Transcript

Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name's Michael Jabb, and I'm chair of the committee. Members, please, I will now call your names. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you have done so, please remember to switch off your microphone. In order, Councillor Belton. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens. Good evening, Chair. Mark Dodgson, I don't see here, from the Ballam Society. Roger Armstrong. Good evening, everyone. Roger Armstrong here. Andrew Cato. Good evening, Chair. Yes, one more here. I don't see Chris Rice, from the River Thames Society. Or Edward Potter, I think, may be here later on, but we don't know. Libby Lawson, from Tooting History Group. Good evening, Chair. Pamela Greenwood. Good evening, all. And we have John Dawson standing in for Peter Farrow on behalf of the Wandsworth Society. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Now, are there any apologies? Thank you, Chair. Councillor Osborne is double-booked tonight, so he may join us later, but we'll give him as an apology. We've also got apologies from Francis Radcliffe, Edward Potter, and Peter Farrow. Thank you. Thank you. And the following officers, Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair. From Barry Sellers. Good evening, Chair. And David Andrews. Yes, good evening. And our Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham. Good evening, everybody. Okay. Can I remind everyone to ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking, and also not to embarrass yourself by leaving your phone on, or at least turning it down to silence. Declarations of interest, are there any declarations in which, I mean, applications in particular that you have, in which you have an interest? No? Thank you. Okay. Can I ask whether the minutes of the meeting of the 12th of November are correct? Perhaps I should, before I do that, report that Francis Radcliffe has suggested a couple of minor drafting amendments, which relate to the discussion on the glass mill on the fourth page of the minutes. In the, I'm trying to find where she is. So, I'm trying to find where she is. I'm trying to find where she is. Can we agree that at the end of the first paragraph, we, in the penultimate line, towards the end of that line, we delete the word against, so that they did not negate the harm. Is that agreed? And, where is it? In the paragraph at the bottom of that page, to delete, in the first line, hugely sympathetic sympathetic of the need, sympathetic of the need, to sympathetic to the need. Can I make that amendment? And, finally, that at the top of the next page, that those two sentences at the top of that page should be deleted on the grounds that they're repetitive of what has been said already, I have to confess that it was my suggestion that those two sentences be added. So, you might think I have a conflict of interest. But, I introduced, I suggested that they be added simply as a summation of our views on that part of the issue. So, I, you know, either you agree or you don't agree with Francis' suggestion that we should delete those. Does it? If it's not a logical, then there's no reason why not. I don't feel so. They were intended, as I say, to be summative. Keep. Raise your hand. Keep. I'm afraid I'm a bit less. I'm not surprised. The. I know what you were talking. Which, when you said, the next page, and the next page, where do you just believe you have a page number? Sorry, on the copy I'm reading from, I don't have a page number. It's the final page of the minutes. And, at the top, there are two sentences starting, however, instead of accepting the limitation, the obvious limitations. Are those, should we keep those sentences or delete them? So, show if you want to delete them, as Francis suggests. No? In which case, we keep them. In that case, can I, I will sign the minutes after, after the meeting, if that's acceptable. Now, before we move on to matters arising, can I just add a reflection on, particularly, the latter end of the last meeting, which those of you who were here will recall got rather heated. Uh, and I have to accept responsibility as chair for allowing that to happen, uh, and I, I must apologize for that. Uh, actually thinking about it afterward, immediately afterwards, I thought that much of the discussion, much of the heat arose because people were essentially talking at cross purposes. Uh, but never mind. Um, and the longer term reflection was that our discussions, obviously, uh, and inevitably, I think, focus on matters relating to, uh, harm to conservation areas, listed buildings, registered parks and gardens. And those are the matters which are reflected in our terms of reference, which refer to the effect of development proposals on the character and appearance of conservation areas, listed buildings, and, and so on. They don't mention anything else. Uh, and it seemed to me that it's obvious, I'm, I'm sure to all of us, that actual planning decisions, um, have to take into account other things, many other things, other than, uh, the effect on conservation areas, listed buildings, and, and so on. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh protecting the character and appearance of conservation areas and so on, it is not the only factor that we have to at least have at the back of our minds when we discuss individual applications. That is not, of course, to say that that issue, the protection of and the effect on conservation areas, listed buildings and so on, has to be the focus of our discussions, but there is a wider context. And I discussed that briefly with the officers this evening. And if you accept that it might be helpful to make some amendment to the terms of reference to allow for that, I'm not suggesting that we attempt to do that now, but I would work with the officers to see if we could bring back a slightly amended set of terms of reference to the next meeting. Is that acceptable? Thank you. Sorry. Could I briefly ask, Chair, that in that case, could the terms of reference as they're now set out to be circulated with the minutes for tonight? Thank you, Chair, that in that case. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Having said all that, are there any other matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting? Let me go through from item three. Item three, the Northcott Public House, Swandon Way, Armory Way, the Glass Mill, Item 4, Decisions, and some important issues raised under AOB, including, if I find my right set of minutes, excuse me, the progress on the local listing exercise. Is there anything to report on that, Ms. Way? So the local listing public consultation is still running. We've got quite a lot of entries that have been added to the mapping, which is really positive. And we are looking to close that at the end of February. So we actually have still another month to go on that public consultation to be running. So please do send through any further nominations for the local listing and also any information you have on the existing entries that we can add to enhance the local list. Okay. I know some societies are at work on this. Council? Yes, I think I might have sent you quite an extensive list from one of my residents in the Northcott Ward. I don't know if I might have sent it across to you, Michael, just before Christmas because I caught up with... I'll check it because I'm pretty sure I did. Someone on who had done quite a lot of work looking at different buildings, I think, prior to the pandemic. So she'd created quite a list. Anyway. Yes, and I know there's been a fair amount of discussion with officers about ensuring that all the data from the previous exercise will get posted on whatever arises from the current exercise. How that's to be done, I think, is still not quite resolved, although I might be out of date on that. Yes, we're still looking at how we actually showcase the information that has been provided from this public consultation and the previous 2017 public consultation, but it is work in progress. We will then progress post-public consultation, which will be an enhancement to the existing mapping that we have, which is called Aurora, within the existing website. That will then be enhanced to a similar way that Commonplace is now showing, where you can click on the building and then it will pop up with a description, which is a full description. At the moment it gets truncated in Aurora with those images that have been provided. So it is something that we are looking into as an option. And there's a wider review of the website and the conservation and urban design pages to enhance them and improve them visually and textually, and that will form part of it. Thank you. I'm sure that's welcome. Mr. Cato. Sorry, once again, to intervene. On a very related topic, I was on the council's otherwise excellent interactive map earlier today and discovered, as I found before, that if you click on the entry for a