Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Wandsworth Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Agenda
March 26, 2025 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jobb and I'm chair of the committee. I will now call each member's name. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you've done that, please remember to switch off your microphone. and might I suggest, as I always do, that you do something to stop your phone interrupting the meeting and embarrassing yourself. So I start with Councillor Belton. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward. Councillor Osborne. Yes, good evening, everybody. Councillor Osborne. Mark Dodgson, the Ballam Society. Good evening. Roger Armstrong, Clapham Society. Good evening, everyone. Roger Armstrong. I believe that Francis Radcliffe may be arriving late. from the Friends of Battersea Park. Andrew Cato. Good evening, panel. Edward Potter from the RIBA. Good evening. Libby Lawson, Tooting History Group. Good evening. Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society. Good evening, everyone. and Peter Farrow from Wandsworth Society. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Do we have any other apologies? No, only from Francis, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Perhaps this would be a good point. Oh, no. Let me go on to the following officers are also present. Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Chair. And Oliver Taylor. Welcome to his first meeting, I think. Thank you. Good evening. And the Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham. Good evening. Okay. Perhaps this would be a good point at which to report that the River Thames Society has decided that for the moment it does not wish to continue membership of this committee. I think that it would be appropriate if we were to minute our thanks to Chris Rice, who served in that capacity for a number of years. And if we could write to him to that effect, please. Okay. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest, financial or of any other kind? If not, let us then move on to the minutes of the meeting held on the 28th of January. First of all, are they a correct record? Or are there any amendments? Okay. In that case, after the meeting, I will sign the record copy of the minutes. Matters arising. Let me go through page by page. On my copy of the papers for this meeting, they come up at page three. So any items on page three? On page four, I don't think this will arise otherwise. On the agenda. Can Lauren Way report on the progress of the local listing process, which has now ended? Thank you, Chair. So, yes. So the public consultation came to a close on the 28th of February. So officers with my team are just correlating all of the responses now. So we have got two projects running concurrently. So we have the historic street signs project, whereby we are looking at all of the nominations and lists that have been sent through from the societies to put together a single list that will be sent on to the highways team to inform the potential works for restoration of the street signs, street sign project. So that's ongoing and in progress. And then the other line of work is the local listing enhancement project, which is looking at the nominations for the local listing. So we're putting together a full list that we can take to the transport committee at a future date to add them to the local list. So that's just being correlated at the moment. And we're also looking at all of the information that has been provided by residents and societies to enhance the existing list locally list entries. And we're working with the with our GIS team to find ways in which we can actually show that on the web page. At the moment, it's it's not particularly good mapping system. So we're working with them to improve that so that things like the images that were provided in 2018 and this public consultation can now be shown when you hover or click on that locally listed building or structure. So it is in progress at the moment. And I will keep giving the committee updates for each committee on how we're progressing. But we have got dedicated officers in the team that are progressing those particular projects. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions on that? Let me just underscore the importance of getting all the information publicly available on the website, getting rid of the absence of links and the broken links, of which I think there are some still. Thank you very much. The other item just further down that page, Furs Down Lodge. Can you give us an update on the position there, please? Certainly. So an application for change of use of Furs Down Lodge was submitted to the planning authority. This has since been withdrawn on the basis that concerns were raised regarding the change of use and its impact on particularly the metropolitan open land. So at the moment the applicants are putting together a package of information to support a future application for the lodge that seeks to address some of the issues raised by the planning department. And they will engage with pre-application engagement with officers prior to submitting the application so that any issues can be ironed out at that stage. I think that's all we can say at this stage. I guess the obvious question which people will want to ask, so I'll ask it, is whether that means that the deterioration of Furs Down Lodge will continue? I don't believe so, no, because I think as part of the lease they have to maintain the building in a certain condition while these engagements are taking place. It's not in their best interest to allow it to fall into further disrepair, I suppose, because that's just additional cost for them when it comes to the actual works taking place. Understood. I hope therefore that the council also will keep an eye on that issue, which as everyone round the table will remember, that's been a major concern for us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other matters arising? I'll go on to page five. Page six. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, I understand that an appeal has been made in respect of Waterfall House. The advert. Yes. That's correct. Yes. So they've submitted an appeal for that one. So it's just being put through the process at the moment and is with officers to put their appeal statement together. Great. Thank you. Thank you. They're not intended to weaken our position, but rather to strengthen it. I think the clue to our position is in our title. We're the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. Conservation and Heritage is the focus of what we do. And we are advisory. We are not a decision-making body. The best that we can do is to make recommendations which either are or are not accepted either at the service officer level or at the Planning Applications Committee subsequently. I think it's important in this context to recognize that the planning regime in which we operate and which has operated in this country for the last 70-odd years requires everyone in the planning process to take balanced decisions based on policies which are now set out in three key documents. I suppose, I suppose, at national level, the MPPF, at London level, the London plan, and at borough level in the local plan. And so everything we do is in the context set by the policies set out in those plans in which conservation and heritage issues are covered more or less satisfactorily. There is room for disagreement or not, agreement or not on those issues. I think we've always been aware, and I think member societies are aware, that there is always a risk that conservation and heritage issues are not taken as seriously as we take them. By other people involved in the planning process, whether they are some planning officers and sometimes councillors who have to make decisions in this borough, which is called the planning applications committee. So there is always a risk that what we say is ignored, and I think we need to recognize that risk. And I think the discussions that took place in November in this committee were very much about trying to find out how we could avoid that risk, or mitigate that risk, at least to some extent, by strengthening the advice and the recommendations that we make. And we do that by presenting more evidence and by formulating our advice in the light of the policies set out in those three documents that I've mentioned. I might add, as a rider to that, the Battersea Society, which I represented here, almost invariably, when it comments on applications, makes reference to policies at one or more of those levels. Because we believe that that strengthens the kinds of representations that we make. Now, some of you may be aware that a publication called Putney News has issued an article which alleges that the proposed changes to the terms of reference represent a plot by the council, a plot to make it easier to demolish historic buildings, to encroach on conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, and to disregard community concerns. I can't believe that anyone sitting around that table, this table, would accept that interpretation of what the changes are attempting to do. And even if they did, of course, they would not accept those changes. I also find it very difficult to conceive of a committee made up of representatives of civic societies who would willingly accept a risk of making it easier to demolish historic buildings, to set aside concerns, to encroach on heritage assets, and so on. But if you read, those of you who've seen it, the article more closely, actually you'll find that it's concerned above all with the mention of the three documents that I cited, the MPPF, the London Plan, and the local plan, which are described as highly political documents. Legislation, white papers, of all kinds, of course, are the result of a political process. Yes, I think we have to accept that. But it argues that it would be okay if the amendments that are proposed were restricted to, and I quote, simply a referral to wider issues, or to the social and economic impacts of the proposals that we consider around this table. I have to say, I would be strongly opposed to any reference to the wider social and economic impacts, because I think that would really risk driving a coach and horses through what we do. So I think that on all kinds of levels, this article is barking up a completely wrong tree. Now, having said all that, the amendments that have been put forward, which I, in the main, represent what I suggested, I recognize that there is room for people to disagree, for good and honest people to have good and honest disagreements about the changes, and I shall listen very carefully to what people have to say about them. I do believe that the objections are, at best, overstated, and at worst, based on complete misunderstandings of the way in which the planning system works in general, and the way in which this committee works in particular. But, I've said my piece on it, I want now to hear what other people have to say. And I see, first of all, Andrew Cato. Firstly, thank you, Chair. I had a conversation on Monday evening, because it was the Putney Society's AGM, the editor of Putney News, his own publication, it's only online, has a readership of about 400, he tells me, was there. So I went up and introduced myself as the Putney Society's representative on this committee, because I thought I ought to, and basically put him straight, I hope. Whether he listened, I don't know. I'm afraid he is one of the very large number of people who have fallen for the spin, dare I put it that way, that comes from DHLUC, or whatever they're called these days, sorry, local government, anyway. The Department of Local Government and whatever it's called these days, communities, yes. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Yes, anyway, them. That planning, but changes to planning policy can get stuff built. Actually, we all know that planning policy is entirely about what you can't do. And I had to put him straight on that very clearly, and that therefore, in my view, the more things we have to take, we are allowed to take into consideration, the more we can find something that says you can't do what we don't want you to do, as officers are very keen to do when it's appropriate from them. So I very much think we should keep this, and indeed, if anything, after the London Plan and the Local Plan, add other published policies. Other points? Mark Dodgson. Thank you, Chairman. I'm afraid I wasn't at the last meeting, unfortunately, and I'm not sure if I was at the previous one. I'm slightly unclear. What is the problem we're trying to resolve by adding this into our remit? Is it that we've been criticised for mentioning other policies whose subject matter is not conservation areas and listed buildings, or what? I'm not quite clear why we need to actually have this addition to our remit. Let me answer that first before other people come in. The problem that I think arose is that we were being asked to provide more than straight conservation advice, to provide ammunition, if you like, to councillors and others who were concerned that conservation advice alone would not carry the same weight if it didn't refer to other kinds of issues that are raised in policy. That was the concern, that strictly restricting the remit of this committee to advice on conservation matters meant that there was a risk that the advice would simply be ignored. And, of course, I mean, there is plenty of evidence that that has happened in the past. That, I mean, anyone who has sat around this table for any time will be able to recall cases where this committee has recommended refusal of an application and it has been accepted, the planning application has been accepted, either by delegated powers by office, under delegated powers by officers, or by the PAC. Of course, those officers taking decisions and PAC inevitably has to take other issues into account because, as I began by saying, the whole planning regime in this country for the last 70 years has been based on balancing of arguments relating to a whole series of spatial planning and other planning issues alongside conservation. So why should we simply restrict ourselves to commenting on conservation and heritage issues and thus potentially opening ourselves to the risk of being ignored? May I just respond to that? So it's picking and choosing the other policies that suit us to support our case for conservation. Is that really what we're saying? Because there'll be plenty of policies in the armory of the planning department where our view on a particular building or area might be at odds with their intentions to fulfil certain planning criteria. Of course, when balancing arguments about harms against benefits, which is essentially the essence, as in my understanding of how planning decisions are made in this country and have been made for the past 70 years, then the weight that one gives to conservation on the one hand to transport issues, to housing issues, to a whole host of other issues covered by those policies, those are matters of judgment and the weight that you or I might give to them around this table could be quite legitimately different from the weight given to different parts of the policy frameworks by other people. That's all I'm saying. If I may. I think we shouldn't be too burdened by the Putney News comments on the proposal because I think they do misunderstand the principle and the purpose of what it is that's proposed. But I do think they're probably right in thinking that we shouldn't include the proposed changes. The National Planning Policy Framework, the London and the Local Plan, have excellent sections on conservation and heritage and how to deal with them. and we could and should be guided by what they say, but they are only a part of the overall planning policies which those documents contain. I think our job is to advocate for heritage assets, listed buildings, locally listed national conservation areas and parks and parks and things like that. And that's what we should do. I cannot see that adding something other than the heritage aspects of the three levels of planning policy documents, I can't see what we can do when we come to make a comment on an application because we say that on the basis of our view of the heritage assets, it's a good scheme or a bad scheme. But if we then say, for example, if we're trying to oppose a scheme, oh, it's a jolly good scheme, but taking into consideration the need for affordable housing, we think that the application should proceed. I don't think that's our job. I think that's the job of the Planning Applications Committee and those that formulate policy if we're considering conservation areas. So I don't think there's a need to add this into our objectives. I think that reiterating, our job is to advocate for heritage assets. It's the job of others to do the weighing and the balancing. If we say at the end of any comments that we make, yes, we are aware of other planning issues, I mean, that's not adding a great deal to what it is that we have said. I think also that... Well, I've said enough for a while. I'll happily... I see you hovering. Councillor Belton. Thank you, Chair. I think I must confess to a bit of guilt in this. I was at the meeting two meetings ago and I was making a particular point