current proposal, which Ms. Way has said is subject to further negotiation and whatever we say can be passed on to her colleagues who are dealing with this before it gets to her and her team as conservation planners. But that was the nature of our objection. I don't know whether any other people have comments or have looked at this in any detail. Mr. Farrow. Forgive me. It was reasonably clear but not completely clear to me that you said that what we are presently, you have seen but we haven't seen, meets some of the objections that you had to what we are now looking at. I am deliberately not saying anything about those proposals. It will be improper of me. They have not been agreed. They are not publicly available. And I am not going to say any more. All I will say is that some work is going on by the architects and the people at the power station itself in response to the points that we and other objectors have made. That's helpful, thank you. I didn't want to press you to reveal state secrets. Just curious to know. I am not sure it is sensible for us to comment on this. Is it not something that we should, might better have been withdrawn as it were a work in progress? I can't think of anything sensible to say about something which we have been told is being redesigned more or less as we speak unless we are going to consider the absolute, the bulk of it independent of anything else. I think the case for our saying anything, if we want to say anything as a committee and you may not want to say anything, the case for would be that it might add strength to the arm, if I can put it, or the collective arms of Laura's colleagues in the further discussions that are taking place. That's all that I am prepared to say. Mr Catto. Can I ask a question firstly? Within the remit of this committee, the conservation heritage advisory committee, I wonder why in one sense we are looking at this application at all. The building is screened from Battersea power station, a building that by the way no longer looks anything like its profile that appears on Wandsworth brighter borough stamp in the bottom corner of all the stuff we have been looking at today. It is screened from there. It forms the massing essentially forms part of something already approved. What is it in conservation terms? You are actually asking of this committee. Shall I respond quickly from the chair? I think the reason that this application is before us is because of its relationship with the grade two listed building, the power station, which is still a grade two listed building. I just want to get clear in my mind the initial sort of massing proposals, did they give more of a view of the power station that the earlier design that was put forward in outline versus this or does this give more of a view? There seemed to be an angle where you could see just about see two chimneys, one particular between the two buildings, the two parts of the new building. I am just a little bit confused as to what we will retain from the land side of the chimneys. So we have here is the -- so the 2011 master plan that was agreed, which is up here in the corner, there wasn't a view that was shown between the buildings of this -- on this block, this is the block we are looking at, that looks towards the power station. The main premise of the master plan was continue that view here from prospect place and then this is I think electric boulevard, which is the main commercial centre that allows you to move up towards the power station. Those will not be impacted, that is part of the original master plan. As part of the section 73 application, there was still no change in terms of there being any further opening up of views towards the power station over and above the original master plan. So when we look at the scheme as it is presented, say in this instance, this is an additional view that now will be opened up as part of the scheme in terms of the reserve matters application. So as part of the original master plan and the section 73 application, there was never a view that allowed an opening up towards the south east chimney between the buildings. Those two views towards the buildings from the two open spaces that lead up towards power station will not be affected because they have to stay within the maximum parameters envelope. So this will be an additional view towards the chimney over and above that that was agreed within the master plan from Battersea Park Road. No impacts from the other side of the river, but I haven't shown any CGIs there because that was all considered as part of the parameters plans in terms of impacts on maximum height. Is that the only image we've got, sort of showing the chimney? Is that actually how it would appear from a place on ground level, do you think? No, it's not, I'm afraid, so it won't be exactly, but you will have an appreciation of it. Okay, so there, as it seems to me, there are two options, either that we make no comment on this at all, and I recognise there is a case for that, or that we make some comment. Can I just, do you want to say something about whether we should make a comment or not? Should we perhaps just say that we know that there's further work on this area, but what we've seen, so we're not going to spend time commenting in detail, but it's welcome to see an extra line of sight to a chimney and, full stop, you know, full stop, just a little point in going into detail if it's changing. Could I suggest that what we do say is that we recognise that further development is going on in relation to this proposal, that we would welcome the opportunity to look at it again when final proposals are ready. The very earliest that it could go to PAC would be September, and I'm sorry, I don't have a note in front of me as to when, perhaps, Councillor Owens has it in her diary when the September PAC meeting, and September PAC is 19th, so there would be time just for agenda dispatch. Thank you. All done? In that case, let us move on to another one that's been discussed around this table before Dial House. Who's dealing with this? Ms Wayne. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So the committee will be aware of this site, because it came forward to committee last year as an application for re-cladding of the building, and this is a follow-on from that application which got permitted. So just again, a bit about background. So we have Dial House 3 Burston Road, which is a modern development sitting at a rather awkward position within the plot. It's within West Putney Conservation Area, within the Putney Town Character Area. This gives you an idea of the site in its relationship to the conservation area and the wider zone. We have Putney High Street up here, with a number of locally listed buildings at this junction here, and then largely kind of three to four maximum storey buildings further down towards upper Richmond Road. This building sits at four storeys. So it was identified within the conservation area appraisal as a negative building within the conservation area by virtue of its height, positioning at that awkward angle, and setback positioning on the street, and materiality being a very kind of flat red brick. Again, another picture of the site, as you see here, it has got staircalls that break that roof line at four storeys. Site photograph with the trees not in leaf of the site looking from upper Richmond Road, and some site photos of the building within its context from upper Richmond Road. So here you can see it right from setback from the public house, which is locally listed, and at that junction with Burston Road. So it's quite an imposing building to some extent at this point, particularly at the junction of Burston Road, and then the rear elevation. So it hasn't got much architectural treatment. And then this is quite an important picture from upper Richmond Road looking back towards the site, here with a fairly consistent height of the buildings at this point between three and four storeys, with the four storeys generally set within a mansard at roof level. So it does break that roof line there, but doesn't impose itself other than the fact that it's a very strong red brick. So the proposed plan. So for this application, as I said, it was a follow-on from the previous application, which was a complete re-cladding of the building, and introducing an additional stair core along that front, the main front from upper Richmond Road. They're now proposing to add a full storey on top of the building, so it now forms a five storey building. It is set within a mid-rise zone for five storeys, so it isn't technically in compliance in terms of just the height parameters for LP4, but obviously within the criteria for LP4, it talks about making sure that it sits well within its context and is respectful of the building heights and character of its immediate surroundings, and obviously this is situated within the conservation area. So a similar sort of cladding effect is that that was consented previously and that was brought to CHAC. Slight changes in terms of the materiality. So there was a bit of discussion about the copper. There is still proposed to be a copper facade, but some of those stair cores are now going to be a sort of stone effect cladding, a gold effect cladding, rather than the bronze. So there is a distinctive difference in terms of the colour of some of that cladding, which has a bit of a change. But the main premise for CHAC to consider is that additional floor on top of the building. So as I said, it's currently four storeys, so already much taller and much larger in terms of floor plate to the buildings that surround it, and that adds that whole additional floor on top will then bring that up quite considerably higher, and they're proposing at the moment to use part of that top floor as a roof terrace, and you'll see here that those stair cores and lift cores will then rise up further than the previous application to break, effectively going almost up to six storeys just with those cores. Now there's been a request from the conservation team to have visualisations, so viewpoints from various points within the site, and particularly from Upper Richmond Road, looking down towards the locally listed buildings at this point, because the stair core at the moment breaks that roof line when you come down and look at the locally listed buildings here, but also as you see from the site, it's that view that you see from Upper Richmond Road here at the moment, it's set back at this point, so it will rise up to this level potentially higher with those stair cores top. It hasn't been provided as part of this application, and we have yet to see that, so the impact on the visual impact of that additional storey, we can only assume based on what we have in front of us, unfortunately that wasn't provided before, Jack, that I could add into the presentation, but just looking at the viewpoints, obviously this is above a car because it's taken from Street View at this point, but it's still a whole additional floor on top of the building, albeit with the cladding proposed as was consented previously. So that's given an indication in terms of the materiality of the scheme. Some slight changes in terms of the fact that this stair core was much larger previously, there was a comment made as part of the previous, Jack, about the kind of blank facade treatment of this stair core, that's now made smaller. A lot of materials are similar, but as you say, the cladding's been changed kind of stone, gold toned, as opposed to the copper, so that's what largely was sought in terms of materiality. Previously it's now going to be changed, but it's mainly the additional full storey on top of the building that we would like to get your views on. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions before we move on to comment part of the discussion? It was mentioned at the last planning application. They keep illustrating them without the trees, the trees would be retained presumably. Yes, that is true. I think I can say that. Yes. Mr Catto. To answer the question that's already been voiced, the trees outside are currently just outside the construction hoarding. Builders are on site. The trees are doing all right at the moment, thank you very much. Looking as big and green as anything you can hope for and importantly, bigger and greener than anything else in Putney town centre. So as far as the Putney Society is concerned, the trees are almost more important than the building, particularly because they do a very good job of hiding the building, which as has been mentioned is fairly dull. We're not talking about the previous application basically changed the materiality of a building without moving it or growing it. The current application seeks an extra storey. We think that extra storey at the Putney Society is one too many in terms both of how it will appear as noticeably bigger than anything else in its immediate context, which is a conservation area context. As you say, locally listed buildings adjacent and all of that. The view around the back is fairly irrelevant because it's got a very large postal sorting office behind it from the 1970s. So it's not actually that visible. The front does matter. And that extra storey is going to be one too many both in terms of the impact of the building when the trees are away. And also, we suspect not very nice for the building across the way, which is a hotel but has planning permission to revert to flats in a very, very narrow section of the Upper Richmond Road. The strange setback is there because in the 1970s, the plan was to make it your carriageway of the South Circular, which is what it is, even though it's narrower than this room as a roadway. So the Putney Society is not too worried about the materials. If anything, it's no more out of keeping and probably less horrid than the bricks that are there now. But we are very concerned about the impact of the extra height. And we continue to be concerned about the fact that none of their proposals mention any kind of landscaping at all. And the present forecourt, the setback, is basically as dull, broken paving and lots of gravel that just fails to be contained by the sheeting that's supposed to keep it in place. And there's a huge missed opportunity sailing on by yet again because there's nothing mentioned. They really need to do better on the landscaping point of view. Any other comments on this? Mr. Farrow. Sort of a minor aside, I don't dislike the existing building. I think it's a child of its time. It's not the most exciting building in the world. And another sort of irrelevant aside, I'm sorry. I do not understand why they want to put storey height glazing on these flats. It's the fashion these days. But the last thing I would want to do wandering around in one of those flats is to have people looking at my feet and the rest of me. I think it's a lot to be said for windowsills. I'll just answer you in two levels at that point. Firstly, it's going to remain as an office building. Oh, I thought it was residential. It's still an office building. Oh, right. So the windows should be taken in that context. But yes, I'm with you. I never understand why in an energy conscious age people are still building windows down to the floor where there's no view gained and no light gained because it's falling on the back of your desk. I doubt whether what I last said is going to be minuted. But if it is, I would just like to say when I'm wandering around in my office, I don't want people to be looking at my feet from outside. Otherwise, I seriously wish to say very much support everything that Andrew has said for the Putney Society. And I hope that is the view of our committee. Okay. Did I understand -- sorry. Did I answer correctly that you'd asked for -- more VISTAs had been asked for, but did you say they'd not been received or was that what you showed us? No, they have not been received. So I've requested for viewpoints to be taken to show the impact of that additional story online from local views. This was provided as part of the previous application. So the assessment that I've made has been based on what I've considered this previous application in terms of the additional stair core and that breaks the roofline of that view looking from Upper Richmond Road towards the locally listed buildings on that corner. But obviously, that's a previous application. I didn't include it in this. I was hoping that we would have some more visualizations, but they're yet to be provided. So I can seek to consider that as -- I don't know if we can add that in as something we can take back to committee in September, but it may not be determined by then because we're -- Right. Personally, I'm finding it a little bit difficult. I know other people perhaps are more familiar with the area, but I'm finding it a little bit hard to judge the impact from what we've seen. That's all. Okay. I don't think we need to discuss this much more. I think we should support the officers in seeking further views or analysis of views, as it were, that we have no objection to the changes in materiality, but we have strong objections to the additional story. Enough? But I just put one final point just on record. As I understand it, I didn't check just before leaving, but certainly a week or two ago, there were in fact two planning