listed building, the purple blocks, it all comes up resource not found or worse to that effect. The link seems to have gone down. Thank you. We'll have a look into that with our web team to make sure that that's updated. But thank you for bringing that to our attention. Mr. Armstrong. First Down Lodge has slipped off the minutes, and I know that the lease has been signed, but I wonder if there's a further update available on that. Yes, you forestalled me. I was going to raise it. So, First Down Lodge, an application has been submitted. Two listed building consent applications have been submitted, one in 2024 and one very recently. They remain invalid at this stage, as there's information that needs to be provided by the applicant to allow that to be valid. But they all have been submitted as we were hoping to make that, have that valid so we could bring it to this committee. As soon as it has been made valid as an application, then it will be brought hopefully to the next committee in March. The planning team are working with the applicant to try and get that additional information to make it valid. And could I just raise, finally, thank you for that, the, I think, Councillor Osborne's intervention at the end of the last meeting about street signs, street name signs. What progress is there on that? And are they now, are the historic ones now being recorded on the interactive map? So, Councillor Osborne did provide an update on the basis he wasn't able to attend tonight. So, the budget has now been identified and the works we're looking at progressing. We are going to send him a list that can be pulled from the commonplace public consultation that will be all the identified street signs that have been put onto that map and they will be sent to them as an idea of what the historic street signage are. And I know that Mr. Clato has also sent an email with lots of information as well, which has already been sent on to Councillor Osborne to inform the works that are progressing. I don't have any more information other than that, but if Mr, if Councillor Osborne was, is able to join tonight later on, he might be able to give a bit more detail than that. Thank you. Just have a question on the street signs. So, obviously, I think we were told in the last meeting that if it just has SW, then it's sort of pre-World War or something. But it's not just the cast iron ones, is it? It's the enamel ones you're more interested in, which are the ones that are white on blue. Is that right? White letters on blue? That's that way around, yes. And I also noticed in my ward recently that we have an ER postbox, which is obviously rare because it's Edward, not E2R. I'm sure you've got that somewhere. Thank you. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah. I know a large number of these historic street signs are fixed to buildings. And certainly ones in Battersea off Webbs Road have been disappearing of late. And I don't know whose property they are. They seem to be, it's assumed by the owners of the buildings, that they can be just taken off and sold. So, I think that is a concern. There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that happening. I'm certainly aware of signs that you can tell have been removed quite recently because you can see the mark on the side of the house. I don't know what the legal position is on that. I leave that to the officers perhaps to pursue. Thank you. We're just in discussions about who to go to on that matter. And thank you for bringing that to our attention. We will tomorrow go to the relevant department to look into that further and find out what steps we can take to try to avoid these being removed and reinstate them where possible and look at our powers within planning enforcement where we do have them for this sort of matter. And can I ask also about parish boundary markers? Because I'm aware that the parish boundary marker in Petergate has been removed by want of contractors in renewing the road surface and has not reappeared. Again, I think we have to leave that to officers to report back on what can be done in the way of protecting what are now quite rare boundary marks. If I'm sorry. Well, since my name was mentioned, I asked our panel to keep their eyes peeled when ran partly after you asked for some signs and they certainly did. Mr. Sellers thought there might be 50 in the borough. We found over 180 in South West 15 alone and was gratified to find on several occasions in answer to one of the earlier points old signs refixed on modern building extensions where that building had been extended towards the highway. And yes, a few of the blue enamel ones. I think we've got about five. So there's quite a lot of them out there if you really look. Okay. Can we move on to item three, the applications in front of us this evening? And first of all, the Star and Garter on Lower Richmond Road. Who's going to lead on this for the officers? That's me. Over to you, Mr. Andrews. You'll probably remember that this site came to the panel a couple of years ago when we considered the previous scheme which was ultimately approved. So this is an amendment, well, not an amendment, but this is a new revised scheme. I was all ready to go there as well. I was all ready to go there as well. Green this evening. Almost as if it knows, isn't it? Ah, there we go. Right, okay. Can everybody hear me? Okay. Right, so this is the Star and Garter in Lower Richmond Road. This is the half of the building which is nearer to Parnley Bridge. It's not the residential, the mansion flat part of it. As I said, this came in front of the panel, I can't remember where, I think a couple of years ago now, for a series of alterations internally and externally to convert the building into a hotel, retaining the bar use at ground floor. Subsequent to that, the same owner applicant has come forward and has said that they've looked at the hotel use and that they just can't find a way of making that viable in today's climate. There is also nominally, I think it's lapsed now, but a consent for the former White Horse Hotel, which is very near to this site. So whether they were looking at that, I'm not entirely sure, but we have given consent for that. So if that came forward, there would be another hotel in this immediate area. So they've decided that they can't make it work as a hotel. And this building is quite restrictive internally. in that it's never really worked properly as a bar. The ballroom on the first floor wasn't particularly commercially viable and I don't think operated for very long. I think it's been unused for quite a long time. It was used as a function room for the bar, particularly on boat race day. But it's not used very much and certainly doesn't recoup a very substantial commercial return. So we've previously given consent for the ballroom to be converted into two floors of previously hotel accommodation. This new scheme would be entirely residential, apart from the ground floor bar, which is retained. And there's scope for using the, depending on what happens with the street, whether it gets pedestrianised in the future, there's an idea that it might then become sort of pavement, pavement seating and all that sort of thing. But at the moment, it's the retention of the bar at ground floor. A similar set of alterations up to the window, to the fenestration on the riverside elevation to extend the windows downwards. So I don't know whether you've ever been in that bar. You sit in it and you really can't, once you're sitting down, you can't see the river. So it's really trying to improve the connectivity between the river and the bar when you're actually in it and you're a customer and you're using it. Above that level, we have previously consented the removal of the oval windows or the round windows on the first floor, which are the ballroom windows, the high-level ballroom windows. And the re-fenestration of those to provide in the previous consent, it was windows to the hotel rooms. This would be windows to the residential units. So internally, it's similar in terms of conversion to previously to the hotel, now to the residential use. It's locally listed, so we don't have any jurisdiction over the interior. So most of those have been previously, the concept of that has been previously approved and found to be acceptable. The principal difference between the previous scheme and this one is that there's going to be an extension to the brickwork at the current top floor to extend the brickwork up by one story to make that another full story for residential use. And then on top of that, to then put a roof extension. Now, the roof extension, or a roof extension, was consented in the previous proposals along with the reimagining, because it's not a slavish copy of what was there, but a roof structure which replaces the twin, almost turrets that were lost as a result of bombing during the Second World War. So they are putting back a roof feature to