about a particular application. And I think after many years on the Planning Applications Committee, I could hardly bear to tell you when I was first on it, but it was a long, long time ago. And having seen many applications go through or indeed been thrown out with some comment from Jack or its predecessor about what they thought. I am very used, if I may say so, to the Planning Committee members being pretty dismissive of what this committee or its predecessor thought. Dismissive in the sense of, oh, that's all about heritage. They would say that, wouldn't they? And what I was really trying to get at on a very particular application that we need to talk about now, but lots of people will know which one I'm talking about, which has things to be said for it and very serious heritage things to be said against it. The comment that was likely to come through to the Applications Committee was likely to be, and I'm being very crude here after the detail that you guys have given. I feel weak in presenting this. But the comment would come through that the check were against the proposal for a couple of reasons. And it's so easy when, in my experience, it's been so easy for many years for the Planning Applications Committee members, not all of them, but some members, to say, well, that heritage always say that sort of stuff. That's what you always get. And they're not necessarily terribly aware of how very, very planning-oriented this committee is. I mean, I think that would surprise many of... So I'm, in a way, just wanted to say, and I totally take your point, by the way, about this up to the Planning Applications Committee to make the assessment. But I'd just like to comment, and maybe this is a way the report is written and nothing to do with this committee at all. Maybe. I'd just like it to say, whilst it was drawn to... whilst CHAC were very aware of all the benefits of this scheme, for this reason or that reason, putting all that to one side from a heritage point of view. So it just gave an acknowledgement that this committee knew about these other issues. I think without that, Planning Applications Committee members are meant to think... sorry, tend to think, oh, we're under pressure from government to provide more housing. We're under pressure to do this. we've got a housing waiting list this long. We must do this, that, and the other. They don't fuss about all these other problems. And that's all I wanted, really, was to make the committee aware that the decisions of this committee are made in a very much broader sense. Sorry, not a broader sense, with a broader knowledge of the pressures, which you two have both been expressing, actually. You're both very well aware of it. It doesn't come over to the Planning Application Committee members. And that's really what I wanted to do. And I think what I'm really intrigued about is being somewhat responsible as the Chair of the Planning Applications is... I'm very intrigued about is where this came from. The actual... Was it you, Chair, may I ask? Because it wasn't me. And it wasn't any committee that I know of. And I... There's no name on the bottom of this. It just says on the item on the agenda from the Chief Executive. Now, I've got a lot of time for the Chief Executive's capabilities and so on, but I doubt whether he got to this. So I was very intrigued by where it came from. It came essentially from me. Oh, dear. Okay. Fine, fine. That's okay. Are there any further comments from people who haven't made comments up to now? No? In that case, I'll take... Okay. Mr. Dodgson and then Mr. Cato. And then I think we need to come to a decision. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little nervous that the phrase taking account as appropriate could be read as taking into account as appropriate by others. In other words, it could be read as saying that we... When making our comments or advice, we have to take into account all these other policies, which is the very reverse of what I think our role is. So I am very nervous of that wording. Thank you. The rest of what I would like to say, Chair, so small points of text and what have you. B and C, I think conservation areas and statutory listed and locally listed buildings should be or, not and. and that in E, I think possible suggestions is tautological and we just need suggestions. Tiny points well taken. Could I just comment on Mr. Dodgson's comment? Would where appropriate meet his problem? Where appropriate of the full range of policies? Sorry, I don't understand how that would work. Taking account. But it's not the appropriate, it's the fact that it's taking account. It sounds like taking into account to me. Sorry, I thought I saw a relatively straightforward way, but perhaps not. I mean, how about something more neutral, like whilst being aware of all the other issues, something more like that, whilst being aware of the considerable benefits and the complexities of the scheme, whatever it is, something that just recognizes that you're actually aware of a bit, I can only repeat what I've said before really, that I am impressed after a few years on this as well, fundamentally how much more members of this committee know about the planning process and theories than many of my colleagues on the applications committee who may find themselves there, not by choice, but the party has to put in someone there, as it were. So, I just wanted to make the committee aware of that. I think it's difficult to do drafting round a table, and I think there probably is a way, you know, using words like being aware of while being aware as appropriate or whatever. There is a way of making it clear that our terms of reference are different from the terms of reference of the PAC, which has to take decisions taking account, that do take full account of all the