applications. The one we've just looked at and the second one, which is exactly the same without the extra story. So maybe they're expecting us to not like the extra story, but still want their change in planning. Right. Let us move on. 56 Frewin Road. Who's leading on this? Thank you, Chair. This application relates to 56 Frewin Road, a 1920s end-terrace house in the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area, the sub-area of Ellington Road to the southwest of Wandsworth Common. The site is highlighted in red on the map, showing it is in a residential area within the boundary of the conservation area, but towards the edge of it. Number 56 is situated at the end of the terrace. It is a two-story brick-built building in white render under a tiled roof with a half-hip to the end. This situation results in the side elevation being highly visible from the street, most notably in longer views from the junction of Frewin Road and Ellington Road, as shown by the site photograph on the screen. It forms a terrace of six similar properties along the northwest side of Frewin Road. This comprises two central pairings featuring large semi-circular Dutch gables with a further property to either side, which gives the terrace a strong sense of symmetry. And here is a longer view of the side of the property from Ellington Road. You can see that you might not be clear in this photograph, but there is an existing dormer to the rear of the property, but otherwise the built form of the property remains largely unaltered. Along Frewin Road there are other examples of unsynthetic dormers and large roof extensions, but the area is generally characterised by similar pairs and terraces of houses, although this terrace is the only one to feature the Dutch gables. We consider that both Number 56 and the wider terrace it forms part of make a positive contribution to the character of the area. This application is for alterations, including a dormer to the front roof slope, which is shown here with the existing front elevation on the left and the proposed front elevation on the right. And it is also proposed to add a rear-mansage roof extension to the rear roof slope with sliding doors and a Juliet balcony, again with the existing rear elevation with the small dormer shown on the left and the proposed rear elevation with the large mansard style roof extension on the right. The mansard and a side view here is showing the existing on the top and the proposed on the bottom. The mansard would not be a full mansard and not span the whole width and height of the roof slope, but it would still be a large addition to the rear of the roof slope and is the dormer on the front roof slope as well to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Who's going to lead? Well, first of all, are there any questions on this as to the nature of the proposal? Any comments? I'm not sure if, is this, I mean, this is sort of Earlsfield, sort of... Thank you for your comments there. You mentioned the Dutch gables and the terrace that this forms one end of. It is quite coherent at present. That's one of two gables in the terrace of, is it six buildings? I'm not sure. And at the moment, the front elevation is very largely unaltered. I think I would suggest that the dormer on the front is unacceptable because it will cause a significant difference to the appearance, as you suggested, of the contribution the terrace makes to the area. As to the extension at the rear, there are a lot of extremely unsightly dormers on buildings surrounding this to the degree you might think it's difficult not to object to it on the basis it's got lots of friends. But nonetheless, I think I would register an objection to the fact it's a mansard that extends, if I've got the drawings correctly, down to the gutter on the rear. I think that screening to the balcony is just a little too much. Not objection to them enlarging the dormer, but I think this is just a little too much. I can't think of much more to say about it. Councillor Owens. I have a confession. I live on Loxey Road, so I can see right down the end there towards Ellington, and I can see some of the extensions that are similar to this from my children's attic bedrooms. I completely concur with what has been said in terms of the front of the house. Froon Road is a stunning road with those beautiful Dutch gables. And clearly, when you put up the photograph of the one on Ellington Road, I mean, that's obviously on Ellington Road. Obviously, it's a different road. But at the same time, when you do look out across the back of those houses on Froon, there are similar at the back loft extensions. In fact, some of them are very modern. But I'm just saying that as someone who can see that from where I am. But thank you. Mr Dodgson. I think it's necessary to sometimes distinguish between back extensions and mansards that can be seen only from the backs of houses and ones that can be seen from the side street. And from what I've understood, this will be visible from the adjacent street. And therefore, I think a different approach should be had, particularly as it's a corner house. I think it does spoil all the attempts we might have to have the street frontage to look good. It's just slightly washed away if then you go around the corner and suddenly you see what's behind it. So that's my view. I would object on that basis. But there is still a junction at that point. Thank you. Any other comments on this? Okay, so I think what we're doing is saying that we object to the dorma in particular to the dorma on the front roof. And that we have strong reservations about, to put it mildly, about the extension of a mansard type development on the rear roof. Because it's visible? Yes, because of its position, yes, on the corner. Is that enough to say? Mr. Potter? Okay. Have you got enough? Okay. Thank you. And last of all, Sixth Sommers Town, an infill. Who's leading? Last one for tonight. So we're going right down towards the border of the borough with Merton. And this is Sixth Sommers Town. So it is a locally listed building dating from
