Transcript

I'll start again. I beg your pardon. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this September meeting of the Planning Applications Committee. My name is Tony Belton. I am a Councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea and the chair of this committee. I will ask members to introduce themselves as they wish to speak, but I will introduce the people on the top table. Otherwise, it might seem extremely strange. On my left is... Good evening, Councillors, good evening, everyone. I'm Nick Calder. I'm the head of development management at Wandsworth. Good evening. My name is Duncan Moore. I'm the external legal advisor. I'm Ruth Wright. I'm from Democratic Services and I'm clerking the meeting. Thank you. People should be aware that these apparently very thick agendas, we have all gone through them before in some detail, and if there's not much discussion, it's just because there's nothing to disagree about in agreement in general. Having said that, can I ask whether it's okay to sign the minutes as a correct record? Not something as you've seen them. Good. Let me just sign... Doesn't seem to be a last page. It's a page. Something's gone wrong with the printing there, but the last page is okay. Sounds as though I haven't seen them, but I've seen them in a different digital format. Thank you. First of all, can I ask if there are any declarations of interests? That's interests of a pecuniary or personal beneficial nature that applies on any of the agenda items. Any declarations of interest? I'm a member of Community Renewable Energy Wandsworth, but I drew no pecuniary or financial interest from being a member. Any other note? No other of interest. I see we've got two Councillors missing at the moment. Any apologies? Yes, Chair. Apologies for Councillor Govindia. Given that he was ill last time, he's okay, is he? He's fine, thank you, but he's just away. Good. You know what I meant. And Councillor Boswell, we haven't heard anything about? No. I'll give apologies for Councillor Boswell. Okay. Apologies for Councillor Boswell. Right. I would normally take applications in the order that the public gallery are interested in, but on this occasion I'm not for a very particular reason, and that's to do with one of the members of staff who needs to get away early. So can we go straight to Wimbledon Park Road, the first application, number 2024/0869, which is about a rather interesting extension for Wimbledon Park Road. Have you got anything to say about it, Ms Richards? Not particularly. The page 8 of the report shows the elevation that you would see from Wimbledon Park Road. The property is in a conservation area and will replace a flat roofed garage. There are going to be other enhancements to the main house as well, which is a benefit and weighs in favour. I think there was quite a lot of concern about trees that's to the west, but there's a condition that's been attached, condition 11, that requires further details of the route, the digging and so on for the extension so that the route system isn't damaged to protect those trees because they are beautiful. And yet the recommendation is to approve. We're happy with it. Thank you. Any members got any particular comments? Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfields in Putney and opposition speaker on this committee. It's a funny sight, isn't it, because although technically I suppose it's correct that the description is it's a rear extension, it really reads as a side extension because the front door's on that side and the original front door is blocked off on what would have been the front of the house. Although it's technically a rear extension, it's slightly misleading because it reads as being the front of the house because that's where the front door is. So it perhaps gives it more prominence than it might if it was an ordinary rear extension that's not so visible, even though it's on the, especially being on the corner like it is. I just had a couple of queries. You mentioned about the trees and the roots of the trees. And I gather that, as you say, there's a condition on that one. But in the comments from ENABLE, there was another comment about them saying that they wouldn't prune those trees because obviously it's not on this land, it's on the council land next door. And there needs to be provision made for dealing with that by the, and is that all sorted? Because obviously it sounded quite like it might be an impediment to the development. Oops. We received, the planning officer went back to our tree officer just to make sure that we were happy with it. What the tree officer explained was that because the applicants need to be aware that they are extending for living purposes, if you like, underneath the tree, which could potentially cause problems to roof lights and, you know, when they drop their leaves and whatever else comes from a tree. And the council have made it quite clear that they wouldn't want to see those pruned at all, just if in future there's any complaints about that, it would have to be done very carefully. So that's what that reference was about really that, but we can't impose anything on it. We've had reassurance from the applicants that there, that they will not damage the tree. They will protect as much as possible. It's a sycamore, so it's a nice species, example. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. I'm wondering if, I know it sounds a little matter, but it could be something that's quite significant if, particularly if the building changes hands or whatever and the new people aren't aware of it, is it something that we could perhaps put an informative on, not a condition but as an informative so that anybody in the future might be able to read that to know that that's a condition that it wouldn't be, just trying to future-proof it a little bit, something along the lines of, you know, that kind of wording, but just as an informative so that any future owner or whatever, if it changes hands, might be aware of it, because you wouldn't necessarily think about something like that, would you? I think that might be helpful. Anybody with that, Mr Richards? Okay, put an informative on, can't do any harm. Councillor Ayers, then Councillor White. Finna Ayers from East Putney. Talking of future-proofing, that side rear extension looks ideal for separating as a completely independent unit. I don't know, can we do anything about this? Do we want it to be an independent unit? Do we not want it to be an independent unit? But it seems to me there's a bit of fast footwork going on with the planning there, that they're not actually wanting to do what they appear to be wanting to do. Any comments on that? Thank you. Condition 7 has been recommended to preclude future use of it as a separate dwelling. So if they were found to be using it as a separate dwelling, or if it was registered as such, then that would be in breach of the permission. Thank you. But it is also the case if they decided to do that, that they could put in a planning application to change it, no doubt. So that would be decided at the time if it was to apply. Councillor White. Just a couple of comments, one question. It's nice to see the UPVC windows replaced with timber. I hope they're from a sustainable source, but very unusual and good. And also talking about the trees as well, none of them are going to get chopped down, are they? It's just the roots. It's amazing what you can do. I didn't know you could do that, but that's good. Okay, that's fine. Trees are safe, apparently. Was that a hand up, Councillor Humphreys, or are you just moving your glasses? Shifting is both. Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Church. It's just another thing while we're on it. It says in the late items about the boundary being pulled away from the boundary, the building line from the boundary or being 2.18 metres away from the scene. It's slightly curious, isn't it, because the biggest impact as far as the neighbours are concerned is 112. I understand they haven't put an objection in on this one, but it is going to be quite close to them. That's not far, is it, 2.81 metres. But again, just a bit of reassurance perhaps that that's going to be fine. It's not going to be seen as too overwhelming for the people next door, because again, although the current people might not like it, future people might not think it's too wonderful. Thank you. If you, as I say, on page eight, there's a section of drawing that's been included. And you can see, so on that image, the lower element, if you like, that's already existing. And what you're seeing where the little man is, that's the sunken terrace area to the back. And then to the left of that image, you can just see the elevation of the neighbouring property at 112. And there are no windows directly at that level. And then when you consider the roof form and the distance away from the nearest window, then again, we're comfortable that that still gives you a nice outlook and wouldn't be too imposing from within that room. Okay, thank you. One final thing if I may, sorry, don't want to break that. It's just in the comments, there were a few concerns from neighbours and such like it would set some precedent for building an extension and they were talking about with some historic ones, but it was quite a long way back. I just wanted again, for their benefit rather than mine, perhaps, some reassurance that if any other applications were to come forward in the area, they'd be judged on their own merits as they always do and so on. So it's not necessarily setting a precedent for anything else in the area just to reassure them. I know we understand that, but they don't necessarily. And I think it's just important to remember there is a garage structure already here which currently comes right up to the boundary with 112. So this has been designed to be pulled away even though it's bigger. It's just and it's nicely designed as well to suit the house. So yeah, we're happy. It's a very specific property. It could hardly be a precedent for anything, could it? I mean, it's just very unusual. Okay, is that application agreed? Agreed. That application is agreed. Move and Mr. Rogers, go home, go to bed or something and recover, whatever it is. We'll be thinking about you. Application number two, garage and parking spaces west of 57 to 84 Gideon Road and this is for a building with five flats. Mr. Grainger, do you want to say anything about it? Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm Nigel Grainger and I'm the East Area Team Manager. Yes, certainly this is a proposal for the demolition of the existing vehicle garages and the erection of a three store story building to accommodate five new self-contained dwellings. This continues on from an approval in 2016 when another similar council zone application came forward, but this has remodelled the envelope to maximise the site and deliver an additional unit. So in that context, I'm sure that elected members have all spotted and are queuing up to point out the inaccuracies in table 29. So let me quickly get that in as soon as possible and apologies for the typo, but you'll see in late items, this table has been corrected for you. So those numbers and the unit mix is correct and clear. Of note is that out of the five units proposed, there's one three bedroom unit and one four bedroom unit, which is considered to provide a real cross spread of mix with larger units. There are a number of other items in the areas of further assessments in the late items, correcting or setting out a alternative strategy to the energy plan for this. There are no photovoltaic, there are no solar panels proposed and the energy rating that's been reported can be achieved solely through the use of air source heat pumps, which requires the deletion of condition seven, which related to PV panels. And also of note, the west side elevation, it was initially recommended to have all of the windows within that elevation to be obscure glazed, but upon further exploration of precisely what those windows do and what they overlook, we're now down to a situation where three of those windows would need to be, higher level windows would need to be obscure glazed in order to preserve the privacy and the amenity of the adjacent occupiers while the remainder of the windows could be clear glazed and they would also provide some passive surveillance to the pathway that tracks around the sites. So that's all set out there. There's an additional condition from Historic England for you as well and a couple of changes to the triggers, from pre-commencement conditions to works commencement above ground floor. So that should be it for the late items for this particular scheme and thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Apps. I'm Councillor in Shaftesbury in Queenstown ward, which this development is within. So I've been following this closely for a number of years now. In fact, it predates me being a Councillor. However, the big difference is now that it's all for social rent and also that the scheme has been modified so that there are some larger units. So I believe that the units are accessible for people with disabilities and perhaps it will provide homes for some of the many families who are waiting for a more accessible home. So if you could confirm that, that would be good. I noted this concerns about the sort of corridor, the alleyway. So how do you think the design copes with that? And do you think we need to think about lighting or any other issues around the sort of narrow passageway that will be there? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, the 40% of these, so there's two units basically, the ground floor units would be constructed to M4-3 standards, which is fully accessible, which is the highest standard. It's actually all the adaptations are actually in place, which is a very positive thing with the remainder M4-2. So that's the building regulation code, but that's what we work to. In terms of the pathway, for the length of the pathway, there's nothing we can do about how wide it is because it's obviously the red line of the site. The site curtain village is fixed and that's what we have to work with. But the amount of the development that tracks with the adjacent development, there would only be a certain small amount that would actually sort of have the effect of two buildings creating a wall either side. So with the additional passive surveillance, we don't think that, well, we think it's acceptable in design terms. It's not impacting on how that pathway has been, its physical layout. Everybody knows it. They know where it is. There would be a new building adjacent to it. But irrespective of that, we still think that it can function without any modification or anything that would have to spring off this application in order to maintain that. Councillor Ayres. Oh, full house here. Councillor Ayres, Councillor Coakley, Councillor White, Councillor Humphries. You're the two keeping quiet. Right, Councillor Ayres. I know that I've had this discussion with Nigel Granger before, but the problem of that side alley could be, in my view, completely solved by having the entrances to those flaps which are currently off a corridor, which is parallel to that alleyway. If you had the front doors there so that you're animating that alleyway, I mean, the doors would have to be recessed. The access of them would have to be angled. And so the width of that alleyway would be increased in little ways. It would be much more pleasant place to be, in my view. But I know we can't redesign it, and I will vote in favour of this scheme, but it just defeats me every time to see the avoidance of front doors on the street. You know this is by, what's the word, King Charles's head. Well, we're quite used to, for centuries, to having front doors at the front of the house on the street, so I understand your point, absolutely. Thank you. Councillor Copley, I think I said next. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Jamie Copley for St Mary's Ward. I wanted to ask about the provision of car spaces, because providing 12 car spaces for five residential units does seem to be a bit on the excessive side, especially because the parking units there before weren't being used anyway, so it feels like a slightly missed opportunity to have got some more greenspace in there, for instance, by just having one or two of those parking units instead have a flower bed or anything like that. Is there any reason why it's so many car spaces just for five properties? Mr Tiddley. Thank you. David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy. My understanding, Mr Granger can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the 12 spaces are actually existing and they serve the wider community, so this is a net increase in residential units, but there's only a net increase in parking space of one, four for five. On the parking units, are they technically sort of inside the developer or like in part of the...? No, they serve the other housing in and around the area, so that's why they're retained for that purpose. They're not really for this development at all. It's also true, isn't it, Mr Tiddley? I know the area pretty well. Gideon Road has lost quite a few parking spaces in the recent past with development of council flats further down in the estate, so it's lost quite a few parking spaces. Is that not right over the last few years? That is correct, yes. I think there are special circumstances perhaps. Councillor White. I'd just like to echo Councillor App's comments around the 100% social rent, something that we really need in the borough. Also, it's quite interesting about the reductions of energy use as well. I don't know whether there's anywhere that we can access to show how much energy is likely to be used in a technical format and also how much CO2 is being used, and how much it would cost to an average use of the property in comparison to maybe one of the other properties on the estate. It's not passive house, is it, this one? Mr Granger, can you cope with this? It's not technically passive house, but the amount of carbon that it's saving is getting very close to those principles. Taking your last point on cost, we would never be able to ... Let's work this in reverse. For major applications, the sustainability strategy is part of that. The mayoral hierarchy, there's been an additional category placed under the three strands of the mayoral hierarchy for energy saving, which is be seen. Be seen monitoring is captured through section 106 planning obligations. Section 106 planning obligations are basically there to capture affordable housing contributions for major developments. That only applies to major developments. We do that when we can put in all the strategies in depth, how to calculate all of the be seen monitoring. We can look at this. Our section 106 monitoring team would get reports and they would have that data. As these schemes ... This has been, I would probably say, since 2021, the schemes that have got the be seen obligations attached to 106s, then that monitoring team will begin to get that data from finished schemes. They're going to begin to come online. You can make contact with our monitoring team and see what data that they've got. For this proposal, because it's not a major scheme, we can't impose that be seen element to it.

• OK. Councillor Humphries.
• Sorry, I forgot you had me on the list. I'm about to say this is quite a good scheme because it started off in life when we did the administration. I think it's evolved well and it's kept up well with the times. Again, generally in favour. A few things. I do agree with some of the concerns about the alleyway kind of thing. Although Mr Granger said to us earlier it's the same as it was before, it's kind of not the same as it was before because it was an open aspect on one side before looking down. It wasn't an alleyway, it was a raised walkway, which was much more visible, therefore safer, I would suggest, than an alleyway, which it is now with the building right beside it. I'm surprised there isn't a request in there for some extra lighting or something like that. Well, as Councillor Ayer said, yes, a front door or something to animate it much more. I do think that will become a little bit of a blind, dark corner in the winter and such like, so I'm slightly concerned about that from a safety aspect. So I'll say my other points while I'm at it and then we can do the wall in one go. I just wanted a little bit of detail about that little leg of land going to the south, you know, going up the slope towards the Lavender Hill, the sort of little dog-leg bit of land. And that's staying as land but presumably being re-landscape. But I know there's details to come but I didn't see any details of what was actually going to happen to that. Is it just going to be like re-landscaped but pretty much as it is with the contours and such as it is, was a second question. And my third question, final question, obviously one of the bigger impacts is on the building to the south, so I think it's number 100 Lavender Hill, the white, flat-faced modern building that faces directly onto that. And it's very close, isn't it, to that corner? And I understand that's why that's chamfered off that corner on the slope to try and keep the light to that balcony or recessed window there that's there anyway. But just again, are we comfortable that that deals with that adequately? Because it is very, very close to those people who are already there. I'm sure Mr Grenger would be comfortable otherwise he'd be recommended against it I guess, but go on Mr Grenger. Thank you. The landscaping, the opportunity, so relating that to the biodiversity net gain calculation, so the opportunities to actually improve those areas has been afforded by being able to improve the scheme, to deal with the net gain over the entire parcel of land has been afforded by being able to improve the landscaping adjacent to it. So we've got new trees, we've got more intensive planting, so that gets us to I think 10.3 or something like that, BNG, which is what we need. So that sort of wraps that up. So yes, it's obviously conditioned so we'll get full details of it and we get to monitor it as well, because that's the way BNG works, which is interesting. And the amenity to the property to the south, I mean you're quite right and you've picked up the way that one element does chamfer away. The reason why it does that obviously is to reduce any impacts on outlook, so not presenting a vertical solid entity before those flats and also it has an impact in improving the received daylight to that. So there is, obviously the report outlines what the vertical sky components and the direct daylight is, but we think that this all lies within our acceptable parameters. It's also a fairly extreme gradient, isn't it, that bit? It's an interesting plot, yeah, and there are challenges, yeah. And I must say... I'm not messing with the alleyway. Sorry. Sorry, Chair, the final point was about the alleyway, again the security of the alleyway. Well, yeah, I know, I mean I could say what I've said again, I mean it's whether, it's not unreasonable I don't think if it was the will of the committee to discuss whether an additional condition to be imposed on, you know, any lighting would have to be fixed to the building and within the control of that building. If that's something that wants to be explored perhaps, I don't know, if Mr Calder's not looking too energised by the prospect? Mr Calder, are you energised? Well, I just don't think that I'll actually, I know what you want in terms of it would be better to have lighting on that alleyway, wouldn't it, rather than what we're speaking about here is put potential on the buildings, it would be like flood lighting down to it. And I don't think that would achieve what you want, but we could go for a condition to explore... I was thinking more bulkhead lighting, basically, just fixed points of low, low... So it doesn't look like a dark, low lux bulkhead, yeah. Okay, subject to agreement on lighting in the alleyway. Is that what we're saying is a condition? I'm sure those aren't the right words, but I'm sure Mr Grainger knows what the right words are, yep. Okay, Councillor Colle. So just to confirm at the moment, the only lighting is those strips on the floor, the floor lighting, and that's the only lighting at the moment. And so we're suggesting having more lighting on the sides of the building, because could we not also make