policies. Would it be acceptable for me in concert with the officers to come back with a slightly revised form of wording of that kind? But if I may an addendum, you've just said that we're not the Planning Applications Committee, and you've also sort of said that we are going to do what they do by taking into account all the planning policies. I really don't think there is a need to add this to our terms of reference. if what is required is that we try and get the Planning Applications Committee to take us more seriously, we have to put in better comments. I don't think simply saying and taking into consideration all the other planning issues is going to add much weight to an argument about the value of a heritage asset. If Planning Applications Committee and others don't take heritage very seriously, I'm afraid it's the nature of the beast. If you are advocating for heritage, there's a tendency to see it as regressive, reactionary, not very progressive. We have to live with that. What we have to do is make our comments more powerful and more forceful. I don't think a kind of, forgive me, a token remark or aside that we have considered all other planning policy issues is going to be terribly effective. I think what we do is we maintain our advocacy for heritage assets on the basis of the principles in the three plans that we have discussed and leave it at that. I don't think there is much to be gained by this and I think we do open ourselves up to misunderstanding as has happened if we leave it in. Obviously, I think it would be better not to come to a decision tonight and perhaps we can brood upon it before our next meeting. Okay, thank you. I think we have two options in front of us. One is to take this away and attempt some word crafting. The other is to abandon the proposal altogether. And I think I'm prepared to take a vote on that. I mean, I think the issues have been fairly clearly aired. So, could I ask for a vote on whether we should proceed on the basis that some further work is done on the wording, which we will bring back to the next meeting? All those in favour? or should we abandon the enterprise altogether? I think the majority is pretty clear there. I don't want it to be taken that simply because we have agreed not to abandon it, that a reworking is going to finish up being acceptable. Of course, that is, I mean, that is, the committee, it will come back to the committee and the committee will decide. Okay, I'll take one more comment, Mr. Cato. It's not a comment, it's just a report that obviously, ahead of this, I re-read all of this, stumbled across item 7 about representatives of other bodies. which has prompted me to contact the Victorian Society because one of their board members is also on my panel but I haven't had a reply yet. I think they're the most appropriate one of all of those given the age of the building stock in most of the borough. if I may say when I was considering what to think about this I looked up the issue of statutory consultees in the planning system and we've got a variety of the Victorian Society, 20th Century Society, SBAB, Georgian Group and others and I looked at all their objectives in terms of reference and they focus on what it is that I think is our core policy. They don't distract themselves by the need to reference other policies. There is one other issue which I confess I hadn't spotted until Miss Greenwood pointed it out to me that the ones with historical society which she represents and has represented around this table for considerable time is not specified in the list of members and I think that needs to be rectified forthwith. I was going to say thank you and also perhaps we should include other border organisations like Richmond Society and Merton Historical rather than just Streatham and Wimbledon because there are other people that share bits of heritage around the edges. I'm not averse to that except I think we should guard against getting too many people around this table. My understanding is that we have asked for representatives from Wimbledon and from Streatham without success without success. Is that right? My understanding Chair is in the past yes we have reached out to them. I don't think we've reached out to them particularly recently at least since I joined the council. I'm happy to do so again if we feel that's valuable. I have reached out on a separate matter to as you mentioned earlier the River Thames Society and the Royal Town Planning Institute who have put a note out in their bulletin to try and get a member back to the committee. If members want to I'm very happy to write to other societies. The gap that we were talking about for Wimbledon is covered in part at least by both the Sutherland Grove Residence Association and the Southfield's grid but neither of them really covers a big enough area but they might be asked. That area is also part of what I would have thought was wonderful society's remit as well. the Wimbledon Society lists the streets that they actually cover in planning and those are all in the borough of Merton and not in Wandsworth which I think SW19 might have been added at the time of Wandsworth was originally in the LCC and then in 1964 London expanded and maybe there was already part of SW19 in the LCC bit. I don't know. I was rather young at the time. I'm not concerned with planning. so I think that might be one of the things just like I live on the edge of that and some of the phone numbers are Putney numbers. There's a complete mishmash of things going on that I think developed from that time. I think it was Battersea within the LCC. I think Wandsworth was outside the LCC. Was it the ILEA? Outside the ILEA. Anyway. I don't know the boundary of our interest but I think we'd have trouble getting someone to deal with matters close to Wimbledon. I