• A pair of semi-detached buildings, brick built, which has been, had very little alterations. You see here in its context. So you have the border with Merton Council, just to the south of the site. And then you have the public house, which is a 1920s public house, which is attached to the south of the semi-detached pair. So the reason why these two buildings are locally listed, not within a conservation area, as you will see, is they're some of the earliest buildings within this part of the borough, specifically Sommers Town. So historically, Sommers Town was a small village within this location, which had small terraces and semi-detached villas that lined the south side of Sommers Town. This road is now called Sommers Town, which has now since been quite significantly redeveloped, particularly the site to the south of the locally listed building, which is subject to the redevelopment scheme, which includes the Wimbledon Football Club ground. It's also got some particular historic interests, particularly number, this particular site, number six, as it was the residence of Robert Sadler. Now, he's a local, of local interests, as he founded the Copenhagen Running Ground at the end of Birmaster Road. There was a plaque that was put up in his hand in the local area. So here you can see the, see how much change that's taking place within this site. So it's a very small little residential enclave of two houses with, with the, the Brewery Tap, I think is the name of the pub. And you see the extent of redevelopment of the site with the switch flats to the south, sort of flipped around the other side, so to the south, which is within the Merton Borough. You also have a lot of warehouses and depots immediately surround the site towards the north and towards the west of the site. Similarly, we've got smaller, more smaller warehouses on the other side of Sommers Town. So it's quite a distinct building within its setting as a little remnant of what was here previously in the 19th century. So apologies, I put the, so I said the wrong name for the public house, the corner pin. So here's just giving you some context. So you've got the corner pin public house. It's a but right next to the semi-detached pair. But then on the other side, number six, there's a little bit of a gap. There's a, there's a garden space right next to number six, which is highlighted in red here, which is the subject of the application that gives a breathing space, a gap between the small cottages and the larger warehouse buildings that immediately surround it. So that gives some breathing space, an indication of the historic setting of these buildings. And again, some further context to this site to show how it sort of sits within rather engulfed environment with those, with those flat, flatter development that's still being built out as we speak. Further site here just to show that, that context with the public house immediately adjacent and that important little semi-detached pair just on the corner. So the subject site is immediately next door. So it's in the side garden of number six here. And what they're seeking to achieve is to introduce the new dwelling within that side plot of number six. So number six has the entrance to number six is on the side of the property. So you see here, you have the sort of little canopy that sits over the building. So the building is proposed, as you see here, a very simple form. It will be attached to number six, Summers Town, but set back from the building to allow that entrance, side entrance to be maintained. So it's a very narrow building. So we'll see here, this is the rear elevation of the, of the site. And as proposed, a very small part of this point here will be taken away to allow for the building to be introduced and to be attached to the, to the side of the, of the particularly listed building. And here you see the, the depth of the, of the building as proposed with the existing and proposed. So it will, it will go far deeper into the plot as is the small cottage of number six. And again, see here, so that the point of the, at the point of the roof, the apex of the roof follows the apex of the building and obviously stems much further back within to the plot. And here just gives you an indication of how it's laid out. So you have a setback form here, literally sort of a cat slide roof, as you would call it. There's various names for that sort of roof and a very long narrow building that will take up large, pretty much the whole of that side part of the private garden of number six and set right further back. First floor elevation, so it would be two bedrooms with both, with en-suites. A zinc clad roof that's proposed with PV panels towards the rear part of the roof. And most importantly, these are the CGI views. So this is the view of the building as it's shown within its context of the two locally listed buildings of six and eight summers town with that building set back. And then towards the rear, quite a deep plot of the building's footprint is quite deep. So it will have quite a dominant appearance on the cottages immediately next door. And in terms of materiality, you see there that we have, so we have the zinc roof that's proposed. The images within the CGI's appear rather kind of a greyish brick, which does seem to indicate some sort of greyish brick in terms of the proposed materials that they have set out in their design and access statement. But the actual wording is earth tone brick with precast concrete