Transcript

Good evening, members. I will open the first item on this agenda which hopefully will be quite straightforward, which is for the appointment of chair and vice chair of the committee and amendment to the terms of reference. With regards to paper number 24221, does the committee agree to recommendations one which is setting the term limit for chair and vice chair to a period of four years with reelection at the first meeting of the municipal year following the borough council elections which will next be in May 2026, and two, appointing Dr. Jubb as chair of the committee. Is that agreed? Fantastic. At which point I will hand over to the chair. It's not working. Okay. Welcome to this meeting of the conservation and heritage advisory committee. My name is Michael Jubb, and I am chair of this committee. Are there any nominations for vice chair of this committee just to complete the business set out in the first paper? Me. I put my name forward, and I'm happy to serve if there is no other contender. Is that agreed? Yes. Okay. Let's move on, then. Members of the committee I'll now call your names. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. And once you've done that, can you remember to switch off your microphone? And I'll call your names in order. Councillor Osborne. Good evening, everybody. Councillor Owens. Good evening, everybody. Mark Dodgson. I don't see Roger Armstrong. Good evening. I'm here. Francis Radcliffe. We have had apologies from Andrew Catto. Andrew Catto from the Pardee Society here for nearly all of the meeting. Chris Rice, we've had apologies from. Edward Potter is indisposed, I gather. Pamela Greenwood. Present. Good evening. And Peter Farrow. Present. Good evening. Okay. And could Mr. Wernham give the apologies, please, other than those I've mentioned? Thank you, Chair. I think in which case it's just Councillor Belton, because you mentioned Edward Potter, Francis Radcliffe and Chris Rice. Hello. And I'm here too for the Tooting History Group. And I messed you up. I'm so sorry, Libby. Okay. The following officers are also present. I'm afraid that Lauren Way is unavoidably absent. But we do have Barry Sellers. Chair Barry Sellers. Well-designed officer. Present. David Andrews. Yes. Good evening. And Victoria. Sorry, I've forgotten your surname. It's Brock Sopp, senior conservation and urban design officer. Good evening. Okay. Okay. Can I remind you to ensure that your microphone's turned off unless you're speaking? And can I also advise you to do something to your phone to stop it embarrassing you during the meeting? Okay. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? Yes, Chair. I need to declare an interest in the fifth item of the applications on Appian Street in that I'm the architect of the scheme. So I will sit out for that one. Okay. And I think we will take that item as the first on the agenda when we come to first on the list when we come to that item on the agenda. But just before we get there, can we deal with the minutes of the meeting on the 23rd of July? First of all, are they a correct record? And therefore, can I sign them? Yes. Thank you. Second, are there any matters arising? And I will go through the minutes page by page. The first page is headed page 5 in your pack. Anything there? I don't think there should be. Page 6, application largely covers the glass mill. I don't think there's any update on that. It hasn't gone -- that application hasn't gone to planning applications committee yet, I don't think. Page 7, the flower stall. And I think there is a matter that we ought just to note, at least here, that rather surprisingly, to me, that the officers submitted a report to PAC at its August meeting recommending acceptance, approval of the application. Basically on the grounds that it was temporary. And it was surprising to me, because the previous application for a new flower stall, they had roundly recommended refusal before that application was withdrawn. And it seemed to me exceedingly odd, and the officers, I think, in the paper that they submitted to PAC, recognized, acknowledged that it was odd, then to recommend approval of the application to retain the existing flower stall. In the end, the PAC agreed to retention of the flower stall for a two-year period rather than a five-year period. And my understanding from things that were said at PAC is that that was related to progress on Phase 1 of the Clapham Junction Master Plan, which I understand, although it has not been actually reported other than orally in the PAC meeting, it's not been announced anywhere else, that I've been able to find that Phase 1, which was considerably delayed, has now been completed with three options for improvements, changes to Clapham Junction Station. I don't know what those options are, but somehow they are related to the officer's recommendation for approval of the flower stall retention for a temporary period. When temporary is five years, I think it is exceedingly odd in the circumstances. I was also slightly surprised, to put it mildly, to find that there was no mention in the paper that the conservation planners had not approved or had not recommended approval of the application. And I think that is remiss, in my view. Indeed, there are legal cases where planning approvals have been overturned, precisely because the objections of conservation planners have not been explicitly included in the report to what we call the Planning Applications Committee. So I think on several grounds, there are reasons for our concern about what happened in the lead up to the Planning Applications Committee. I think that the approval is for a two-year period is perhaps a partial win. But I would like to make clear, and I made my unhappiness clear to Councillor Owens, that I was very unhappy about the way that this has been handled by the officers. And I have said that also to officers beyond the conservation planners. I don't know if anyone else has anything to say on this matter. I know that Peter Farrow expressed concern after the event. Forgive me, yes, I endorse everything you said there. I think it was difficult to understand how the recommendation from officers could have been approved. And obviously, I'm disappointed that the committee sought to approve it. I would like to ask if it's known how many temporary approvals have been given for the flower stall. And if there is a limit on the number of times you can apply for a temporary approval. I don't know if that's something that could be answered now. But if not, I'd be pleased if it could be noted possibly for an answer at our next meeting. Thank you. I'll make a note of that and report back. Thank you. I would be grateful if you would agree that our concern about how this application was handled could be expressed in the minutes of this meeting. Can I just jump in there very quickly, Chair? I clerked that particular PAC, and I'm very confident that Jack's objection was in the papers, because I remember reading it. But I thought you said earlier that it wasn't in the papers, or did I miss anything? I said that the conservation planning officers' concern about the proposal was not explicitly recorded in the officers' report. I acknowledge that the Jack objection was explicitly mentioned. Okay. Can we move on? Can I say something about the next application that we consider, the power station, where I was able to report that I knew that some new drawings had been submitted, and so the committee quite rightly decided that it shouldn't reach a view on the application until the new drawings had been finally submitted. They have now been submitted, and I have to say that on the basis of the revised drawings, the Battersea Society has actually decided not to comment further on that application. In response to the earlier drawings, we had submitted an objection, but we have not actually withdrawn the objection, because the objection was on the basis of the drawings as they stood at that point. They have now been substantially amended, and we are happy with that. Unless the officers think that there is anything further for this committee to discuss, I would be happy to let this issue lie. We'll have a look at the scheme and report that next meeting. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the length of that. Page 8, any issues there? Page 9, you will have noted from the decisions paper later on the agenda that the Planning Applications Committee refused this application that we had supported, and indeed the officers supported. That is, of course, PAC's prerogative to do so. Summerstown, Summerstown. I don't think there's anything more that we can say at this stage where we can see what happens, I think. It's now up to the applicants to challenge the grounds for the refusal, which strike me as slightly odd in that although it might be protected for some purpose, it is currently a residential garden. Yes. Well, we wait and see, I think. Could I just raise a sort of hardy perennial on our agenda on Page 10, which is Fersdown Lodge. Good evening, Chair. We've got some good news. We've had an email from the property services, and they say now that the agreement for lease contains certain milestones, and it's been completed, and there are things the lessees must do, the primary one being that they have until the 22nd of November, I believe it is, to get in a planning application. Now, I'd hope they might do a pre-application before that, because given it's a listed building, they may need, you know, well, they would probably need a little bit, at any rate, but I would hope that they might do a pre-application beforehand, but that seems a bit tight in time scale. But nevertheless, there's 12 weeks date to the November date when they should get a planning application in by, so I think that's just after the next check. I'm not sure if they should get a report further. I think one of the key concerns expressed at previous meetings has been about the security of the building and, you know, it's, whether it is actually undergoing sort of severe deterioration because of its current state. I mean, have there been any developments on that front? Well, it's two years since I actually went into the building, and visited with Historic England at the time, because we were considering whether it should go on the register of buildings at risk, and they said no, so, at that time, it was, you know, it was, you know, it's, you know, it's a, it's not a big deal, it's a big deal, because it was very good quality inside, in terms of where it's been maintained. I haven't been since then, we've been getting reports from Property Services, we can get another report between now and the next committee, just to make sure everything's okay, because the darker evenings, I'm not sure if there's any illumination going on there, I can't remember now, but we need to check, but thank you. Okay, Mr Armstrong. Yeah, it looks like they're going to put in for planning permission, just in time for bonfire night. I am seriously concerned, you know, building empty for this length of time. Okay, Mr Lawson. Since it was raised at the committee, it was boarded up more securely, and I think that there may have been some guardians, some property angels in, certainly the whole of Fersdam is watching out for it, and I'm very keen to see what's proposed in the near future. Thank you. One piece of good news, next para under any other business is Mark's School, which is, as well as being removed from the Heritage at Risk register, it is being opened up on open house weekend, it's a couple of weekends. I think the 21st? It's the 21st, Chair, exactly the 21st, it's open. It's now been converted to the offices of a firm of architects who are proud to show it comes off our concerns. Yes. Though there's still work to be done on the landscaping front. I'm sure that will get done. The local listing consultation was, I mean, it's been delayed several times. Last meeting we heard September, do we have a precise date? We haven't got a precise date yet, Chair, but we're in common place, and the main thing is to get things onto the website, and once it's on the website, we'll be able to send round an email to societies saying, look, this is the website. I've actually had a look at it with Lauren about a week ago, and I was quite impressed with it. It's probably better than the one we had before, if you remember one in 2017, 2018. You'll be able to upload information and photographs to that particular site when you click onto a building. So I was quite impressed with that. So that's how it goes, and we'll give an update shortly. Okay. Thank you. I don't think there should be any other matters arising. Okay. So can we move on to the paper 24222? And I'm going to change the order in which we look at these, and I suggest that we start with, do we pronounce it Nepean House or Nepean? I don't know. Nepean is the way I'm the owner. Right. And just so that anyone tuning into this realizes that Mr. Catto, who is the architect in this application, has withdrawn from the room while we discuss it. Who is going to lead on the presentation? Victoria, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Committee. Nepean House, it's an unlisted property within the Westmead Conservation Area. It's a modern property dating from 1980s and was built on land formerly part of the gardens of 17 Rodway to the south. It's a two-story dwelling with double integrated garage and some distinctive sweeping roof. It's not of any particular architectural interest in its own rights. The conservation area appraisal refers to it, but says that it does not make a positive contribution to the conservation area. But when you look at it in views along the street, particularly in that photo to the left, it is fairly visually recessive compared to the adjacent Edwardian properties. Proposals seek to introduce an additional story of accommodation with rear single-story extension and convert the garage to habitable space. So you've got the existing plans at the top and proposed at the bottom. You can see this at the size of the rear extension to the rear. That's the existing front and rear elevations. Those are the proposed. And then again, side elevations and proposed elevations. So I will maybe leave us on that page. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any factual questions that members want to put to the officers? If not, I'm looking for views on this application and its implications for the conservation area. Who is going to lead on this? >> I'm happy to say a few words. I sort of lost it. I agree with the assessment that the building doesn't make a particularly positive contribution to the conservation area as it stands. In fact, I think it's very distinctly an anomaly. And my view is that the proposed front elevation is a distinct improvement on what is there presently. Obviously there's an issue with the increase in the height, which I believe has caused an objection from the neighbour to the south. But I think generally I think it's an improvement on what is there. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Roger.

I think the effect is fairly neutral. It's more in line with the adjacent Edwardian properties. So I think the site can stand the increased -- have any particular objection to the changes? Does anyone have any negative comments? Mr. Dodgson. I really actually have a question. And I'm sorry, I was processing information. Presumably then all the materials will be sort of equivalent to the ones that are already being used in the existing property. It's not being made over to look like an Edwardian house. It's just in that -- when you look at it like that, you could almost think, oh, that's Edwardian, but it's not. No. Right. Thank you. Okay. I'm getting the sense that we have no objections to this. Ms. Lawson. No. I agree it's sort of neutral both ways. But actually it's probably better that it's not been raised to the ground and something new proposed. So we should be grateful. Okay. I think we have enough here to say that we support this application. The increase in the resulting from the additional story is in keeping with the neighboring buildings and therefore we have no objection to it. Okay. Yes. Okay. Let us move on to applications -- there are two applications, as you will have noted, 2326 and 2362, 100 Tootingbeck Road, which the longer serving members of this committee will recognize having come to this committee a number of times over many years. Who is going to lead on this? This is me. Yeah. As