those strips maybe wider, because at the moment they're quite thin, so we could also make them potentially wider, like when you have just a square light instead of a thin strip, and then that would also provide more lighting. I think we're at the risk of, you know, we don't want to go back, Paul, do we? I think with additional bulkhead lighting, I think we've got to consider the amenity of existing occupiers as well, so I think with the additional conditions, I think that would cover it. Additional conditions, yes, indeed. I must say, from my point of view, I've always thought that Gideon Road Estate, without offending Councillor Apps too much, has always been a bit of a hodgepodge, and I think that the developments made in the last few years of extra blocks by the previous council, I have to say, as well as this council, have actually improved it, and I hope this one does too. Agreed? Agreed. We move on to the Bright Horizons Battersea Day Nursery 18, Latchmere Road, page 55, demolition of current nursery and replacement with flats and a replacement nursery. Again, Mr Grainger. Thank you, Chair. So, this would result in the demolition of the existing building, which has got a very low, shallow-pitched roof. It's about one and a half storeys in height that stretches across the length of the curtilage of the site, and the reprovision of a residential component and a nursery component containing nine residential units and about 440, 450 square metres of replacement nursery space. Again, I think it's important to point out a couple of items for you within the late paper. If we look at the first statement that we put into the report, we were of the impression that the facility shut, the nursery shut, in April 2020, but we've been informed that it was actually August 2022, so it's more in modern history than we initially thought. And the amenity, the terraces, have been recalculated in some instances where we've got marginal uplift in the overall floor areas that you can see in the table. Because the scheme is proposed to be phased, so there are three phases, phase one would be the demolition of the existing building, phase two, the residential component, and phase three would be the nursery development. We've had to modify, in order to recognise that phasing, we've had to adjust conditions in order to be able to separate out the residential phase, phase two from the nursery development from phase three. They're quite repetitive in how we've laid these out, because it has to do so for each phase, and those conditions have been laid out for you and corrected for the remainder of the late item. That is pretty much all I wanted to cover. But the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions. It is in the late items, but can I just point out, in case anyone hadn't noticed it, the failure of cutting and pasting on page 87, which clearly don't mean Clapham South, but that was just one of those clerical mistakes. I should also say I was very naughty and off on holiday, and so missed out on some of the information, but I do understand that this document here, further community objection, has been considered by the officers in terms of their report, and they've responded to the various comments in the way they choose to respond to it. That's correct, isn't it Mr Granger? Yes, it is. Yeah, I checked earlier and we had that representation and it's on our websites. Okay. Right. Councillor Coakley? Thank you, Chair. I think if this application was just the nursery, I don't think I would have had any problems with it whatsoever. The nursery seems fine. There's some decent environmental improvements and it's a quite nice looking building, so I didn't find it. My issue is more the residential side. It feels like all of the areas of non-compliance in this paper are due to the developer trying to cram as many units as they can in such a small space. So I guess the first question I want to ask is, in the discussions with the developer, was there ever a point where, say, seven or eight units were considered? Because there's a lot of areas of non-compliance and it could have all been avoided by just having one less unit and then spreading that space equally and then potentially slightly lowering the ridge line of the development. So was that in discussions at all? We did have pre-application engagement with the developer on this proposal. I think the pre-app scheme was eight units, but as any scheme does, they evolve after they've got our initial comments and through modelling and rationalisation of the spaces from the initial conception, they've managed to get a policy-compliant scheme in terms of the floor areas of the flats to nine units, and we regard that as acceptable not only in meeting the nationally described standards, but also in the way that they actually would be laid out and operate. So we don't recognise that as a negative of the proposal. Any other comments? Any questions? Let's give it to Councillor Owens because you've been quiet so far. Thank you, Councillor Belton. I'm Councillor Owens at Northcote Ward. I realise this may not be a planning consideration. Just following a bit on from Councillor Colle's point about the flats, I sit on the Children's Committee and we recently closed two schools. I understand that last year there was only one primary school in the entirety of Wandsworth that filled its reception class, and this nursery has obviously been closed and shut for a couple of years, and we're not looking at doubling the size of the nursery. The nursery is going to be about the same size, but obviously the rest of the site for flats. I was just wondering, it's not a planning consideration, but is there actually a proven need and is it really just about the flats and the extra units, as Councillor Colle has pointed out? Thank you. Sorry. Is there a need for that number of... I'm just curious because we've spent a lot of time in Children's Committee closing schools and showing that we haven't filled any of the reception classes bar one across Wandsworth, and obviously we're not increasing the size of the nursery here. The nursery will be staying the same size and the size will be used for flats, and is it more about perhaps the flats than the nursery? Thank you. Right. Mr Grainger. In terms of need, it is a consideration. I think you don't have to think it's not a material planning consideration because obviously there has to be, in terms of the way the policy works in LP 17, there are a number of criteria that we have to look at and be satisfied of in replacements for the purposes of this because there are a lot of different uses that come under community infrastructure. Then we formulated a policy that teases out that exact need. This is the developer that does have an established business model over the UK, and Bright Horizons operate many nurseries, so it's part of their DNA, so to speak, in terms of what they actually do as an organisation, and they're confident that with a remodelled and re-rationalised modern facility that they can operate it and take up would be successful. So as a commercial concern, there are two things. There's the socio elements of it in terms of, as a council, we have a policy that seeks to not allow or developments to result in a net loss of floor area for community infrastructure buildings. And then in the same breath, then we've got a developer that commercially operates these units that has a track record that's successful. So marry those two together, and I think that demonstrates the case that need is there, and that there is, on paper, there is a high degree, an opportunity for success. Councillor Humphries. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I understand all that, and I have some sympathy with Councillor Colton's point of view, because in effect what we've taken is a long, low building and converted it into a three-storey building to provide the same equivalent, in a sense, and then we're getting a big block of flats alongside it. So I think for the folk in the street behind, of course we understand that they've been fortunate up to date, they've only had that low building in front of them by a quirk of history or the way it's worked out. But even looking at the CGIs on page 60, which presumably generated to encourage us to see how wonderful the development is going to be, from the viewpoint of those people living behind, it looks pretty jolly imposing to me, and very in your face, and the modern style of the urban vernacular of that building, I think doesn't do it necessarily any favours. And if we didn't have so many units, as Councillor Colton said, we might have been able to get a slightly less Balkian, in your face, excuse the colloquialism, building, particularly from the rear there, with maybe a bit less height and stepping back a bit more. I understand from what they've tried to do their best to accommodate the minimising with the setting back. We've set it back at the front on the residential side of this development, onto the main road, rather than setting it back at the rear, which seems contrary to me to make even more of an impact on the residents. So I just think when you're starting from a blank page of the site, it seems that they've done everything they can to maximise their potential of the site, and quite good for them, that's their job after all, but taking absolutely no interest in the impact on the residents behind them. So I'm not, I'm not thrilled with this one, I've got to say. One of course that it makes any difference to today's situation, but I assume, after all it's near Clapham Junction, that I assume that's a bomb site effectively, and Latchmere Road was carried on at the level it is, which is two storeys with a high Victorian pitched roof, more or less the same height as certainly the flats, and the case was true in Atherton Street as well. So it's very, it's pretty typical in a sense, in a townscape sense of what it traditionally was, which is, you know, I'm just making that comment, but I hear what you say. Any other comments? Councillor Apps, Councillor Ayres again. Well, Councillor Apps first. Yep. I wanted to ask, as Councillor Coakley pointed out, there's a number of areas of non-compliance, and those are obviously balanced in the report, so that we weigh up the factors. And obviously one of the factors that we'd want to weigh up is the sort of socio-economic, you know, benefits, and how they weigh up in comparison. I was very interested in Councillor Owen's comments on that. Have there been, has there been an assessment of the need for more childcare in the area? Has there been, you know, have they collected evidence? Have we received any representations from say children's department about this? You know, what, we are at a point where the birth rate is declining in London, you know, so are we confident? I hear what you say about the business model, so obviously the business thinks there is, but do we have any evidence that we have this need? We don't have any evidence from what we would produce in order to provide an evidence base supporting a policy, for instance, for a local, you know, for a local plan or anything like that. We go out there, we would do something called a local housing needs assessment, where we identify, for instance, unit mix and how many, how many homes we need in what, 10 years, and you know, whether it's social, intermediate or private cell, things like that. So we don't have, they don't, they haven't done that, they haven't supplied that, and the policy specifically doesn't require them to do that because of this interlink, the dovetailing of the fact that they have to re-provide the floor space because of it being social infrastructure floor space. So the evolution of the policy to get to that policy and it being a no net loss policy, in order to evidence a no net loss policy, we have had to demonstrate that we don't want to lose any of that because we need it. So there's a sort of almost a bit of research done that we need those spaces because they could be occupied for social and community infrastructure, if you see what I mean. And then, you obviously, you marry that with the commercial aspect that I've talked about, which arrives, you know, it gives us enough confidence to think that this, in policy terms, would succeed. Councillor Ayers. I wanted to comment just architecturally about it. I think that your point would be easier to comprehend if you'd asked for a cross section through the building showing that the high back would be oppressive to the neighbours at the back. So I think the CGIs make a good case for the front elevation, maybe the side elevation. I very much like the way that the housing lines up with the existing housing and the setting back of the second storey is a very relaxed and successful way of keeping it in scale. And the nursery building is clearly a sort of a civic building. It has a public function. It's not domestic anymore. So although it's slightly too muscular, one might think, for a nursery, it's still a very good building and it can easily be softened around the edges. So overall, I'm impressed with this, the work that the architects have done, despite the fact that there are a few single aspect flats. And we could have had more front doors on the street, but we've got some here. We've got some front doors on the street here. So I'm in favour of this scheme. Thank you. Councillor White and then Humphries again. Hi. Yeah, I'm always perplexed by demolition because the amount of CO2 lost in demolition is not going to be made up by the savings in a new building. Also, the basement excavation as well in a high flood risk area, which suffers from floods. And this will obviously have an impact on soak away opportunities. And also, you know, just under the 10 again, you know, so we don't have to provide any affordable housing. And it's interesting, bearing that in mind, when we talk about the significant social economic benefits, which is quoted in there. Well, that's, you know, certainly not a social economic benefit. And with one less space available than previously, I just wonder what are the social part from providing another nursery? What is the significant social economic benefits? I mean, are there places reserved for, you know, to ensure there's a fair mix of the local residents? I mean, that would be a significant social economic benefit possibly. Well, of course, many of well, most of the committee members, perhaps all committee members would prefer more affordable equation. But within terms of planning policy, somewhere in here, I'm not sure I put my finger on it straight away. But we know the London plan as a whole relies very much on small developments and small units, and will increasingly need to and the demand for many, many more houses or flats in London, I would have thought was pretty clear. But Mr. Granger, go anything to add? No, sure. I mean, well, apart from one thing that this doesn't we talk about, excuse me, we talk about, say, about public benefits in the context of, of, of balancing harm in conservation areas. And we do that in line with the main three principles of the NPPF. But they don't actually technically have to do that in here. But in terms of, you know, benefits, it obviously contributes to the borough's housing targets, as the chairs already talked about and bringing forwards of which small sites has been prioritized because small sites have been identified within the policy strata has been very important in in delivering housing, housing need, but there is no method for us or a policy backing to to monitor from what social strands the future. Well, the future. What do you call it? I was gonna call them students, but that's ridiculous. The kids, the children being looked after, and there's, there's, there's no grounds for us to do that in any, in any strand of policy direction. Thank you. Councillor Humphreys. And if Councillor Colquay wants to come back again, he'd welcome to but Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Dragging us back to the mundane planning things that we can control, as has been referred to look at 4.16. This is an indicator perhaps of how, as has been alluded to, perhaps to develop as being a little bit greedy with the amount of units they're trying to put in. So 4.16 on page 86. So we've got flat seven. Oh, sorry, no, it's 4.14. Sorry. Where is it? I've lost it. No, I've