sort of finish off the end elevation of that building, because it currently looks a bit sad and a bit unfinished. But then filling in the roof structure between the central roof feature, rotunda, and the end elevation. So there will be quite a change. As I say, we've previously consented to some of the elevational changes, but the principal change here is the elevation to the Lower Richmond Road and to the river, which will, the brickwork will be extended by a full story, and then a new extension put on the roof. So if we could have a look at that now, because that's the principal change that we haven't previously consented. So that's the existing north elevation. So that's the one that you see from the street. And that's the proposed. So you can see that they're very carefully copying what's there at lower level and just extending that up by a full floor. And then at roof level, between the two roof features, you will get a lightweight extension, modern extension just to sort of finish off and give definitions of that roof structure. So that's what you'll see from Lower Richmond Road. If we can have a look at it from the river, where you've got that pediment there at the moment and those oval windows, if we can see what the proposed will be, they're just popping that up by a full story. So the oval windows and the fenestration below that has been previously consented as part of the other previous application. So it's essentially just popping it up by a full story to get some additional accommodation in that and just to make it viable. Because this building has been left for a long time. It is in need of a lot of cosmetic improvement. The cabling and pipe work rationalization needs to be done. There's a lot of plaster work repair needs to be done. And internally, obviously, the fit out is going to be very expensive to do. So it's really trying to make this project viable and to make this building work in a way that it arguably never has throughout its history. As I said, the bar is remaining on the ground floor. On the north elevation, there are additional entrances to the residential floors, which, again, the principle of that was consented during the last scheme. So it's really what you think about this additional alteration to the building and the additional height. Okay, thank you. First of all, are there any factual questions that members are not clear about? No? If not, then can we move on to comments? And I'll give first dibs to Mr. Cato. Good evening, yes. We've been consulted, I should say, the Putney Society has been consulted by the applicants ahead of this application as we were ahead of the previous one, for which we thank them. We understand the financial logic as to why it doesn't make sense as a hotel. Well, I was able to check that fairly directly with a client of ours who is the proprietor of the Lodge Hotel, the only seriously operational and profitable hotel in Putney. And it's true. But you need to look... We're in the societies in generally in favour. We would like to see this building brought back into a viable use and have all the rubbish that's accumulated on the outside of it, in particular painting it the wrong colour, very much sorted out. So in principle, we're in favour. We've got a couple of detailed points about oval windows. Do they need to go now? They're on a lift landing. And it occurs to me tonight that there's a canopied entrance on the Lower Richmond Road that isn't the main entrance and then an entrance that is of the front of flats that isn't got a canopy. It's just something that perhaps you might ask them to dare to suggest they change. And we have also... I did look and realise, of course, the elevations are slightly misleading because this is half of a bigger building. The mansion block on the other end, which doesn't show on the drawings, remains at the height that the hotel is now. But on the whole, speaking personally, I think actually making it a bit grander is a good idea. Yes, thank you. Ms. Greenwood. Could I have some more details about what's happening with the basement? Is it just refurbishing inside or is it actually enlarging it or changing it or whatever? The basement, I think, is going to be partly used by the bar, but also I think that's where the bin stores and a lot of the cycle storage is going. If we can look at the basement, I think we've got the basement plans here. Yes, so existing... Because the existing one is used as a store by the bar. So, yes, we've got plants, we've got resident amenity, bike store. Yes. But it's basically reusing a current space and not enlarging it or anything. It's not being enlarged, no. So there won't be any light wells or anything else like that on the pavement. And I, yeah, I should, sorry, one of the, reminding me, one of the things I didn't say is, yeah, obviously this is half of a much bigger building and you will notice that discrepancy both from the river and from Lower Richmond Road when you pop half up by another story. So there's that consideration as well. From the river, for a lot of the year, that will be hidden behind the trees and you'll get that in Longview and from the street from Lower Richmond Road. It's quite a narrow street. So it's not like you're ever going to see that in a long vista. You will see it from the end of Waterman Street. That's probably the most prominent place, if you see it at all, where you would appreciate the fact that some of the building is higher than the rest. But, as I say, you know, they have quite carefully considered that and it's whether you think that that, it's not a symmetrical building anyway, although it is on the same level in terms of the brickwork. So it's whether you think that that, that would be a problem, popping half of it up by an additional story. Mr. Cato again. I've just got a factual point to add about the basement because having talked to the applicants, they explained that one of the things that delayed the previous application getting in at all and all sorts of things is that the Environment Agency insists that there is absolutely no opening from that basement to the embankment because it's got to be a completely walled in against floods. So they're stuck with a windowless space that is wholly underground effectively and holds the building up. So they've just got to find a use for it. Okay. Are there any other comments? Ms. Dawson. Yes, just a couple. Well, the remark made by Mr. Cato just now about the oval windows is certainly one I was going to raise. They're rather charming. And certainly if you have to, if you think that the oval window is not suitable for one or two of the bedrooms that are proposed, they're certainly quite sensible to be retained. and would cost substantially less to do and just leaving them alone for the lift and the vertical circulation, particularly on the south side. This may have been discussed before. I've got my next point is that it did bother me that the building is going up probably another 20 foot or so in height or put in modern terms, more like six meters, which is quite substantial. There's no section to actually show how high that building is going to be raised that I could find on the planning application. So we don't know how high it's actually going to go. I would have thought there's a case for dropping the height of the new modern extension at the very top slightly because it seems to be pronounced, it seems to be more pronounced in height than the new fourth story, which is going to be done in brick. But if we haven't got a section, we don't actually know. The last point I'd like to raise is the question of the impact on any neighbors facing the building's south face who have rooms facing north from their own properties. I haven't been down there to have a look because I only picked this up today. and I wish I had got down there, but I'm not quite sure what is opposite the building, but to have another couple of large height stories added to a building can make quite a substantial difference to people. That's it, thank you. Okay, so unless there are any other comments, what I'm hearing so far is agreement in principle but some concerns about the oval windows, about the entrances on the lower Richmond Road, one of which is canopied, the other not, the height of the very top story and any potential impact on neighboring properties facing the north side of the building. North, but people who live in properties facing people who face north across the lower Richmond Road will be looking to the south face of the raised... Of the south... Sorry, I've got it. Yes. Of the south. So, are there any other points that people want to raise or have I got that basically right as a summation? So, agreement in principle but we would welcome further discussions by officers on those four issues. Okay. Can we then move on to number 70, Thurley Road, number 3766? That's me, Chair. This application came in as a pre-application initially and it's a building that's