you say, this is an old friend. It's come back again. I think the principle thing to keep in mind is that we have already 12 years ago consented a scheme for reuse and for new buildings on this site. In 2012 we gave permission for -- if we can go back just one. Yeah. That's it. So looking at the lodge there, where there used to be when this building was in use as a nursery, where there used to be the longer of the greenhouses stretching along the northwest of that view, there is now and was then consented a long low single story structure with another low range of buildings at the rear of the site adjacent to the gardens of the houses in Romberg Road, which is to the southwest of that photograph there, with an extension to the lodge itself. Now in the previous consent in 2012, the extension to the lodge proposed the demolition of the modern extension, the little box extension that you see at the rear, and a two-story extension to the lodge itself. In this application -- if we could move forward. Oh, there's the site plan. So you can see that the applicant is doing pretty much the same sort of thing in terms of covering previously developed areas of the site with buildings in this application as in 2012, and is also proposing a rear extension to the lodge in the same position as the earlier consent. So we've got the existing and proposed ground floor plans here, so you can see that the single-story rear addition, which doesn't do the building any favors, will be demolished. I think we're all quite happy to see that, and I don't think there were any objections to that part of it in 2012. Its replacement with -- well, this time it's a single-story rear extension, which on plan is quite considerable, but as you'll see in a minute, is only single story. It's come down a story from the previous consent, and then you have this sort of L-shaped range which is being developed. The applicant has the interest of an undertaker's firm to use the lodge itself as an office, a place where you'd go to meet with the funeral directors, and also a garage to prepare and store the vehicles for the funeral services. The front parts of the building off Seatingbeck Road will be used as a café, and there was a café use in 2012, so there is a public use here as well. And that's the existing proposed first floor plans. So you can see principally that there is no upper story of the rear extension now. These elevations of the existing building will remain untouched, restored. The building needs again, after being empty for -- well, since its last restoration, it still needs a bit of work. If we can go back one, actually, you can see that the building on the right of the north elevation, the apex of the roof is still -- it's quite high, but it's still well below the level of the existing building. And this is the garage parking. From the 2012 consent, this, the equivalent range of buildings here were pitched. They had a pitched roof. These are lower and just a very standard box form with garage doors. And here again, you can see the proposed single-story rear addition to the lodge, so it's lower. It's wider than what was consented, but it's a single story. And do we have any more illustrations of this site? Again, this is just a section of the garage. And you've seen the plans. So roughly speaking, there will be no more development on the site than there was when the nursery use was there. And we will be achieving, if we approve this, the restoration of the site and the improvement in the removal of all the hoardings and fences and all the rubble from the site. So, yeah, really, it's just what you think of this scheme, bearing in mind that we have already approved the consent in 2012. This does -- it's a little bit different, but I will leave it up to you to assess whether the impact on the listed building is more acceptable or less than -- and whether it's acceptable in its own right. >> Thank you very much. Questions first, factual questions for anything that's not clear. Mr. Dodgson? Could you clarify what the material is on the side of the café that looks white here? Is that -- >> I'm not -- you've caught me there. I'm not actually sure. Obviously, all materials will be conditioned. So this is indicative at the moment. I mean, there is -- I think it is stated in the application. It does appear to be a render, but we can change that. >> Right. But, yeah, all materials will be conditioned. And I think they're proposing slate for the roof of the café building. >> Okay. Thank you. And the use -- the café -- well, by café, we mean a public café. >> Yes. Publicly, yeah. Just a café for the use of people travelling to and from Schuttenbeck Common. Right. So not really sort of -- it would be sort of almost independent of the undertakers in the sense of -- >> Yes. Independent business, yeah. Yeah. Although sharing the same site. >> Right. I see. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, factual questions? In which case, I'll go to Ms. Lawson. I was just going to ask about -- in the same way, then you'd be able to specify the treatment of the wall and the restoration of the remaining railings and presumably get more detail on what those gates, which were part of the listing and long since gone, what they might look like, and how that entrance might work for a café and the entrance to the undertakers. Because that's -- there's not much detail in the drawings on what they look like and how those entrances work. And that's -- Again, this is what we've been presented with. We wanted to, obviously, bring this to the committee for comments. But again, details and materials will be conditioned. I did -- you've actually reminded me -- what they have proposed to do is to raise those railings up on a fairly high wall to afford a little bit more privacy for the site, but also to mount them in something more substantial than is there at the moment, because some of them have gone missing, because they're mounted just in a low stone upstand, a concrete part stone upstand at the moment. Concrete, yeah. So there might be a stone detail on that wall that the railings go into? Yeah, we can specify that further down the road, yeah. Okay, comments. Ms. Lawson. Well, we have commented on the planning portal about this. And actually, I was hoping it might be a bit more detailed to know some extra illustrations in the planning pack. But as we commented, and similarly here, there's quite a lot not known. There's lots that we can discuss. And you've rightly said that we're aware that we've -- you know, we're mindful of the fact that things have been approved in the past and not acted on. And so when we read in the application that the building is in good order, generally inside and out, and that there's a desperate need to get this resolved to maintain its -- you know, to give it a future. We very much agree with that, but we're a bit doubtful about the whole application. But there are elements of it that we certainly can comment on. And in principle, the removal of the rear extension and the proposal for what's to replace it we feel is better than -- preferable to losing that back window of the first floor, and that construction is -- and that it keeps the symmetry and that it's -- the views from the common as you go towards Trinity Road and from Bromberg Road are less interfered with, and that's why it's important to note that it's not in the best interest of the City of Bromberg Road, and that's why it's not in the best interest of the City of Bromberg Road, and that's why it's in the best interest of the City of Bromberg Road, and that's why it's not in the best interest of the City of Bromberg Road, and that's why it's better to be tarmac, which previously it was to be a gravel bed, which would be much more in keeping with the history of the site and much more palatable, I think. I have suggested that tarmac would be inappropriate. And the runoff, and perhaps there's a potential for green roofs and better planting to keep a connection with the historic links of the past. But so for the lodge, in principle, we -- the treatment of that building we feel is generally quite positive. The raised railings are very important, and that is a sensible solution, but we'd be very concerned about just how those are