gone up. 4.11. That's it. So we've got a flat seven, two bed flat, single aspect unit. And even though it's single aspect, we're having to obscure, glaze most of the windows at the back in the bedrooms. I mean, that's pretty poor, isn't it, outlook for somebody living there. And again, because again, do you remember last month we had a development in Swaffield Street and Councillor Ayres was, was pointing out that because of the tight nature of the site, again, they were trying to be a little bit greedy and squeezing that extra funny shaped unit on the end. And I think there's somewhat guilty of the same thing here. I quite accept Mr. Granger's point that we need to do what we can on these small sites to get anywhere near the targets we've currently got for housing. But I just think, you know, we could have had one less here, which would have reduced the bulk somewhat. And we could have had a better scheme that would have worked, A, for the developer and B, not to impinge so much on the residents at the back. And I just think they're being overly greedy on this one. I mean, one pretty poor unit, the amenity spaces aren't up to standard either. We've got a couple of policy grounds already where it's not compliant. And again, going back to my first point about the nursery, the reason they've had to make it three storeys is because they need extra play space, which they've lost on the footplate of the building because of the original nursery play spaces at the back. And they have, they've lost half the site. So they've had to do a play space on the upper storey, which is going to impinge for noise. And again, impinge on the neighbours. So it's the neighbours, we're getting the bum deal, excuse my French, all the way around here, aren't they, on this kind of one, around. And it's all for the benefit of the developer, because they want to squeeze that many units into that one space. And I just thought with a more reasonable outlook on trying to keep everyone happy, we could have had a much better scheme on this site, which we often do on small schemes when the developer's a little bit more considerate of his residence site. I personally will be voting against this one. And if I have any support from colleagues, I can find a few grounds to do that. Okay, any other comments? Councillor Copley? I'm in exactly the same boat as Councillor Humphreys. Again, I think the nursery development is fine. If I was on his own, I probably would have voted for it. But the fact that they're trying to cram in so many units, and it's led to less benefits for the people that are going to be occupying these properties, as well as the residents of Atherton Street in the surrounding area. So I'd also, I also would like to move a motion for refusal based on those areas of non-compliance. I think you can just vote against the recommendation. You don't have to move a motion, I don't think. Sorry. Oh, they're chatting on the front. Mr Grainger, any final, I mean, what's your comment about the equivalence between a three-storey flat-roofed modern and two-storey with pitch roof as in Latchmere Road and how they fit together? Any comments about that? Well, that wouldn't work, Chair. Sorry? That wouldn't work. The way that the residential component has been designed is to be absolutely flush with the building line of the terrace adjacent to it. It's a totally contemporary mirror of the established pattern of all the development to the north. It's just a contemporary continuation of that. And largely, the distances at the rear, you know, there is a lot of mirroring in terms of, you know, there are rear projections of the existing buildings. So it's, Councillor Humphries put his finger on the correct point earlier by pointing out that residents have been used to a low-rise building, and that is absolutely true. Sometimes in planning assessments we talk about, you know, the site has been just recently cleared and has been, you know, nothing's happened to it for two or three years. But that would be, that's in living memory if something, replacement, goes up that is of the same built envelope or maybe even bigger. That's one thing. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the residents to the rear of the site to, you know, it's such a long time ago that that building's been there, where you can't use that argument. That's why we've gone into such length in assessing the impacts of this proposal, because we want to make sure that the impacts lie within acceptable parameters. And we do think that the separation distances achieve acceptable degrees of outlook, acceptable privacy levels, with the exception of having to obscure those particular units, and the daylight/sunlight impacts, you know, for a very tight urban area, there are only one or two failings that, you know, that, these aren't materially harmful reductions in daylight in terms of VSC and vertical sky component and daylight distribution. So in that regard, there are also additional controls that Councillor Humphries was talking about, the potential noise and disturbance from these amenity spaces for the nursery, but condition 15 is there to ensure that, you know, these areas don't get used outside of the commercial hours, you know, past 7 o'clock and past 2 o'clock on Saturday. So I think, you know, the controls expressed in the recommended conditions, along with the overall assessments and the overarching benefits that this scheme brings forward, I think the proposal as a recommendation still stands in officers' view. Okay. Are you bringing up new matters, Councillor Humphries? You're just repeating the same again. I was just going to pick up Mr Grainger's comment about the distances between the building and the existing building, and out of interest as well, perhaps that is something new. I too was interested when it was a bomb site from before and looked it up in my book, which has drawings of what was done. I can't remember if it was an incendiary or what it was, but it was a bomb site in the wall. But to your point, Chair, about how the original buildings were still there, the difference I think perhaps architecturally between what we would have had then and what we have now, as Mr Grainger quite rightly said, they would have been outriggers sticking out to that distance from the original buildings on the back extension, not a solid wall coming out the whole width of the building. And that's what makes that, even in the CGIs, look particularly dominating from the point of view of the residents at the back. There was more articulation there of going in and out. I think perhaps you might have got away with it. But the way it's done, it just presents a pretty much sheer flanked wall, which wouldn't have been what you would have had originally in that site. That's certainly true. OK, the officer's recommendation is clear and there. Can I ask those in favour of supporting the officer's recommendation? Three. Those against. Five, I think. So that is refused. No, no, no, no. Sorry. No, it's not refused. Sorry. It's sorry. We have to put. I beg your pardon. We have to put forward reasons at this point. Yes. Could at this point I just highlight one of the appeals in the closed appeals, where there's been a cost award, and you may recall 10 Old Brook Road, where that was refused at committee against officer recommendation. That was found to have a cost award against it and unreasonably behaved by members because the inspector found that there wasn't a significant or a good enough reason to refuse it. So anything you come up with now, it has to not just say it doesn't comply with policy, because in that case they didn't have terraces and that was the fundamental reason for refusal. So it needs more than that. So on this case, we've got to identify what harm and the reasons for refusal and why it's unacceptable. So let me leave that with you through your thoughts. Councillor Caulk, do you want to come back? Those respects, Mr. Gordon, you're quite right and I should have asked for, but surely there are enough caveats here to create a case, which I'm sure Councillor Caulk will start off by pointing out the weakness of one particular flat, et cetera. Yeah, I feel like three