in the Nightingale Lane conservation area. Probably designed and built around about 1920s. It's rather later than some of the other buildings, certainly the adjoining terraces which are mainly Edward and Victorian. It's slightly smaller than the other buildings on the other side of it. It was used, as I understand it, as like a yoga centre for a number of years. It hasn't been that well looked after in terms of the interior. The Nightingale Lane conservation area appraisal is quite dated so it doesn't distinguish between positive buildings and negative buildings but I regarded it as a positive building although the garage itself is rather negative and there's only one other garage in the street so it has a negative influence on the building form. The replacement building that came in was wider than the one that's been shown on the application and it also had twin gables and a pitched roof rather than a hipped roof. So there was a number of things I was talking about with the applicants about what they ought to try and move towards. At the same time, as I said, there's obviously the building's protected, it's in a conservation area but also we've also got another policy, LP10, which talks about embodied carbon and therefore it's very important to, if you're going to justify any demolition of the building, they not only address the conservation area aspects of this but also the embodied carbon which they have done as part of their application and so they've come in with this revised proposal which has a hipped roof. They've gone through the energy aspects of it and they've called it their consultants the restoration of the existing building uses up much more carbon than just demolishing and rebuilding which surprised me but I'm not a consultant in that sort of aspect of things so we have to just take that as it is I suppose really. They also the pre-application also had much white they had extra windows on the side of the door case which I seemed to see the proportionality didn't seem quite right so they've adjusted that so they've looked at the buildings next door so they've almost copied that I think to some extent but you'll see the difference between the front and the back because the front they are looking at a revival of the sort of Victorian Edwardian revival whereas it was the back of the building is rather contemporary and modern so I call it a Jekyll and Hyde appearance really because you know one side one on the other side but we'll have to wait and see how that goes because I've made comments on both aspects of that and whether they'll make any further changes or not we'll have to wait and see but it's really I think the other aspect that I disliked at pre-application was the fact they were putting in a car ramp in the front garden because not only you've got the association of possible noise to the neighbours up and down of the ramp but also the loss of any trees because there's some big trees there's some whole moaks in the front garden and there was a concern about the loss of trees to that part because it's quite you know they're quite prominent trees in that part of the conservation area so there's a number of issues there to look at not just the building but also the landscape as well as part of the site and also you could also talk about the front boundary wall because the existing fence actually looks fairly original there are other fences to that street frontage as well although I accept there are a number of front walls for that area and in terms of car parking well most people in the street seem to be acceptable to having cars parked in the street and there aren't that many there's a few but there aren't that many there's only one of the garages I mentioned but there aren't that many cars parked in front gardens and they had two cars parked in front garden initially I think they've gone down to one now with the fact that one goes down below while the other stays above but you know you may have views on all these things really so I think perhaps it's just over to you to see what your views are on the proposal really just before we do that are there any factual questions things that are not clear if not Mr. Armstrong wrong yes thank you this building was the existing building which has been used as an ashram for many years by a yogi I think so which is why it painted that strange colour of orange it's a substantial house it was designed by the architect developer Edwin Evans who's a local well-known Bassley architect and developer and it was built in 1926 1927 and the garage because it's a 1927 built large detached five-bedroom house the garage which was built at the same time is part of the original development and certainly does not detract from the conservation area and the house is slightly smaller than surrounding houses in height and general appearance because architecture had changed a bit houses were more low-built in the 1920s but it certainly is a very important building in the conservation area because of the way in local history terms the way that area was developed it was developed piecemeal over a number of years it was originally allotment gardens and that development took place over a protracted period and it's part of the history of the area the building that is proposed to replace it is a monstrosity I don't understand how it can be argued by anyone that it has a lower carbon impact than renovating the existing property it is more than twice the size and bigger than the substantial Edwardian turreted house number 68 on its right so and it has this swimming pool car lift and all that sort of thing substantial basement it's ugly at the rear the rear is completely is bland modern it's just a facade really a sort of Victorian a pseudo Victorian facade slapped onto a very insensitively designed modern house the other aspect of this application which has not been mentioned is the destruction of the trees the gardens on both sides and to the front if you look along that road it's well treed but most of the trees are on the boundary or in the rear garden or the frontage of the existing building number 70 and I think almost all of them are due to disappear in this development and the front boundary is very pleasant it's you know the whole thing is absolutely fine as it stands in conservation terms and it would be an absolute disaster in conservation terms to see this application this development take place because it would blight the area for two or three years these huge developments involve massive amounts of construction lorry visits the site would be a complete tip for many months and I just think this is absolutely appalling thing to consider even approving this scheme would be contrary to anything that I consider to be worthy of conservation other comments Mr Cato well I'm going to second your comments about keeping the existing building because I think there's seriously nothing wrong with it that can't be sorted out with proper conservation and insulation and I noticed when we're talking embodied carbon not only are they knocking down a substantially built building and no doubt hauling it all away then they're going to dig a hole in the ground and actually that's why they're finding the current house inconvenient is because they want to dig a whole basement and a swimming pool below I mean guilty as charged for building one myself 30 years ago somewhere around that area but that was then the and both the front elevation attempting to imitate the neighbours and the back elevation with way too much glass fail to be environmentally conscious in any way don't let them pull the wool over your eyes there's no reason to take down this thing that marks as you rightly say Mr Armstrong how the conservation area evolved other comments Councillor Owens I'm sorry I've just been looking at it on Google maps as well it's not actually in the North Court waters that's the boundary there so it's in Bannam yes concur with everything that's been said I mean you know I can see how obviously it is very different to the other houses and I can see why the plans are as they are to bring it in line with them but I think the history is interesting it is the history of the conservation area and if it had been allotments that's why it was built as it was 100 years ago and that's why its style is different and as you rightly say a basement is I mean that's the reason they're doing it they're knocking it down for that reason not for environmental reasons anyway unless I hear anything else Mr Dawson I had a couple of points which I made in my notebook here which haven't been touched on but I do think I support largely what Roger and Andrew have said but what flummeses me is that you can knock a perfectly reasonable house quite a large one looking at it from above to knock it down and then build a house with a faux front sort of imitation front which never they never quite come off to the imitations and then you've got a what presumably the owners