completed, whether there'd be a significant difference to the existing ones or what. And again, on the Bromberg Road side, that wall we feel is not a really historic wall, and that would be better rebuilt with perhaps salvaged bricks. And then again, what that gateway looks like is not known, and that's rather important on the views of the lodge. Our greatest concern, really, is the café, and as you approach that from the common towards Trinity Road, not so specifically on that view, but there are other illustrations in the pack where the lodge becomes a very much separate thing to that. And really, we're looking at a lodge, the last remaining bit of land around that lodge from a former estate, and so that collection of buildings has to work as one, and we've got some concerns as to the split use and how that can possibly be catered for. And we want a viable future for these buildings, but the entrance to the café has to be separate, but the buildings must work together, and we feel that the slate and whatever render it will be sort of competes with the lodge as you come, the views as you go down towards Trinity Road, and that perhaps if that café building were lower, a lower pitch, and certainly set back so that it's in line with or behind the building line of the lodge. I know that historically there were conservative buildings, greenhouses and so on, but that was then, that worked, they were lower pitch, this is too large. So we've got concerns about that too. I think probably said, I know that there are many concerned residents and there are issues not related to the historic and architectural significance of the building. Our concerns are mostly about how that building, how the historic and the architectural integrity of the building and the site move is maintained. And some, I think, of the issues raised locally are not necessarily valid in that I've written to the undertaker, and I'd hope that they could condition some of the residents' concerns as to the opening hours and what goes on. I think I've said, I think that's my note. Okay, thank you. Other comments? Mr Dodgson and then Mr Armstrong. Thank you. So do I need to have my name, should I, if somebody's watching, sorry, it's my fault I sat in a different place, thank you. Yes, I've got a few comments. I think my first general comment is I feel that it is a very attractive building, the lodge, and it does deserve to have very high quality materials used in all these ancillary buildings, because there's an awful lot of difference between, let's face it, what might have been 1970s flat-roofed carriages which look awful after about 15 or 20 years, or a flat-roofed building built with care and attention to all the materials. So they don't necessarily need to be the same as the materials in the lodge, but they just ought to be high quality. My second query is really just, well, not query, but concern is a little bit the railings, because we don't want to obscure the view if the wall that's going to have the railings on top of it is going to be quite high. I hope that won't obscure views of the building. And I agree totally with the comments made by Libby on the height of the café, and I'm not quite clear, I can't remember from what you've sent us in the last few days, is it a two-storey building or one-storey building, the café? It's a single storey, but it is quite a high roof. So there's a lot of empty space in that pitch roof, so it's not strictly really necessary, it's not housing anything, so that just seems a bit unnecessary. I realise they're trying to make it probably different to the lodge and make it distinctive so that no one confuses this as being some sort of faux 19th century building, but I don't think that's needed if it's not going to house anything. And yes, I agree, there were lots of objections, but some of the objections included objections on noise from an undertaker's, which struck me, and that the parties and things, I don't think so. But I think it's a very difficult one, because I think we need to ensure this building is retained and restored and kept, and there are not going to be a lot of uses, in my view, that would be appropriate, because people often feel very vulnerable in a building like that that stands out. If it was residential, a lot of people would feel quite vulnerable, because it's different to all the other buildings around it. So I think it has to be some sort of quasi-commercial or public use in that sense, and there are not many people, you know, not many that have come forward so far. So in a way, I support the idea of it. I think I mainly object to the café. Thank you. Mr Armstrong. On the lodge itself, there's something not quite right about the upper sash on the main upper storey window. It needs altering to proper Georgian principles, so it would be nice to see that restored as part of this scheme. That's my only comment. Okay. Mr Farrow. Oh, damn it. This is a sort of an encouraging and slightly disappointing application, I think. It's very encouraging to see something happening which seems very largely positive, and I think that much more detail is required before a considered view can be taken of it. In principle, a lot of what is there seems very good, and I share Mr Armstrong's concern about that window on the first floor. It looks weird, and in fact, the fact that that window has come forward in the application leads you to worry about the attention to detail that will be applied for the development of a scheme. They really need to take care, and there are lots of things about the presentation of the application that I think are slightly concerning, although in principle, as was said in the presentation, the removal of the rear extension I think is a good move, and what's proposed as an extension to the lodge is also very welcome. The café, which is referred to on some of the drawings as a gym, which I think was a previous iteration, again, indication of the fact that this is probably not ready for presentation. Now then, as to the café, I'm, well, hold on, there's just another point. They put on a pitched roof on this building, and on the right-hand side looking at that, they will have a gutter, the length of the building, exactly on the boundary. I mean, it's a practical nonsense. It's a sort of an indication of the fact that the building hasn't been considered constructionally, or indeed, I think, visually related to the lodge. It's crying out, for my money, for a flat roof on the extension, which I think we have to agree is probably going to go forward in as much as there was previous development there. But I think it needs a considerable rethink, and there's something very bizarre about the relationship of the roof and the front wall. The front wall of the café seems to align with the line of the lodge, but the roof seems to align with the road. And you could call it quirky, I think it's silly. And I think they should be asked to go back and seriously reconsider the design of that building. Sorry, there you go. Okay, thank you. Let me try to summarise where we are. It seems to me that we are happy with the proposals relating to the lodge itself, and the revised rear extension being a good thing compared with what's an improvement on what's there at the moment. All well and good. There are real concerns about the café, all of which I share. It seems to me that the pitch roof is just bizarre. The positioning of the café is also a big concern to me, and so I endorse everything that's been said about that. There are real concerns about materials, and I was looking at the application last night, and it seems to me there's very little information about materials, and in this context they are critical. I think there is less concern about the single storey garages at the back, particularly because they've got a flat roof rather than a pitched roof. The real problem is the café building. Subsidiary points but not insignificant. The railings on top of the rebuilt wall seem to me, and I'm picking up things that have been said, are a bit problematic and probably need to be rethought, and particularly the boundary treatment on the eastern flat. There's an issue about landscaping as well that needs to be sorted out, including what kind of grounding you have in the parking