fairly obvious ones. One of the units having a non-compliant outlook, one of the units having a non-compliant amenity space, and then the impact from VSC, those are areas of non-compliance. So I feel like it's very different to that one that was appealed against successfully. And Councillor Humphries, are you going to add to this, aren't you? I might. For me, the biggest thing is that they are all considerations, which is true, but the biggest thing is I think is the over-domineering impact on the neighbours to the rear. Well, certainly over-dominating, over-development on the site and the lack of standards in particular, and one particular flat. Any other reasons to those who, remember I supported the officer's recommendation, but those who didn't, any other reasons you can put forward? Mr. Calderoy says less is more in the sense of I think we've got some stronger arguments rather than lots of little ones. I think it would have more impact. That's just my opinion. What do you say to less is more? Less is more when there's a strong case. I don't think the areas of just having non-compliance, as I've just mentioned, is enough in itself. I think with the impact on residential amenity to the rear, we could probably argue a case, but that's a fairly subjective one. I think we need more than just it's non-compliance. I don't know if Mr. Granger has got any further thoughts on that. Well, in terms of the list, calling the unit that has some of its windows, obscure glazes as non-compliant, but given the material considerations is in order to mitigate the impacts in privacy terms to the occupiers opposite. That is a fact, but the overarching assessment behind that is that they still have a terrace that has a return on it and there is an outlook that is clear glazed onto the terrace. It's just the ones that go out. I really don't think that that is a very strong argument at all. The amenity space argument where we have flats that miss compliance by 2.2 metres, when Mr. Calder has already told us that we lost an appeal for a five-unit scheme where only the ground floor flat had amenity space and no flats above had any space at all, we lost that appeal. They were units with no flat. These are units, each flat has got its own amenity space. That is something to really, really think about in the context of what the planning inspectors think about those particular assessments. The impact on daylight, sunlight, there are reductions. We've given reasons why we think that's acceptable. The committee could maybe talk about that and decide whether that is something that they want to pursue because the study does record proposals that aren't aligned with the 0.8 times the former values. There is mitigation behind that in some instances and the daylight distribution sometimes overcomes the VSC failures. The overbearing impact, this building is 15 metres away. I just don't think that this building would be so close to those occupiers that they would feel a sense of enclosure or oppressed by this building. I think that's tricky and subjective. With respect, Mr Grainger, it's 15 metres at the widest point, it's eight metres at the closest point. It says 8.3 metres to 15.7 metres. Can you please direct us to the paragraph? I must say, I don't remember that. Are you going to put together a combination of reasons, best you can, Councillor Humphries? Yes, Chair, happy to do that. In a way, after listening to what Mr Grainger said, and sound advice as always, I respect what he's saying, but we obviously don't always have to agree with our officers. I think in a way, it's almost leaning in my mind towards overdevelopment, because if we had a slightly smaller development that would have less units to compromise with the nursery, then I think as we've all said, admitted, there's a scheme in there that could work well. I think what they've tried to do, by nature, the scale of the development, we've got some units which don't meet policy terms. It's a judgement call, isn't it, but I don't think window to window, eight metres away from one building to another one, is exactly a great difference. I think that definitely counts in my mind as overbearing, when the distance, if you remember folks that we normally consider acceptable, is 18 metres. Eight metres is very small indeed. Give me a moment, I'll just try and find where that is in the document. Take a moment. You better find it, because you're moving this rejection.
• I think it's where it seemed like Paris 3.38 and dimensions expressed in those paragraphs, but those distances talk about the separation to the boundary, and then there would be an additional distance to the ground floor elements of the properties on Atherton Street. The separation in ground floor is totally different between first and second. First and second floor are the dimensions that you need to look at, because there's a two metre plus high wall at ground that separates this proposal from Atherton Street, and Atherton Street will only at ground floor look onto that boundary treatment. That doesn't change, so it doesn't matter really what the separation distances are at ground floor level. It's the first and then second, so 3.47 is 15 metres to 17.5 metres away in Paris 3.47. That's the rear second floor window. In that context, I still am of the view that the separation distance is more than adequate to ensure that the outlook and oppressive sense of enclosure would not be created by this proposal.
• There it is, in 3.47. Now I've found it, page 83, 3.47, remaining between 15.5 to 17.5 metres.
• That's 3.45, I think. That's where the 8.3 to 15.7 is, Councillor Humphries.
• That's pretty standard, separate. That would not be unusual in Battersea, would it, or shooting. There's a distance. Well, Councillor Humphries, the people who voted the way they did, someone's got to put forward some reasons. As you know, I supported the officer's recommendation, so I'm hardly in a position to do it myself, but let's put them on the table. What are the reasons?
• Well, I still think the over-domineering aspect at the back, but by nature of the design as well, with that solid flank wall, which we can see from the CGI's, it has no concession to any kind of moderation towards the residents at the rear. If you look at that one on page 60, the last image on page 60, and again, as we spoke earlier, with the third story, the top story, being pushed right to the back of the boundary of the building, it emphasizes the height and bulk of that overlooking the properties behind. And as Councillor Reyes referred to earlier, yes, it makes an improvement on the streetscape at the front, but I think that makes the impact on the neighbours worse at the rear.
• Okay, so perhaps if we take that on board as a reason for refusal, and again, I suggested that there was, due to the technical breaches in a small number of the units, ground floor units in terms of daylight and sunlight impact, those, to my mind, the amenity space potential reason doesn't work in my view at appeal, given what's been out there and what the planning inspector have already said on that issue, and the small area of non-compliance for the future occupiers of a flat, because of a obstacle glazed window, I don't think is defendable at appeal. So we potentially could end up with impact on daylight and sunlight to the existing occupiers on Loutherton Road, and a loss of outlook due to an overbearing sense of enclosure, by reason of the proximity of the block, et cetera, et cetera.
• I'm much happier with that than, excuse me, I'm much happier than that with going on the amenity space, as Mr. Grainger said, I think that's not gonna get us anywhere, so we need to have something as strong as we can. And I think it is, for me, it's the genuine reason, I think it's the over-dominant look at that at the back, and if they're, you know, as I said, I don't wanna say it again, but compromised on the size of the nursery and made that lower and bigger and put less units in, we wouldn't have this issue to deal with, I'd be quite happy to support it, but I think they've just been too greedy in this case. So Mr. Grainger said, those technical aspects, I think, are the best ones to go for.