think is going to be a modern rear it can't make up its mind what it wants to be and in the area of Thurley Road and some of the side roads between there and Nightingale Lane there are some very good examples of modern infill design houses ones ones I can think of straight away were designed by an architect who no longer lives here now Martin Hewitt who designed several really nice houses that were built by Randalls who were one of the local contractors at the time I'm not sure if they still exist as such I thought the car parking arrangement was quite bizarre you park one car and it drops down into what seems to be a room below with an access onto the area in front of the window and presumably someone can come along I think they've got an application in for two cars so the second car can only be parked on top and I can't see how there won't be a row or two about who's going to get their car out first to get to to get to use them anyway that's neither one thing or another I think it's a disappointing scheme for an area which has got a lot of interest a lot of good houses there and a lot of good infills if they want to go and do something slightly different okay unless there are other comments can I summarize that I think we are opposing this application on the grounds of loss of a perfectly decent house which is an important element of the history of the development of the area that we find that we're concerned about the loss of trees we're concerned about car parking associated with that we are not persuaded by the faux Victorian front late Victorian front of what would be basically a modern building and the arguments about embodied carbon simply do not stack up is that have I got the key points have you got all that Mr. Burnham okay let's move on waterfall house well known to this committee right this is this one's me yeah as you say you're not strangers to this building originally a Georgian house it's been much altered but retains the Georgian themes that were in the original building but what we have now is largely Victorian its orientation to the street has been changed but it does retain a carriage drive even though it's not in the precise original place but it does have that external space which is the only bit of amenity space that it now has and the proposal is there are currently lots of quite a few uses on this site there's a dentist there's a nursery this application is for banner adverts for the dentist and they would there are six in total and they would be around three sides of the site as it currently is the existing banner adverts at the front on the Tooting High Street elevation didn't have consent and I think have been taken down now pending this application but you can see from the application the location of this advert that we're looking at is the red one out of the six so in total the yellow and the red there would be six adverts banner adverts on the external street elevations of the site elevations of this grade two listed building so you can see what a lot of advertising has been proposed and where it would go if we can just scroll through there's quite a lot of text here there's a huge QR code obviously photographs of people grinning attractively into the camera so this is what you'd get when you move around the site this is what you'd be presented with obviously the house forming the backdrop to this and it's really whether you think this is acceptable or not quite so much advertising or what you would like to see instead okay questions first factual questions could you say something about the size of the the proposed boards there's not it's pretty sketchy information I'm afraid we don't have any elevations for the site so we don't have any indication what this would look like in terms of a street view so this is really all we can give you but you can see the size of well you've all seen the previous advertisements that have come down so you've got an idea of how big they'll be and the fact that there are six of them around the site so it's quite considerable we're not talking about the sort of signage you'd associate with the church for example you know a sign board these are quite large banner adverts okay miss lawson thank you we do know what it would look like because these banners were erected in november and removed promptly and i've got some pictures of what they look like in situ presumably these are the same because these are the ones now that are tacked to the fencing of the building so they've been lowered some have been removed but some have been lowered so i've got an image of what that might look like we really we were really pleased that the banners that were attached to the buildings were removed and i suppose this building someone commented today it's never really been loved and it's certainly true that recently it's not been well respected and perhaps you should go back to the custodians of an important building caring for it for next generations and these banners perhaps are temporary but they do something quite harmful to our consideration and our appreciation of what's a really attractive building the banners yeah so i'm talking about embodied carbon and things these banners are supported by huge uprights that have been sunk into the ground in massive concrete blocks that have been dug down ironically the nursery is called woodlands but all greenery was removed and in the removal of the greenery the very nature of the building and how we regard it has been entirely changed but that's not to then allow these banners to do further damage to how the property is seen so yes so for example the banner that was attached perhaps in readiness for the newer banners a dental thing that was attached directly to the building obscured a rather nice architectural feature to the north flank the arched window which is complete with its iron the iron cover on the fenestration there which is really something that once revealed should remain and rather than perhaps you can see it through a circuitous route but if you're walking down that road the banners just block out that view altogether so I mean I don't know I haven't measured those banners and what's proposed but we can get a fair I imagine they're not going to reprint because I think that's what they're asking for and that they haven't even suggested there are no images in the application to give that kind of idea it might be done I think it's just a lack of regard for the whole building so it seems to speak volumes really and perhaps why we should resist it as a committee Mr Armstrong yeah I've known this building since the early 1970s when my housing association that I worked for developed the adjacent site with little sort of Georgian cottages to match the Georgian frontage of Waterfall House that was listed then and it's not been Victorianized or modernized to any great extent I think the porch may be slightly later but it's a building of 1825 to 30 very fine building with a relieving arch facade and at the time that I knew it it was dental stroke doctor's surgeries doctors Christie and Egling I think and they were content with a nice little brass plate attached to the door or porch and it remained like that until now it doesn't have a history of large advertising signage whacked onto it and I don't you know it's a listed building it's an important building I don't think it should have great banner advertisements attached to it I mean there might be an advertisement could go on the fence somewhere or something but to have all this signage attached to an important listed building right at the boundary of the borough I think it's outrageous so I don't want it to happen is there anyone who wants to make any additional points about this councillor yeah I am the ward councillor for this site and I know the building very well indeed I live quite close by and some of you may know that I've been quite involved in local history societies and so on over the years it is an important listed building which ought to be a landmark listed building because it's in the gateway as you come up from Collier's Wood into Tooting and it can't be if it's obscured by gigantic advertising of this type secondly it's advertising which I think just automatically spoils the look of the building regardless of whether it's a landmark building as you enter Tooting it spoils it anyway to throw everything out of whack in a sense everything out of kilter by putting these advertisements there thirdly I would say that the attitude of the people who occupy and use the building is from time to time a bit cavalier and I think it's important that they understand how significant the building is and they need to be given a bit of a message I think about what they do with the building they've already made alterations which I think have damaged the look of the building in that turning space in front of the building and I'm worried about some of the features just inside the front door for example in the