space. I agree, tarmac would be totally inappropriate in this kind of setting. Is there anything that I've said that's wrong or anything key that I've missed? I think the one thing we might be positive about is that they've managed to find one of the few uses that gives you an excuse for keeping the stuff at the back away from the low and that should be welcome. There can't be many other uses potentially in that area that would do that. Everybody else wants a building. Is there any more we want to say about this? Have you got enough? It's to do with the lack of information about not just materials but the detailing of the proposals. They seem sketchy at the moment, as with your point about the pitch roof and the gutter probably extending over the neighbouring property. Another listed building next, 2558 64 Clapham Common Northside. In a way, it seems to me a slightly happier story, certainly compared with what we saw in a previous proposal. But who's going to lead on this? Victoria. Thank you. So, yes, members may recall that this property came to the committee in March earlier this year under a previous owner who was proposing to demolish and redevelop the building, and that application was refused. Just to recap the property for those who weren't here last time, it's on the north side of Clapham Common. It's an unlisted building in the conservation area. It's an unusually modest building, quite distinctive, a dwelling two-storeys, and then there's a two-storey range to the rear with also a modern single-storey extension to the side. It's got clear visibility from across the common and then also from the side. That image to the left, you can see the rear elevation is quite prominent from the surrounding conservation area as well, the side street. And then you've got some aerial photos there. So just to recap, new owners have taken on the property and they have engaged with pre-application advice with us. They have undertaken a lot of research and furthered our understanding of the building quite substantially, somehow making the complex history even more complex than we thought previously. So we, I think, previously in the survey of London, identified it as a gardener's cottage, which was incorporated into the villa known as Northside next door, which was then redeveloped with the terrace that we see today. And it was understood that the remaining building was the 18th century gardener's cottage. The applicant discovered that after being incorporated into Northside, the building was substantially remodeled and extended as well. And it appears to be the case that what remains now is part of that later extension. So it is later than previously thought, but it's still a very interesting survival on the common. So proposals seek to refurbish the building, which we are very pleased to see, and create a family home, introducing a further bedroom and also a kitchen rear extension and also a first floor side extension above the existing side extension to create an ensuite bathroom. So I'll just go through the proposal. So this is the front elevation. So you'll note that it's a slightly non-traditional roof form. It retains the hip to the front. It's increasing the ridge. The roof form itself is modern inside. You can see it's machine timbers of the roof. So it has been altered quite a lot. But yes, they're going for this sort of non-traditional roof form here. And then that's the view from the rear. This is a cross section showing the existing roof forms. And you can sort of see the main building and then that separate range to the rear. And then that's what's being proposed. These are the existing floor pans. You've got two reception rooms to the ground floor and then a small kitchen to the rear and then three bedrooms upstairs. And they are proposing to introduce the additional bedroom into the roof along with a family bathroom and a study in that attic story. And then those are the roof pans and you can get another idea of the roof form that they're going for. And they've provided some CGIs as well. And I believe that's the last one. Yes. So yes. Okay. Again, any questions of fact before we get on to a fuller discussion? No. In that case, I'm going to start with Mr Armstrong. Okay. Yeah, this is a very tiny building. I've actually now been inside it. And the interior is almost devoid of any period features because it was the subject of a redevelopment in 1895 when they more or less tore out anything that was original. And I mean the staircase dates from 1895 and then since that's been altered. It's got it does have an interesting suspended stone flag floor in the hallway, which I think that may remain. It's got some interesting features on the side elevation, very unusual OG front entrance arch and the original door frame probably dating from the 1830s, 20s, 30s, because it was part of a building, a large villa called Northside, which was in a rather Swiss style of architecture. There was a brief flourishing of Swiss cottage type architecture in the 1830s. And the then owner made it into sort of Swiss cottage. So it's got all some rather unusual external features, which I think the present owners are quite appreciate and want to retain. I mean, previous schemes that we've seen have been incredibly destructive. And we would have lost the appearance of the cottage frontage. I've been quite pleased to see the way they've sought to retain the two story frontage as much as possible. But they are wanting to enlarge the property to make it into a family house. That has involved obviously going into the roof space and redeveloping the rear part of the building. But on the whole, I'm relieved to see a scheme that actually retains as much of the building as this scheme does retain. Thank you, Victoria. Sorry, I just realized I did forget to mention one particular element of the proposals. There's also a glazed side extension at ground floor, which you can see just to the right of the image to the right. I forgot to mention that. Thank you. Other comments? Mr. Carter. I have a bit of a problem with that roof. I think everybody does. Two problems with that roof. The first obvious one is the very prominent box on the side that makes no real attempt to hide. The second is that the whatever else may survive from the history does include that very shallow pitched roof, which is very much of its original period. And they're proposing in order to get some height to put something on that's going to be steeper than anybody else around, I suspect, even steeper than the Victorian stuff on the left. And it just doesn't fit on that house. Other comments? Mr. Dodgson. I agree. For me, the big issue is the roof, the pitch of it. I mean, the property already is fairly simple. Its characteristics can be summarized quite easily. And one of those characteristics is the pitch of the roof. And it just looks a bit strange to me to have now the chimney pots are going to be lower than the height of the roof there. Would a house have ever been built like that, that way, with the smoke going into it? I don't know. It just doesn't look right. And I'm pleased that somebody wants to renovate it and so on. But I just think they're going a little bit too far. Mr. Farrow. Yes, indeed. I agree. Yes, a little too far. If you look at the second floor proposed plan, there seems to be a slight mistake in the way they have drawn the roof. Actually, the roof plan, I think, is probably accurate. But it's slightly odd the way they've drawn that hip on the front slope, if I've got that right. And what was I going to say? Oh, yes. This business about it being a little too... Yes, the roof is the problem. They indicated, I think, it's a home office immediately to the front. I can't read my drawing too well. And I think they could have made the roof, albeit a little higher, they might have been able to replicate the form of the roof a little better if they had been prepared to accept returning the side pitched roof a little further back, which would have reduced the bulk of the extension they put on the back, I think, considerably and made the plan a lot more acceptable. Is that middle room a bathroom, the family bathroom? Yes, that's correct. Yes. I think they could have lost a little headroom in there by taking the roof down to a lower eaves. Obviously, I'm very sympathetic to the fact they want to get as much as they can. Who wouldn't? But I think this is a significant building because it's quite small. But it's a building which its merit is its uniqueness in the area. And I think that the roof, as others have said, is a major concern. And I think if they could be encouraged to reduce the scope of the extensions they wish to make, we'd have a much, much better and more acceptable scheme. Thank you. Okay. Are there other points that people want to make other than about the roof? Sorry, one other thing. The rear extension, they put one of these god-awful faux mansards on the back. I mean, have the courage of your convictions. Yes, straight up. It's a nonsense. And again, I don't understand. There's sliding glazed doors on the ground floor and some sashes on the two upper floors. Well, we could put some more contemporary windows in there and make a more coherent elevation, change the mansard, which is a nonsense, as a roof form on an extension of this type. And again, you'd have a much better scheme. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. If I can sum up where I think we are, we're very sympathetic to the restoration work to be done in the house, but we have real concerns about the increased height and pitch of the roof. Mr Catto mentioned the box that you see against the hip. And retaining the chimney is, in one sense, all to the good, but it actually highlights the problem with the height of the roof. And secondly, we have some concerns about what's being termed a faux mansard at the back, which I agree doesn't make much sense. And that might help with the amount of space that you have in that second floor addition to the house. So have I got it all? Okay. Okay, let's move on. 7 Blencarn. Who's doing this? That's application 2563 7 Blencarn Road. 7 Blencarn Road is a locally listed building. It forms a pair with number 5 Blencarn Road. Victorian, probably 1880, some of that order, and they make an immense contribution to the character appearance of the conservation area. It's actually in two flats at the moment, and they want to reconfigure the flats by carrying out mainly demolition part of the rear and single-store extension side and back, and also an addition to a front porch. So looking at the plans here, this is the front elevation, and that's existing, I think. And then the proposed, you've got this addition of a front porch. Now, there's no evidence that there was a front porch on the property. The one to the north, number 5, has got a porch extension. I think that's fairly recent as well. So there's no evidence that there was one there. And there's actually dummy windows on that front elevation, which they're putting windows in. I don't know whether there have always been dummy windows, not sure, but there's no real evidence that there were windows. Then you've got the lower ground floor excavation for the basement glazed windows or doors in that elevation, to some extent hidden by the fact that you've got the frontage there. We can go back to the side and rear. The way you can see out on the front, there's an existing front there. You've got a garage on the right-hand side. I think obviously the garage is a non-original element of the building, so removing a garage is not a great problem from our point of view. But it's what you replace it with is another issue. And from the side elevations, they're actually going higher and they're going right up to the front of the building again. Normally when we have an extension to the side of the building, we push it back to make it so it's subsidiary to the original building. So there's no element of enhancement of that. And we come to the rear elevation. There's a quality elevation there with the three French windows. You've got the two lovely dormers at the top. And it's well considered as a Victorian piece and it hasn't been much changed. But there's substantial demolition to that elevation, as you can see. And you've got this excavation ground floor. It's pushing out the sides. Well, what do you make of that? I'm going to ask you the questions. And also, the dormers at the roof, why change them? They're perfectly good dormers there and they're very appealing and appropriate to the Victorian character of the building. And they're just putting in a double dormer, which is unfortunate and takes it back in terms of the appearance. But this rear extension, I mean, I haven't looked at the materials, but it certainly looks like glass and non-brick. So it's not well considered, in my opinion. And it's this substantial nature of it is not really befitting of that sort of type of building and what you're losing as well at the same time. But it's over to you, really, to see what you make of that. OK, first of all, as usual, any factual questions to Mr Sellers? In which case, this is obviously in Battersea in Northcote. If I can pitch in to start with, quite apart from the issues that Mr Sellers has raised, the internal remodeling of this building, as proposed, would really essentially amount to it becoming a facade job. All that would remain, albeit messed about with the porch, would be the front elevation. I think on all kinds of grounds, this proposal is objectionable. It is incredibly harmful to the street scene and to a local listed building. I'm not going to say any more. But Councillor Owens, as I say, it's your patch, as well as mine. It is. I live in the ones with common conservation areas as well. Yeah, I mean, I do know that particular house, and I know that obviously the houses either side, and they do stand out. I mean, they have, you know, they're in quite big plots with the gardens and very interesting and all the rest. I mean, it strikes me looking, I mean, obviously, I was going to mention what you said about the interior, but even looking at the back, I mean, so many of the houses, I know obviously that backs on to Dents Road, doesn't it? Blencon goes on to Dents, and Dents goes on to Gorge. And of course, a lot of the houses that aren't quite as big as that have, I wouldn't say similar, not quite like that, but, you know, obviously that sort of, people have done the back, I mean, some of my children's friends, the back of the houses similarly. But I mean, that is a very, very different house. It's very much of a standalone house. And again, why change the front seems a bit strange. And they are very standalone, and they stand out. Thank you. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, this is an important house by an important architect, ER Robson, a series of villas, quite substantial villas. I'm surprised they want to make it bigger. And the proposals are incredibly destructive, as has already been said, involve largely the demolition of most of the structure and replaced by something, some sheet glass monstrosity. It beggars belief, really. I think, you know, it's certainly not wanted and would be highly damaging. Thank you. Mr. Dodgson. I agree with what's just been said, just really, because the treatment that's been given to the rear is more appropriate to terraced Victorian terraces, rears, which are of not great architectural merit. But this has been said, is of merit. And so that treatment is just wholly inappropriate. They are destroying a very attractive rear, which maybe is not shared with a lot of other architects, Victorian, you know, late Victorian terraces and so on. But this is not that type of building. So, yes, I agree. Are there any other I mean, does anyone want to defend this proposal in any way? I don't want to defend it overly much. I think the Mr. Sellers is entirely right about the extension to the side should be, I think we would all agree, set back a little further to allow the building to stand independently as it was intended. And with that proviso, I don't think that when the opening up of the dummy windows, it'd be interesting to know whether they were. It's almost certainly with dummy windows, people don't go around bricking up windows. So I'm sure they were dummy windows and opening them up is I think is going to adversely affect the front elevation. Those things apart, I don't think it's going what is proposed is going to have a particularly adverse effect on the streetscape. And