The committee approved all 12 of the applications that were put before it, with the exception of a controversial application at 150a-170 Penwith Road and 2-8 Thornsett Road in Earlsfield, where councillors voted against the recommendation to approve the scheme.

The Ashburton Estate

Three applications concerning the Ashburton Estate in Putney were discussed, and were met with vocal opposition from local residents. The applications, which were submitted by Wandsworth Council, proposed the construction of 34 new council homes across three sites. Residents were concerned about the impact of the development on existing amenities and parking provision on the estate.

Innes Gardens

The first of the three applications, for the construction of 29 new homes at Innes Gardens, was presented to the committee by Councillor John Austin. He raised concerns about the accuracy of traffic surveys carried out in February 2023, the loss of existing garages and storage units on the site, and asked why the proposed housing mix did not conform to the preferred mix outlined in Policy LP24 of the Wandsworth Local Plan.¹ He stated that:

This entire report just goes to show the lackadaisical nature of the Council's approach to the Ashburton development scheme.

Planning officers acknowledged that there would be some impact on residents, but stated that on balance the benefits of providing 29 new council homes on the estate outweighed the negative impact on residents. The application was approved by six votes to four.

Hayward Gardens

The application for the construction of 28 new homes at Hayward Gardens was presented to the committee by Councillors Sue Sutters and Laxmi Ambash. They objected to the proposed scheme on the grounds of the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight levels to existing properties. In particular they cited the fact that the BRE² guidance on Vertical Sky Component (VSC) would not be met in several cases. They also raised concerns about the visual impact of the development, the loss of 24 existing garages, and the impact of construction on children's play space on the estate. They asked:

If you doubt the reports before you, you really do have to ask questions, and maybe reject this application.

Planning officers again acknowledged that there would be some impact on residents, but stated that on balance the benefits of providing 28 new council homes on the estate outweighed the negative impact on residents. They sought to reassure residents that a Construction Management Plan would be implemented to minimise disruption during construction, and explained that

in terms of some of the areas where it shows more of an impact, often these rooms have secondary, another source of light.

The application was approved by six votes to four.

Cortis Road

Councillor Austin returned to present the application for the construction of 7 new homes at Cortis Road. He argued that the proposed scheme was car-dependent due to the site's distance from public transport, did not contain any family homes, would have a negative impact on the nearby Granard Primary School, and would lead to the loss of existing mature trees on the site. He argued that:

If this is the best the Council can do, having spent over a third of a million pounds in fees, then it isn't a good reflection on the applicant, who happens to also be the Council.

Planning officers stated that the scheme would lead to the planting of 69 new trees, that the development would meet the relevant requirements of the London Plan³ on play space, and that the housing mix would free up existing family homes on the estate. The application was approved by six votes to four.

Ackroydon Estate

The committee also considered an application to build 5 new homes on the Ackroydon Estate. Some concerns were raised about the impact of the development on existing properties. It was noted that the proposal did not meet the BRE guidance on daylight and sunlight, but planning officers stated that the proposed units, which would all have a dual aspect, would nonetheless meet an acceptable standard of accomodation. The application was approved by six votes to four.

Battersea Square

The committee considered an application by the Royal Academy of Dance⁴ for the change of use of its former premises at 36 Battersea Square to a mixed-use development for office, retail and community purposes. Residents of nearby Eton House raised concerns about noise levels, but planning officers reassured them that this had been taken into account, and that as a result much of the plant equipment had been moved away from Eton House to the eastern side of the development, facing Thomas's Battersea⁵. They explained that:

our in-house environmental health noise specialist has assessed all of this, was involved with the negotiations, has obviously looked at the baseline information in terms of the ambient noise levels and the background noise levels in the location, and is satisfied that the new location of this equipment would perform adequately.

Councillors also wanted to be assured that the BREEAM⁶ status of the development would be very good, the highest possible rating for this type of scheme. Planning officers confirmed that this would be the case, but noted that

there is a balance to be struck between retaining the significance of the heritage asset [the granary building], you know, not knocking it down obviously, um but improving it, and that goes into the mix.