building and I want them to understand that they are custodians of this building and we expect them to be custodians of this building and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do this kind of thing they've got to be brought up short I'm afraid I think those are three reasons why we shouldn't really be allowing this kind of advertising to happen it's about the quality of the ward that I represent thank you can I try and sum up again this is an important listed building on a landmark site for the borough and more particularly for the district of tooting if district is the right word and what is being proposed here is to obscure this important building on this important site and thirdly that we need to as I said right at the beginning it's well known to this committee and to everyone sitting around this table because it's been in front of this committee so many times it needs to be brought home to those responsible for the upkeep of an important listed building that they have responsibilities which they are not fulfilling at the moment is that enough and clear enough Councillor Belton what's the phrase that is so beloved of the planning of the planners it's substantial harm is it I think that's the phrase as you know not for me to suggest what you say particularly but I would emphasise that very strongly that it does substantial harm to make it very clear so that the applications committee is in no doubt what you feel about it is that generally agreed yes okay let us move on very close to home the town hall this is me as well so there's not an awful lot of information that's been supplied with this application the applicant is the council and so it could be construed as rather disappointing that it's rather sketchy in terms of its information that we've received but this is for it's another advert application it's for banners on the external elevations of the building to advertise the London Borough of Culture 2025 the banners would be fixed physically fixed to the stone work of the town hall now we have some information about how that would be done but as I say it's a bit sketchy and we're asking for more and if we could actually go to that information these are the sort of clamps that are proposed now in the submitted information there is a bit of discrepancy because it doesn't tell us exactly where they would go these clamps some of the information it appears that they be fixed directly into the freeze on the front ones with high street elevation so so we're asking for clarification of exactly where they're being put so bringing this to you and putting this in front of you it's really to say that the information that we've got at the moment is indicative only so we're looking at the general principle rather than the exact nature but you've got an idea of what it is these are the types of banners that will be fixed temporarily although there's no such thing as a temporary list of building consent application but the idea is that they will be there during the borough of culture year but they will be fixed into the stone work which will then require making good on the if we were to consent this would require making good when the banners are removed I'm going to leave it there and invite comments okay thank you I'm not going to start by asking if there are any questions because I think as you've said there are so many questions that could be asked that you won't be able to answer okay one then just the one there's a picture on screen with three banners the text description says two yeah that's that's one of the discrepancies so when I said this was sketchy I presume we're being asked about the ones on either side in which case why isn't there an application for the other well I'm not going to put it that way but I presume we're being asked for the two on the flank question yeah and the other question is you say temporary but is there an indication in there is a parallel application for advert consent because it needs it but as I say you can't give there's no such thing as a temporary list of building consent application if we approve this there's no saying that some other banners might not come along oh well let's advertise this let's advertise that and the clamps stay in the stone work we can't obviously we fighting ourselves in terms of our enforcement would be against ourselves but yeah we can't grant temporary permission it's not as though the London borough of consent London borough of culture yeah it's not as though the year finishes and then we can then say right we'll get those clamps out of the building and make them good it's not as simple as that so we have to I suppose in approving this we have to assume that well what if they stayed there dot dot dot okay councillor Osborne two technical questions does anybody know is it physically possible to put a banner like that up on the building without having to drill into the stone work and so on can you just dangle them from something and no actually I think I'll leave my question at that for the time being well the answer to that is we don't have that indication of how far they will need to drill into the stone work to do that there's also the question of I mean we've seen over the last week it's been very windy what happens when we get storm owen happening again which inevitably will and the safety aspect of these I mean they're you know they're just we just don't have that information but I would imagine that to be fully compliant with any regulations there would have to be significant drilling into the stone work to mount these things councillor Osborne again okay second question do we actually have to decide this now or do we have time to defer the decision because of the London borough of culture dates going forward this is the reason why we brought it to this committee because by the time we get to the next committee a decision will need to be made on this application fairly swiftly so it may not be possible to defer it to march committee because we have been given an indication from our arts and cultures team that this needs to be determined within the timeframes of the application and cannot be deferred i.e. extended or given an extension of time thank you and sorry for calling you miss lawson I meant this way councillor belton I have completely this by the way just as a matter of interest but just some dates the launch of London borough of culture is February the 27th I think and the planning applications committee is someone tell me February the 24th 26th as I say I don't know anything about it but I assume that someone wants this these banners up by the end of the month February okay okay I'm going to pass on to Mr Dawson when I came here tonight standing for standing in for Peter I thought it would be a bit of a breeze but I think I've got the hot potato tonight because there's all sorts of awkward issues to be faced first of all having read the application at least twice in the last 24 hours it's a pretty poor application by any standards I have to say and it's contradictory in many of the things it puts forward I can cite one or two things it says fixings are to be concealed on the roof but all the fixings shown on that sheet of fixings are to be drilled and fixed with M12 bolts injectable anchors so it strikes me that the bolts will be going into the stonework at the front of the building they're nowhere near the roof so I don't know why that was put in as a description of what was going to happen and if it's injectable that could suggest that they're going to fix the anchors with some special fluids which are regularly used now by structure engineers and I would have said that once injected into the stone would not be readily repairable except at vast costs I should think so that's those points to get to the dates that have just been touched on the application was made on the 20th of December the actual report that goes with it says that the banners are going to be mounted in November 24 and they are going to be taken down on the 31st of March in 26 so someone's dropped a clanger here because November 24 is now two months ago and this application I would suggest should have gone in in the late summer early autumn if they wanted the banners to be hung and shown by November 24 I'm going to quote Peter Peter Pharaoh when he sent me a note about this because he's very careful how he puts it I think you'll understand why he says I'm not overwhelmed by the design of the banners and I think that probably sums it up without going into too much more detail except I'll give it one anecdote I used to work here many many years ago and at the time the BBC had a series of films made called Secret Army this room and the face of the building etc was wrapped up in all the paraphernalia of Secret Army and I must say these banners are somewhat reflective of the fullness and rather fierceness in appearance I would have thought banners and this is just a personal view not a wonder of