so in sort of conservation area terms, I think its effect is if the things that we have just mentioned are taken into account, it's unlikely to be overly offensive. But as to the interior in the rear, I share the concerns that have been previously expressed with one proviso. And that is that I do not think putting on a contemporary extension to an existing building is necessarily problematic. I just wish this extension wasn't quite so large. Mr. Catto, can I just pick up one more point? You just mentioned the dummy windows at the front. If what the drawings as so often don't show is very much information about the next house to the left, but if you go back to the aerial views, if that's at all possible, it's extremely difficult, particularly that one. And you will notice that next door is, next door on the right as we see it in this picture, is essentially the same house. It still has dummy windows at the front. And I suspect they're original. And taking those away is taking away one of the distinctive features of this pair or group of houses. I don't know how many there are the same. But certainly it's spoiling a streetscape, even if it's very difficult streetscape to see, because it's very nicely planted. Okay. I'm going to try and sum up. We object to this proposal, first of all, because of what is being done to the front extension with the porch and the dummy windows being removed. Second, we object to the side extension, which should have been pushed back. Thirdly, we object to the size and the quality of the rear extension, and particularly the removal of the existing dormers. And finally, we object to the internal remodeling, which, in effect, destroys the basic structure of the house. I think we object altogether to the rear extension. It's not just the size of it. I think it's the very fact that there is any form of extension that is destroying the rear of the building. That's how I'd understood comments, Chairman. Okay. Peter. Just one little detail. Every so often, the mention is of the porch being altered. But I've only been able -- I had a look this afternoon and a look again this evening. It doesn't seem to me as though they are altering that entrance. Am I wrong? Forgive me. It's the bay. They're trying to copy the one next door, which I think was a later edition. So what are the -- that's being added. Yes. And that's not original. I mean, it's not replacing an original. No. There's no justification that it was an original. I do beg your pardon. Sorry. I thought you were talking about the front door. No. Could we call it a veranda? Okay. Okay. Do you have enough? Thank you. And finally, we have 2462, which is 94 Bolingbroke Grove. Who's leading on this? This is me again. David. So this is a semi-detached house in the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area, just to the east of the common. Quite an exposed corner here. It's been fairly ill-treated. There's a rendered elevation there of the side extension. But essentially, it's -- the main house is pretty much as it was, and it is on a very noticeable corner. There have been some extensions to some of these corner houses. But if you look at the picture on the bottom left, as you're looking at there, it still retains -- largely retains its symmetry when you're standing right in front of it. So if we can move on. Again, you've got -- yeah, I mean, what's there, the extension that's there to the right of it is single-story. Yes, it does cover over that buffer zone between the house itself and the wall and the pavement edge. But you do still read the house as a symmetrical composition. Again, there, you can see the -- at the rear, you've got those two closet wings. There's been some minor fiddling about with those, but they're still essentially. And this is what we're being presented with. So it's gone from single-story side extension to a three-story side extension. The brick matching or proposing to match the side elevation but not the front elevation. Again, you know, when you have this typical treatment of multiple uses of brick, that's quite difficult to do. But huge extension in volume and that feature at the roof level of the extension, it's going to have quite a different appearance. And you see that it also steps back to incorporate that closet wing as well and to sort of engulf that in the extensions. The closet wing is extended over by a window's width from where it is at the moment. And yeah, I mean, do I really need to say much more about this? It's a considerable extension that certainly in that view will have a pretty considerable effect on the visibility of that building in the street scene. Again, you've got the symmetry of those closet wings on the back, symmetry from the front. And yeah, the additions. So yeah, I think I'll let those speak for themselves and invite comments. Well, before comments, any factual questions that people want to raise? Mr. Catto. Yeah, just a brief one. I think I noticed when looking at the stuff earlier on, they're moving the front door as well. So that it will no longer be straight ahead of you up the stairs, or am I right or wrong about that? Is there a plan at that level? Can we go back? Yeah. Sorry. We're keeping you in suspense. Yes, there we go. Top drawing, top one on there. And back to the front elevation. No, it's the plan that gives the game away, the plan. So ground floor, so ground floor plan. Look at that. So that's existing, and that's the proposed -- oh, no, they kept the door just -- sorry. I think it's still in the same -- Okay, sorry about that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other factual questions? Okay, I'm going to keep my council, although it's on my patch again. Councillor Owens. Thank you. Yes, I do know the house, corner of Benally Road. I think that's right. I mean, it is -- I mean, looking at that, it's very different to some of the similar side extensions that you see in the area. There's one that's been done actually in the corner. I think it's the Count Scott in Boningbrook Grove that's actually been very well done. And I mean, I don't think I've seen one like that that is quite that size on the side. And obviously, as you say, you're right on the common there. I mean, when you're looking -- if you're looking down Benally Road from the common, you know, that stands out quite a lot. I mean, it's not just people walking past and looking down the road, it would be anybody that's on the common could see that. And it just seems very out of kilter with anything I've seen on Boningbrook Grove of those houses. And quite a few, you know, obviously things have been done to them. But as I say, I've not seen one like that before. It seems quite large. And there's not -- it has to be said, there's not much to be said for the existing ones, the single story side extension. But I think this is clearly of a very different scope. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, Kingsdown Villas, they are a series of villas, nice rhythm along Boningbrook Grove. And interesting brickwork, red brick and galt brick, galt brick arches, red brick facade. This extension in non-matching brick is somewhat over dominant, particularly at the rear. When you're going up Bendley Road, a vast block of it and it takes away most of the back garden, most of the amenity space. And I feel it's way over development of this building and would affect the appearance of the conservation area, you know, not really enhance the building at all. And detract from the series of villas and their appearance at the front. Mr. Farrar. Yeah. In the older course of events, I find exploitative developments a little offensive in principle, but my first impression on looking at this was that I very much liked it. And I fear as though I might be a dissenting voice with my colleagues to the left and the right. I think it's a very nicely considered extension to the existing building. I like the little glass slop down the side. I think the extension wrapping around the back is possibly a little large, but I don't think that will have a particularly adverse effect on the conservation area. And, you know, I like the way it's being put forward. And I think it's a, I think I said earlier, a nicely designed, considered scheme. Reference has been