features like the lintels and timber windows. So whether that is considered by committee is in keeping with the locally listed buildings, obviously for you to consider, but an interesting site in terms of trying to introduce an additional building. So welcome the committee's views. Okay. Any questions for clarification about this proposal? Mr. Ocato. Just one, yes. I'm looking at the drawings. If you could go back, please, to the proposed plans. The changes, there's an extension to the existing number six included in this. I presume this forms part of the same application. Is that the case? They can introduce the rear extension under permitted development rights. Right. So I don't believe it's part of this application, it's just the new building. They're obviously planning to change the locally listed building by moving its door, but you will notice that in order that that fully glazed across the back extension means that the ground floor is now wholly open space by the looks of things, and if you go upstairs, if you could please, two rooms. Anybody see a bathroom? It's an... No, not in the new building, in the old one. They're altering the house in such a way as to take away its only bathroom. Is this really the complete application? So the works for the interior of number six don't form part of this application, so it's not something for the committee to consider at this stage. It's just the new build that's connected to the side. This is awesome. Sorry, it's number six in the middle I'm concerned about. The existing house that is sacrificing its garden and one would hope benefits in some way, although presumably it's the owner benefiting from the development, but they do seem to be off leaving us with a house that's not habitable. Anyway, that's an aside. I've got no comment about the new building and it looks okay to me. Ms Lawson, I think, first. Thank you for bringing this to the committee, and it's nice to talk about a locally listed building, which perhaps it wouldn't be being considered if it hadn't been locally listed. We may have lost this. This is a survivor of Summers Town, which was a residential road from early 1800s, and it is significant, and it's a fantastic reminder of what was without it impinging on any further developments, apart from this actual building to the side. The importance of Robert Sadler, the resident of number six, is locally important, so worthy of local listing for association with that, but nationally too. He's a forerunner, pardon the pun, of modern day, a pioneer of athletics, and it's a really important historic site, that building, and then looking on to the plaque that you talked about that commemorates the Copenhagen ground somewhere around and presented on Burmister House on Garrett Lane. So thank you. It's great, I think, to have a residential dwelling, a modest building being considered here amongst, and the history and the heritage is rich in this, more so than some of the previous applications we discussed at length, I think. But I, yes, and I get your point, I hadn't noticed an absence of a bathroom in number six, and obviously that is something that needs to be looked into, and the doorway being changed, brought forward, the entrance to number six, I find acceptable to allow for this development, because actually number six has a large garden that's very wide, that does have capacity for development, and that's against sort of our normal principles, but I think here it works, and it's on a scale which is appropriate, and is appropriate to its immediate neighbourhood, the terrace as it is now, and the local pub, and it's a great way of actually perhaps ensuring the viability in the future of that little pocket amongst all that's changing, and that's perhaps exciting in that area. But yes, obviously we need to work that the bathroom makes it viable, but there was talk, too, in the planning application about making the setback of the addition make the whole thing work more acceptably, which is great, and that does bring the side door forward, but also to enhancing, perhaps repairing, restoring some of the original features, so the windows might be replaced on number six and possibly number eight, I think. Is that part of what is being considered today, or is that like the addition to number six not part of this application? Because that needs to be done well. You're referring to the extension. The windows of number six, there was some conversation about those perhaps being, maybe I've got that wrong. We can secure the windows replacements with timber sashes as part of the application as a benefit. Right. Well, that would be most welcome. I'm slightly conflicted about this scheme. I think it's a really nicely put together application. I like the proposed new building, but I regret the loss of the garden on which it sits. Slightly hesitant, because what I wanted to suggest was whether the applicant has considered alternatives. It's clear that they own number six. I wondered whether there was potential to put a single-storey building on the site, possibly to take part of the back end of the garden to number six. We call this 6A, as it were, I suppose, so that the effect on the two buildings would be reduced. Has the applicant proposed alternative schemes for the site? No. So we had a pre-application engagement, which was largely similar to what's presented here in terms of introducing built form next to number six. Okay. Well, as I say, I like the application a lot in terms of its thoughtfulness in many ways, but I regret the loss of the garden and indeed the blocking of the two-storey, a single-storey building would have less of an intrusive effect on the building. You asked the question about the windows. Our colleague who is not here, Roger Armstrong, has submitted a comment, and