sighting necessarily but as I'm here I'll say it I think to advertise the borough of the culture it should be joyful it should be colourful it should be something to attract people but I must say I do go along with Peter Farrow's description of not being overwhelmed they are very big and I think our society would say straight away these banners and none of the photographs that you've been shown tonight or were shown on the preview photographs by the officers show the side elevation which is a huge banner that is the one facing Wandsworth sorry Wandsworth High Street it's not Wandsworth High Street but facing the fountains on the side that is a very big banner and that's going to need a series of fixings quite a number of them I suggest so I think our feeling is that someone's got to think about this again which is I find very difficult to say when we've got a borough that's put a lot of effort into trying to get hold of its new status as a borough of culture but has left this particular issue far too late really and could do better perhaps Councillor Owens I suppose what I'm confused about with the banner and obviously I think there's huge issues with permanently being able to have the banner but in the run-up to us winning the borough of culture it was a completely different I've just had a quick look again at the photographs of Sadiq with Simon and Marge and everyone with the kind of we want to be borough of culture it's a totally different sort of banner it's got a picture of tooting on it it's got the usual the logo I know that was originally a conservative logo but it's quite a colourful and it was used again when we won it as Wandsworth is 2025 London Borough of Culture and it's just very different and much nicer than obviously what was chosen as the digital design after we won but just saying I'm surprised that something like that couldn't be used instead okay I see two I'll take two more comments on this I think I can foresee the result of this that we're going to object to this application are there key additional points that we want to make is my question but briefly please right rather than the difficult idea of fixing banners to the building would it not be possible to have a laser light display reflected onto the building which is done often in other situations it's a great big blank white building ideal for that I would have thought and it would not involve any fixings or anything like that any kind of application someone just needs to get their head screwed on right and get the better idea of doing this that's what we asked for precisely that briefly Miss Greenwood just briefly to say that that logo and that design is part of what is now called welcome to Wandsworth and it isn't very welcoming that's all I can say but that's why it's like that and now it's black and sort of gloomy okay I'm going to say basically what I said a couple of minutes ago I can't see any way in which we can do anything but oppose this application it's an incompetent application it seems to me in that it leaves so many questions unanswered it involves permanent damage to a listed building it's leave aside questions about the design of the banners for the moment actually we're talking about the possibility as Mr. Andrews has said of banners in perpetuity on the building I think we have no alternative but to say no to the application is that that acceptable have you got enough Councillor Belton see that I'm in a slightly hot seat somewhere around here sometime in the next month or so can you make sure you've got all the words in can you make sure I mean if I was I'm not in your position if I was in your position I heard what you said and I think it may not be strictly within your terms of reference this is a discussion we were having earlier I think pointing out that you can't envisage how the building can be restored to its current state and all the things you said about it and the fact that you can't have a temporary situation needs to be a point needs to be made to the council to help anyone who's going to try and defend this position with the arguments so I think you've got to put in as much as you can and we do have an alternative you certainly mentioned one sorry I don't mean that I don't mean that to be overly coy but I can imagine that argument but you know I'm not putting that forward but I take your point are we content to leave it as an outright objection on the grounds that have been specified and to emphasize that there is an alternative it let us move on to the final application the Sally Army Citadel which I imagine most of us are reasonably familiar with on Ram Street thank you chair last one of the evening so this is the site of the Salvation Army Citadel so you see the location plan here so just behind us at the town hall so in terms of designations this building does not sit within a conservation area but as you can see here it's wrapped around on almost all sides with Wandsworth Town Conservation Area and also is sandwiched between the listed building or the listed complex of the town hall the Ram complex and then you have the locally listed formal workers cottages to the north on Banshaw Street so the site in particular has come forward to the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee as it is situated within a site allocation which that site allocation includes the town hall the town hall extension the civic suite and this site as well as the council housing that surround it to the east and to the north of the site and it extends up to the south side of Banshaw Street the site allocation also identifies it as a mid-rise zone so allows upwards of six stories or the equivalent of 80 metres in height so the reason why we brought it to committee is for the very reason that it will be the first development coming forward as part of this site allocation and given its context or immediate context in the surrounding or within the setting of the conservation area in these listed buildings so the site as it is at the moment is a single-story building that has been built in 2008 so it's quite a young building it actually replaced a previous building which was quite historically interesting building unfortunately was demolished to make way for this building here single story but probably in terms of height terms consider it two-story building in the area of the hall and what they're proposing to do is to demolish the building it's surplus to requirements by the Salvation Army they are proposed to move out and the site is then to be proposed to be replaced with a six-story building as you can see here so in terms of use you have a ground floor use which is a combination of commercial and flexible community use with an entrance lobby for a 50-bedroom hotel which will occupy the upper floors and then you have plant on the roof which is in some way masked by a rather interesting screen which acts in a similar way to a hipped roof just to contain that plant and to introduce a much less cluttered roof scope for the building so this has gone through various iterations at pre-application stage and it's come to us as a full application now so if we go through the sections you'll see that the ground floor floor to ceiling heights is slightly greater so it is more than 18 meters in terms of AOD height so it is a six-story building but slightly taller but the reason behind that is the ground floor to ceiling heights is slightly greater on the basis that it's a better floor to ceiling height for the proposed use in terms of community and floor space so if we go through the sections and the elevation drawings so you see here if we go back to ground floor plan you'll see the layout here so you've got the hotel entrance on the ram street entrance overlooking the service entrance for the ram quarter on the other side of ram street so it's not a very animated part of the town it's slightly outside of the town centre and sort of a transition point between those bigger developments that we were discussing in the previous conservation and heritage advisory committee in November 2024 so it's got a lot of work to do but they're proposing the hotel entrance just towards the north side there's been a bit of work done on that to try to animate that entrance with the main entrance to the cafe community commercial space within at that corner point with Shoreham Close and then you have all of the plant and back of house that's towards the eastern side of the site just where there's less visual interest in that part of the site so if we go up the floors you'll see so this is just the typical floor plan for the upper floors of the hotel so sort of standard arrangement you would expect for a hotel and then the plant contained within the roof which they've sought to try to visually obscure with the sort of pseudo roof here with the green roof as well and here's just to show you some of the CGI so you're looking at the upper floors of brick they have done a lot of work in