made to the brickwork being dissimilar to the existing. But I think if you look at the existing photo elevation, the rear of the side elevation is done in what looks like a stock brick. And I'm guessing that this is also a stock or a similar brick. And I think from looking at the drawings, their intention is to rebuild the side of the house. So from the gutter down to the ground will all be in matching brickwork. And I'd be happy to support the application. Other comments. Mr. Dodgson. I do agree that it's a carefully considered extension, but I don't think it's in the right place. I think if this was somewhere else, a less prominent position, it's an interesting use with the stock brick going in the curves, going around the side. But I just think in this situation where you've got pairs of houses in such prominent location, that would be for me, that's for me the reason why I would object to it. I agree that it is carefully considered and interesting, but not in this particular position. Mr. Cotto. I'm going to second everything Mr. Dodgson has just said, basically. It is actually quite well considered, but it is too big for where it is. And if I have one reservation, it's the glass box triangle on the roof taking the stairs up. But, no, I mean, it is well done, but too big. Okay. Make my own comments on this because, as I say, it's in Battersea. I'm in agreement with Mr. Dodgson and Mr. Cotto. When I first saw this, I thought, oh, that's interesting. But I think it's the wrong extension in the wrong place, particularly in terms of scale. And I worried not only about its appearance from this angle and from other angles on Wandsworth Common, but also the wraparound at the back, which is quite bulky and takes up a huge amount of space in the rear garden. And the rear gardens on these corners are a feature of the large buildings alongside Wandsworth Common on Bolingbrook Grove. So I think on those two grounds, I would object to this proposal nicely thought through as it may be. So I think it's an interesting try, but I just don't think it works in this situation. Mr. Farrow, my vice chair is going to disagree with me. I disagree with all the comments about its inappropriateness. As I say, I think it would make a positive contribution. I wish it wasn't quite so big, but it's a tall house. It's effectively what three and a half stories. I think it can cope with what's being done to it. And as I say, I'd be happy to support it. And in the event that a decision is going to be recorded that we don't like it, I'd be glad if we could be minuted that there was a dissenting voice. Thank you. Are there other people who want to join in Mr. Farrow's dissent? OK. So do you have enough? OK. I think that brings us to the end of the of the applications. I'm now going to turn to paper twenty four to two to three. I'll go through it page by page like I think we've already spoken about. Number one, the the flower stall. Throughing road was we objected to it and. Planning permission was refused. So they agreed with us. Six to six Summers Town we have already spoken about. On page 17, number four, one one nine eight two hundred ballum ballum high road. This is slightly longer ago, but in the end, the application was withdrawn. This again, we objected. And number five, sixty one sixty three Wandsworth High Street. We supported and. And it was with some reservations about the flank wall. Yes, but it planning commission was approved and Emmanuel School we supported and PAC. This went to PAC and and they they supported it. Any comments, questions about that? If not. Are there any other items of business that we haven't covered already? No. OK, Mr. Kato, I've got one other business item, just one item to raise, because you otherwise you've got the dates for us to agree or note. Talking about the white line in Putney High Street, new owners are in consultation with the council about trying to find a way of reusing this. But I understand they've been told that because they put property guardians in the council now regards the building as an HMO and doesn't want to allow it to change to a hotel use. Even though the building was built as a hotel in the late 19th century and indeed replaced a previous hotel building. So fundamentally, this is a use that goes back as far as records go. Essentially, I just wondered what's going on and does the fact that there is a recent court ruling saying that putting guardians in your building does make it an HMO. Is this going to be a stumbling block to finding a solution for a building that's desperately in need of a viable use? It's been empty for way too long. Yeah, I don't know where that's coming from, but we'll have to look into that and see who's saying that. I do know that -- I mean, I can't say much about it because it's in pre-ep at the moment. But the reason it's come back to us after we granted what we thought was rather a good scheme for reuse and restoration of some of the earlier features of the pub and sensitive conversion of the upper rooms or reuse as hotel rooms. It's come back because we've been told that it's not viable as a hotel with that level of development. And so we're trying to find a solution. But yeah, quite where that has come from about the HMO use. I have it from the new owner who had come to see the Putney Society a year or so ago about -- or at the beginning of the year about trying to find a -- to talk through solutions that he had in mind. And I spoke to him on the phone the other day and this is what he told me. So this is where it comes from. And I just would like to ask that even if you do technically regard it as now having become an HMO, please that should not stop being flexible about use for a building that is our second longest running of two on the buildings at risk register. Yeah, I mean, the -- it's never been -- the use has never been changed. So yeah, I don't know what legal weight that would have. But yeah, we'll investigate. There's nothing that I'm aware of that's come forward in case law or recent planning bulletins to suggest that, you know, if you have an accidental HMO because you put property guardians in it, it then becomes a -- I've not heard that. So yeah, I don't know what basis that has. Okay. Well, if you could report back to the -- I mean, quite apart from this particular instance, I can see this being, you know, a significant issue for anyone who wants to put in property guardians. My vice chair did some investigation when we heard this and has come up with a fairly recent court case that does confirm. As some other counsel saying, this is what has happened. It's become an HMO and needed licensing. And I just hope it's -- you know, I don't mind you saying it's an HMO as long as you remain flexible about fighting and use that makes a viable conversion of a really the most visibly significant building in Putney bar the church across the road. I mean, there are two points here, the legality of that and also the harm to significance of this building caused by its use as an HMO. I mean, while it's empty or not being used for hotel and pub use, clearly we want people in there so that it doesn't go up in flames one night. But yeah, I mean, to use it as an HMO would harm its significance and that's purely inappropriate. Yeah, I mean, we would always argue that in any -- if there were to be any future attempts to make this legal, we would always argue the significance of the building would be harmed and therefore should not be permitted. Thank you. Well, if you could give us an update on what's going on there, that would be helpful. Could I finally raise one issue? I mentioned earlier on in the meeting what I'd heard listening in to PAC a couple of weeks ago about phase one of the Clapham Junction master plan process being completed. Would it be very helpful if we could get an early update on what the current position is in addition to the commonplace maps that are now on the website seeking people's views on what's good and what's less good about the area covered by the master plan as a whole? You will rescue that, Jeremy. We'll come back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other business? In which case I -- can we note the dates of meetings noted on the agenda and I declare the meeting closed?