• We know you think they're being too greedy, but we gotta put this in terms of, so it's over-dominaring, due to the proximity of the--
• Limits of neighboring properties at the rear.
• We'll put this all into, obviously--
• And do you think that's sufficient grounds for refusal? I mean, it's up to the councillors, of course, the members, you think that's sufficient? Councillor Coakley, Councillor Wright?
• I still feel like the issues of the amenity space and the internal one, they should still be part of the reason for refusal, 'cause it's all part of this bigger package that it's slightly over-development in that area, and it is an area of non-compliance, I don't see why we can't include it, 'cause it's an area of non-compliance, but its officers held the view that were outweighed by the benefits, but the committee feels like it doesn't outweigh the benefits, and so I feel like it's still worth having it as part of the package.
• To join with Councillor Coakley on that one, I think perhaps what we could do is reference those failings in the, make it non-compliant with policy, in the fact that it's been too over-domineering and big at the back, so if they'd made it slightly smaller, then we wouldn't have those issues that they've had to compromise with on the policy, so it's reference to those issues rather than using them as the fundamental reason for the refusal.
• I don't think we can have as a reason, it would be different if, I mean, you've got--
• Sorry, you weren't understanding, so the reasons that we've had are being overly dominant at the back and over-imposing on the neighbours at the rear, and the reason it is doing that is because of the way they designed it, and even with that bulk, still have non-compliance with other issues in the--
• We didn't need to go into that, though, do we, we don't normally, we just say it's overbearing or overdominant, whatever the reasons may be, but you're saying overbearing and overdominant, and I think Councillor Colkely is wishing to add to that, with lack of insufficient amenity space.
• And also the non-compliant.
• Can I appeal to our legal advisor?
• Thank you, Chairman, just quickly on Councillor Humphrey's point about whether that could be the points that Councillor Colkely made about non-compliance with those other technical aspects, whether they can be weaved in to the more, the stronger reason for refusal, I would caution against that, because if that's cited as a reason why the Council has refused the application, not necessarily as its own standalone reason, but within the main reason, it's still something that the appellant will have to deal with as part of the appeal, and the Council will have to deal with as part of the appeal also. We've heard from Mr Grainger that he doesn't think that they are strong enough reasons irrespective of whether they're a standalone reason or whether they're intertwined into the main reason, so I would caution against that, but it's for members. If members are concerned and they think that they are sufficient enough ground to refuse this application, then that's a matter for you. So legally speaking, having the amenity and the outlook referenced in it, do you feel like that would weaken the application, even though it's still a reason and it's a reason that we've identified as non-compliant, but you still feel like it would weaken the application just by being there, even though we've identified it as a reason for non-compliance? I'm not sure that I entirely understand, Chairman, the weakening of the application, what I was trying to explain, perhaps not very clearly, apologies, is that Councillor Humphries was trying to incorporate your concerns within the stronger reason, which is the impact on the amenity of neighbours caused by the design and the proximity towards naming properties. If those technical points about VSC and the absence of the policy compliant amenity space for one of the units is included within that reason for refusal, it would still have to be met in terms of dealt with by the Council and the Appellant at the appeal. I don't think, and I think Councillor Humphries may have said this, I don't think, and I caution against the use of other reasons as make-weight, because I think it can detract from the strength of stronger arguments. So my view and the view of Mr Granger is that these technical breaches, although they exist, I don't think warrant inclusion in the reason for refusal or a separate reason for refusal in their own right. And I would add, I don't know what Mr Morris thinks about this, this is in the context of positive contributions to what we want, like more housing, the number of housing units available, replacement of a nursery, so there are compensating things, benefits as well. Thank you, I agree with that entirely. Just to add one more point, in terms of general principles, there will be a number of applications that you'll consider that don't meet every one of the Council's policies. And that's why you're here, so you're here to assess the compliance with those policies and to weigh up different planning matters in your judgement. The issue is, does the application comply with the development plan as a whole? And the officer's view is that it does, members have taken a different view, that's your right. I don't think I need to add any more, Chairman. I think if I speak on behalf of those of us who have a similar point of view, I'm happy to take officer's advice on those things, and I think the strength of the argument is the nature of the development itself, and I think officers always tell us in the report, quite rightly, often it's on balance, and that on balance is, as Mr Moore exactly described very well, thank you, that balancing between where there are areas of non-compliance and where it is acceptable. And the officer's view in the report in this case, they consider that it was acceptable, it seems like the view of members on balance is that it isn't acceptable for those reasons, and I think that's strong enough in itself and we should be able to defend that properly. Sorry, I'm going to press you, Gasam, you're moving it. What are the reasons precisely? As nothing's changed, I don't think, from what we said before, so not with respect, not including Councillor Colle, whose reference is to the minor reference, so the overbearing impacts and amenity of the neighbours to the rear of the building is the crux of it, isn't it? Yes. Did you want to pursue the daylight sunlight? And the VSCs. Yeah. And then what, sorry? Daylight sunlight. The failures in daylight sunlight with the VSCs, et cetera. Okay, right. So that would be two reasons. So Councillor Humphreys is moving that this recommendation is rejected because of the overbearing impact, gosh, and the impact on light and, yeah, so that's it. Okay, do you have a seconder, Councillor Humphreys? Seconded. Those in favour of Councillor Humphreys' motion? Five. Those against? Three. Okay, that is resolved by, that is defeated, I guess, by five votes to three. Move on to the next items, and the public gallery will no doubt have heard that, but you can stay for, it won't be very long other than the next items, but on the other items, decisions papers from information, is that agreed? Oh, sorry, I do beg your pardon, there's a tree preservation orders, page 117 to 132. They are agreed, are they? Agreed. Agreed. And the application, sorry, the decisions paper noted. Closure of investigation files noted. The closed appeals, have I got the right one? I should point out, make it very clear, though it's already been referenced, the item on page 115, yes, 115, that, I'm sure most members will remember it, and it's for information about something that happened earlier this year, and I think people should take that into account, and take note, and read it carefully. But apart from that, closed appeals are noted, and that's, sorry, the tree preservation order that followed, I got the wrong order, but that concludes it, thank you very much. [end of transcript] 1 1 [BLANK_AUDIO]