terms of contextual studies for this site looking at the high street itself and how these corner buildings have been treated in a way where you have a taller ground floor space which is more animated and treated in a different way with in this case surrender and a green brick which is green tile in fact which is becoming a little bit more common in some of these developments we've got the development just behind the church all saints church as well which has introduced that green brick as well and then the upper floor is treated in a quite rigid pattern in terms of the window arrangements with some detail picked up on in terms of the side panels or the windows but quite an industrial sort of appearance to it but when you look through some of the design and access statement they have proposed a lot of contextual studies and they've done a lot of design evolution for this building to try to introduce a building that seeks to work well in its context so because it is a site allocation and so the buildings coming forward that surround the site they need to look at that in a lot of detail in terms of how they future proof this site so on this Ram Street south view there was a bit of discussion about how this is treated that's going to be quite an important elevation in terms of way finding coming down from Old Jock Roads and Wandsworth Town station so they can't do an awful lot on this flank elevation because obviously whatever comes forward and the scheme that you can see in front of it could come forward so there's a bit of work in the design and access statement as well but they have sought to treat the corner of the building with a with a markated sign which said Ram quarter just to give it a little bit more of a presence on the streets so you can allow that way finding but also to allow appreciation of that corner where their hotel entrance is so if we have a look at the other CGI's this gives you some of the views as well so this is existing view coming from Ram Street within the conservation area at that junction with the high street so at the moment the building is very modest it's not very discernible when you look down to Ram Street and then you have the building coming up in the background of the Ram Brewery and the Ram Public House so you can see how they have sought to try to treat that corner in a way that's complementary to the character of the conservation area and so those corner buildings that you see and again this is one looking from the other side of Ram Street looking south towards the site where you can see the town hall extension in the background and the new Ram Quarter works and then that's showing it in its context there it's coming up behind or in front of the town hall extension and I think there's maybe another view here there's just the last CTA that just gives you an idea of wider context looking from Garrett Lane towards the site with those listed buildings in the foreground and the wider conservation obviously this is quite a helpful CGI to end on so it'd be interesting to know if the committee have any comments on this considering what it is doing a lot of work in terms of setting a precedent for whatever comes forward on the rest of the site allocation okay thank you questions first fall of fact or anything not clear from the presentation no comments then I'll start with Mr Dawson right we're not objecting to this building we've had a meeting with a very related meeting set up with Dave Clark who used to be a senior officer in the planning department here some years ago now an associate director of something called the Terrapin group which I think is the PR people for the developers the building is neat neatly designed and we don't object to it what should be noted though is that it's landlocked it's a very small site and the building encompasses the whole of the site area it has no immunity space no parking or servicing provision at all and I think the applicant has tried to deal with TFL and Wandsworth as to how they could have arrangements for servicing the building on a daily basis in particular which would probably mean lots of vans and several lorries but presumably they've satisfied themselves and possibly the council too I don't know of these arrangements the only point we have made is that the roof is quite interesting but we think and we have made this point to them in writing that the screen should be somewhat higher for two reasons one is it's very low pitch and not very not very tall and I don't we think that it could be much more interesting if it was slightly taller and the reason that that has come about is because roof plant as shown on application drawings always sort of underplays in our experience of what actually happens after the buildings have been constructed constructed and the servicing consultants start to get on to it the plant shown on the section drawing is quite low but we did put it to them there's likely there's going to be somebody wanting to get on the roof of these pieces of plant that will mean railings that will mean ladders with safety railings and what not going up to the top and over and a particular example of this in our experience is the plant that's been placed on top of the new Springfield hospital buildings which are quite noticeable particularly if you're some distance away from them they're very powerful and they're just covered in all the sorts of bits of pipe work and fences and that sort of thing and lighting which is of a greater extent than shown on the drawings so our view is that the and we've made it to them I don't know what reaction they've taken that the roof could be slightly taller the pitch could be slightly keep the same pitch but raise it so that it would take into consideration any modifications that may be needed as being built or in the future for the plant thank you does anyone want to object to this building does anyone want to add to the reservations as to the servicing of the building or the pitch of the roof or the height of the roof sorry not the pitch add no additional points okay sorry how could I not I'm just intrigued I mean said in the introduction it was a little bit of old victoriana another bit of victoriana that we wiped out I don't remember any argument about it I'm wondering whether our historians there was no battle about it when the old ram building went what was that the army building it never came to this committee I mean that previous building had lots of little interesting stone plaques date plaques and things all around it which presumably they haven't been incorporated into this current building but yeah it was never it was never listed or anything like that it's just I mean I sorry you are indulging me I do recognise it's on I mean bits of victoria armour are just disappearing I know there's still a lot in Britain but it is going and it just went one day as far as I was concerned okay can we then move on to the next item on the agenda item I'm losing my place it's the applications determined item four there were a couple of points I wanted to make about this list I mean first of all the 64 Clapham Common North Side we did object originally to this application on the basis of the height of the roof that has now been resolved I think to most people's satisfaction and so I think actually we can pat ourselves on the back in seeing this application through to fruition just to note that item two on I just thought the phrase at the top of page there page 12 doesn't give the right impression to me anyway the committee were pleased to see that the proposal sought redevelopment as opposed to previously destructive schemes which sought demolition redevelopment sounds very much like demolition redevelopment to me I think we sought refurbishment don't we yes I'm not I mean I didn't write this paper if we can move on to the second one a minor typo there it's 94 Bollingbrook Grove not 95 and more substantively I as as is recorded on page 13 there's an appeal against refusal here I don't know whether the officers have much more to report on that I mean statements are due in due next month from the applicant and then in March from from the council but I presume there's been no progress on that okay dial house has been approved over our objection and the final two Wimbledon and sorry I'll come back to you Andrew and Springfield hospital have been approved by Jules Pipe as deputy mayor not by this council or indeed by planning inspector for that for that matter just to note that there are other authorities involved than us but Mr. Cato just briefly to report back on dial house work is thoroughly underway the extra story is on and is extremely visible in the direct line ahead of you as you go approach to site along the up Richmond road I endorse that okay just to note item five future meeting dates is there any other business if not thank you and I declare the meeting closed thank thank very much thank thank MER indulge me to you yeah could show