I believe that they are proposing to replace the windows on number six, which are presently PVC, with timber sashes. His observation was that they show a central two up, two down. He thinks there should be more divisions in the glazing. I can't get exercised about that myself, but I think the windows are to be replaced with timber sashes. As to what view the committee should take, I don't know. I wish I felt more clear. Could I make a comment? I think we have to be careful that we are responding to an application as submitted. I don't think that we can suggest complete redesigns of a proposal. I don't think that's our remit, but Mr Dodgson. Thank you. I think we need to remember this is an intensely urban area. It's very, very hard surfaces everywhere. The blocks of flats that have come up, the one on the left there, there's very little greenery in that part of that area. And I think if we're going to value this locally listed building, you surely have to value it in a context that's appropriate to it. And yet, whilst I do agree that actually, maybe in other circumstances, that the additional building actually is quite well thought through, I do think that the price we're paying for that is the loss of space and an opportunity to have a garden and greenery in an area where I suspect this place is probably tenanted, in the sense that I can't imagine people will live there for a great length of time. I imagine there are a lot of comings and goings. I might be wrong, but I think we want to encourage people to want to sort of stay there and not always be moving on. And I think it would be quite a shame to lose that sort of extra opportunity for there to be a little garden next to it. Okay, so what I'm... Ms Lawson. Have you in your plans a footprint of the garden of number six? Because it's far bigger than the garden of number eight. And if you have a two bedroomed cottage with a large garden, it doesn't deprive each property of a garden. It makes three viable places with gardens and a neighbourhood. So I think that we're not quite clear about this at the moment. Let me sort of try and summarise where I think we're at. That we think this is, on the one hand, a well thought through proposal, which has lots of merit. But there are real concerns about the loss of the garden. And I'm not sure how we resolve that. An application for dwelling is supposed to have at least 40 square metres of garden compulsory almost. It's a reduction in garden rather than a loss of a garden. In principle, I completely agree we strive to save gardens. But actually to make this a viable... I'm sure this application is more sensitive because it's coming to a committee like this. Because it happens to be locally listed, which lots of things in Tooting and Summerstown, Earlsfield don't come to this committee. This is a good proposal that perhaps extends the realistic viability of that. Because it's not protected in any other way. It could just be a good proposal. So are we saying that the quality of the proposal sort of overcomes the concern or overrides the concern over the loss of some part of the garden? Is that what we're saying? Okay. Have you got... So we are not objecting to this application. We're recognising that it is an application of high quality where the quality and the impact on the viability of the locally listed building overrides any other concerns. Sorry, I haven't got it right. No, no. Thank you, Chair. I agree. But also just in the absence of Roger Armstrong and his letter, if we could use this non-objection approval to ensure that the most scholarly finish to the windows of number six to offset that change. I think that's pretty much what I was going to say. Can we please ask that there is a condition ensuring that the enhancement works to number six happen before anybody can occupy the new house? I wish I had noticed the absence of a bathroom in the original building. I just wanted to say that I was going to make a comment about the glass mills application. The plans that Mr Sellers presented were obviously fairly thumbnail, as it were, from this distance anyway. But one of the things that was evident from the plan that showed the residential housing, that the social housing had accommodation, which included a kitchen living room, two bedrooms, and the bathroom was opening directly off the living room. I mean, I don't know how they got, as I said, the cheap to put the application in. I think in planning terms that is highly objectionable. I don't think it's probably an issue for the Conservation and Heritage Committee, but yes. Can we move on to paper 24206, which is the report on applications that we've already considered and their fate, as it were, as to whether they have been approved or not. I'll just take them one by one. Downshear Field and Alton Activity Centre has been approved. Clapham Common Northside has been refused. I cannot date you. Again, local knowledge. The building has been sold on and a new planning application will be forthcoming, which I think is probably good news. But let's wait and see. Probably heavily underscored. Drakefield Road, we objected to and was refused. And Ibstock Place School, we supported and was approved. Any comments? May I just congratulate the Planning Department for demonstrating that speed is possible in respect of Downshear Field, nine weeks from application to approval by the Planning Applications Committee. Oh, if only all the stuff in the rest of the queue could be anything like that type that quick. Noted is I think all I can say to that. Is there any other business after a long meeting? Miss Lawson. Sorry. Can I just ask at the beginning, we would do an update on Fersdowne Lodge. I should have raised that under Manchester Rising. So I have an update, which is that the legal