The application was approved unanimously.

Putney High Street

An application for a change of use to an Adult Gaming Centre at 160-162 Putney High Street proved to be controversial. Local resident Councillor Ben Brook argued that the proposed use would lead to an overconcentration of gambling premises in Putney, would be detrimental to the vitality of Putney High Street, and would be incompatible with the recently adopted Wandsworth Gambling Policy.

Planning officers acknowledged the concerns of residents, but explained that the Council's powers to refuse the application were limited. They stated that:

the policy has an element in it that that avoids an over concentration. In this case, officers have considered it to be acceptable.

Councillors accepted that there were no clear planning grounds to refuse the application, which was approved by the chairman's casting vote.

The Rectory

The committee considered an application for the construction of 34 new homes at The Rectory on Rectory Lane. The scheme, which was designed to be wheelchair accessible, attracted some concerns about the lack of adequate parking for disabled residents. The council's transport officer, David Tiddley, responded to the concerns by explaining that:

the clear intention here is that the property would be occupied by disabled people who do not own or otherwise run a car, and I can think of many disabled people who fall into that category.

He also noted that any disabled residents who did require a car would be eligible for a blue badge, and would therefore be able to park on nearby streets irrespective of any Controlled Parking Zone restrictions in place.

Councillor White questioned the viability of the proposed scheme, which had been assessed to be in deficit by both council officers and the applicant. He asked:

So, by their own reckoning, they're probably going to lose a million pound by by doing this development. It just doesn't make sense to me why they would do it. They're not a charity.

Planning officers stated that the applicant was taking a market speculative decision to proceed and see what could happen with the market over the three-year life period of the application, and that market conditions could change. The application was approved, with Councillor White abstaining from the vote.

Lydden Road

The committee considered an application for the construction of a six-storey industrial development at 17 Lydden Road. As part of the scheme the applicant proposed to commission an artwork for the exterior of the building, prompting Councillor Aydin Dikerdem to request that:

there was some competition or some public face to this art.

Planning officers agreed to add an informative to the decision asking the applicant to engage with local residents in terms of the artwork.

Councillor White also expressed concern about the height of the development, which would exceed the height limit for the site specified in the local plan, and stated that he was:

a little bit worried that this is a mid-rise zone and we've gone over the height for that.

He was reassured by the planning officers who explained that the increase in height would be justified due to the additional industrial floor space it would create, and that it would not be out of context due to the fact that it was:

adjacent to a building of a similar height.

The application was approved unanimously.

Penwith Road

The only application to be refused during the meeting was an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of 11 new homes at 150a-170 Penwith Road and 2-8 Thornsett Road. The applicants proposed to provide six affordable homes on the site, but council officers argued that the proposed scheme was capable of providing more than this, and that the applicant was using an alternative use value methodology to artificially depress the benchmark land value for the site in order to avoid providing more affordable homes. They pointed out that:

under the Council's planning SPG and national planning policy guidance, the correct method of calculating the benchmark land value is the existing use value plus method.

The external legal advisor for the committee, Duncan Moores, advised that the council was on solely ground refusing this application, and that it will be down to a planning inspector to determine whether, in his or her view, it would be appropriate to use the AUV method of benchmark land value.

Councillor White described the applicant's behaviour as disgraceful and the application was unanimously refused.

Brett House

The committee finally considered an application for internal alterations at 21 Brett House, to convert one flat into two. This attracted some concerns from residents who objected to the loss of an existing garage to provide cycle storage for the new flat. They argued that this would:

effectively make the garage unusable for parking, adding to additional parking pressure.

Councillor White again objected to the scheme on the grounds of sustainability, pointing out that

there's a new boiler being put in, and I presume that that's gas. So, you know, it's not, yeah, it's not a progressive or sustainable conversion in my mind.

The application was approved, with Councillors White and Govindia abstaining from the vote.