documentation is almost agreed. And that's hoping to be concluded in the next couple of weeks. That's all I can say on that point, unfortunately. Any other business? Chair, I could give an update on the LTEC application. The Wimbledon Lawn Tennis. Yes, please. That would be helpful. It was actually referred to in the recent last PAC, actually. And then there's a report attached to that as an appendix, which is worth looking at, certainly. Basically, it's with the Mayor at the moment, having both boroughs made their decisions, referred it onwards to the Mayor for a decision. And they've made changes to the application. Those changes have been subject to a public consultation, which I think just ended now, I think just about. And then there will be a hearing, possibly in September. And I don't know whether any of the local societies here are making representations. I think there's still time to do so if you want to do that. But the changes that have been made, which were subject of consultations, were to open up part of the northern site, where you've got the entrance to the car park and everything else, as an additional public space. That was amounting to about 1.7 hectares. But one has to look very carefully at the quality of that space, because about 40% of that space is hard standing. Also, there's some trees being taken out as well as part of that, and additional hard standing going in as well for pathways. So there are issues associated with that. OK, there's a benefit, additional benefit, but it's the quality of that benefit that needs to be looked at and so on. But the decision really that we've made as a borough, and that's part of that report, is that it doesn't really change the circumstances. The fact is that there's substantial harm to the metropolitan open land, and we also said previously that there's substantial harm in terms of the conservation area, and historic park and garden is a great two star. So those objections really still hold, and it's really that it's up to the mayor to decide. The mayor's decision would either be to approve or to reject in that hearing. So that's really the update really. Any questions? Thank you, thank you for that. Obviously the Putney Society is in the lead on this. If I could just add that I entirely share your view that this pretty minor modification does not address the core objection that was made by this borough's PAC. Well I will just support that, and I find it interesting that the minor revision seems to be trying to take any building per se out of Wandsworth borough, leaving the rest of the scheme in Merton. Is this what's perhaps going on? It does rather sound like that from your description. I do hope that's not what they are trying to get away with, and I would also just like to note that having gone through one of the wettest Wimbledon Fort nights on record I believe, they still managed to complete on time with a mere 18 courts. How come they need any more? When the practice tournament can still carry on in Roehampton as it does now. Just to comment, a lot of money has been spent by the All England Club on publicising their proposals, haven't they? Yes. Councillor Rowan. Yeah, and obviously I was part of those decisions at the Planning and Applications Commission, and they still, the All England Club is still endlessly sort of emailing me wanting to do questionnaires and that sort of thing, so I'm going. And of course the Mayor, just to be pernickety, it won't be the Mayor who decides on this application. He has recused himself, hasn't he? Okay, is there any more other business? I see one down the far end. Just two points just to raise positive points. So it's been confirmed by Historic England now that St Mark's, former St Mark's School has now officially been removed from the Heritage at Risk register, that has now taken place. I made a reference to it in the last committee meeting that we recommended it, but that's now taken place, which is good news. Unfortunately, Councillor Belton, not here, but we can relay that information back to him. Because of the pre-election period, the snap election, in terms of the local listing public consultation, obviously previously it was supposed to take place around about now, but because they had to stop all of those public consultations during that pre-election period, that's caused a slight delay. But that is due to take place in September, so I'm hoping that it should be in the process of at least being live by the time we're at the next committee meeting, so I can give an update on how it works, how it should be live. So apologies for that delay, it's out of our hands with the situation, but it's not that it's just been parked completely, it's just delayed slightly due to that period where we had to shut down consultations completely. Just on that, I think it would be helpful if once you have gone public, you could notify members of this committee. That's right, so what we do is we've notified all of the local societies, so all that we have in the database, all councilors, so that everyone will be informed of that. Anyone that's signed up to next door, there will be quite a push publicly on social media as well, just to really try to get as many people interested as possible. It will be running for a slightly longer period than a normal consultation as well, so it won't be just a six to eight week period, we'll run it for quite a few months just to generate interest and give people the opportunity to nominate their buildings and sites. So do I presume in that case that your colleague Grace Cranis will be as planning engagement head will be involved in this? That's right, yes, she'll have a level of involvement in it. Okay, I'm assuming there is no other business, and so I declare the meeting closed. And I'm sorry for the--