don't I think can we leave it for offline discussion you know which other bodies might be added to but bearing in mind we don't want I think to I mean we don't want to be exclusive but adding half a dozen new members would just change the nature of this committee and I'm I'm not convinced it would be for the better. Can we move on? Okay. Let us move on to item four applications and first of all 2025 0665. first of two applications relating to three Edna Street. Thank you. So we actually have two items relating to three Edna Street but they've split them up into two. The first one is demolition of existing garage alterations including erection of two-story front slash side extension and single-story side slash rear extension including removal of the existing chimney stack to the front and reconfiguration of the internal layout. And there is the site within the Three Sisters Conservation Area. It's not a locally listed building. It's not statutory listed. You can see there are no other similar assets in its setting. It's just the conservation area. And that is it within its context. You can see it's part of a series of semi-detached villa-style houses really. I think they date to the 1860s, 1870s. Quite a consistent pattern of development in this part of the conservation area but if you look in the bottom right along Edna Street you can see there has been some infill but mostly it's pretty well preserved. and again that's just from the rear and again you can see that pattern of villa development. And there is the site. So there's quite a generous gap with the neighbouring building. That's a fence. It's not a structure I don't think. Yeah and that's just a bit of a context photo from further down the road. And that is looking from the side street. I can't remember the name of it but you're looking towards the site. That house just right in the front is part of the pair and the chimney you can see which is probably more relevant to the second application is just the top spine of the outrigger. Yeah and that's just another example of the type of buildings along Orville Street. So that is the existing ground floor plan on the left and the proposed on the right which just gives you an indication of the scale of what they're proposing in terms of the extension. Worth noting in the bottom right corner of the proposals where they are wanting to bring the building line forward. They did note in the application that they had included a setback but I think you can see that generally speaking they're coming forward. Yeah just there. And that is at first floor. You can see the rear extension and then again it's a two storey side extension. front elevation and that is the existing front elevation and then that's the proposed. So it's more or less infilling really. They've left a little bit of space and there is a very small setback but generally speaking yeah they would be bringing it forward to the building line. And that is the existing rear and then again there is the proposed rear. Yeah and that is everything for item one. First of all are there any questions relating to this? Anything that's not clear to members? Mr. Dodgson. Could we be told a little bit more about materials? It will be in brick to match the existing. I don't think we've had any detail on what they're proposing with the windows. we would expect it to be timber to be appropriate to the conservation area with slimline double glazing if that's what they want to go with. I think with the rear extension again it's brick somewhat less concerned in terms of materiality to the rear but yeah I believe it's it's primarily to be matching. Okay. if there are no further questions can I invite comments on this application? I see Mr. Armstrong. Yeah I was I mean I think most controversial aspect is the removal of the chimney stack the front chimney stack if that's the main front chimney stack they're referring to because that's quite a prominent feature. and Victorian house without chimney stack is just looks wrong. So I quite like the way they've designed the side extension with a sort of flat roof and continuing the eaves sort of detailing but I do also think that should be set back maybe a bit further. Other comments on this application? Mr. Catter. Yes I had a look on Google Earth to just I always do on these occasions to check what the context is. Discovered that there is a side extension for a two story side extension of a similar kind on numbers 1 5 7 11 13 in other words the majority of that side of the street as I already done. The read coming back to your point about the setback they've set back to the same distance as the one next door which I think is probably the right answer. And if anything I'm going to advocate for slightly more because it's that curved notch that is the thing that shouts at me as being inappropriate in this setting. At the front. Yes. Any other thoughts? I mean from Battersea society point of view we don't like that curved notch either. but the I mean this is as Mr. Cato has pointed out in one sense a bird that has long ago flown along along Edna Street. I mean the trouble is it certainly is looking looks like an extension. it's not trying to pretend not to be an extension because it's not the roof hasn't extended. I have to say I do agree with Mr. Armstrong that I prefer it it was set back further but I wasn't aware that the one on the other side was not set back so far. Yes between them essentially they they fill the gap that originally existed. so in a sense what is what is happening on Edna Street is that the what was a series of semi-detached villas is being turned into something more like a terrace. yes thank you I mean they have a lot of them have been filled in but they haven't all been filled in oh sorry but I mean I'm just looking now on Google map but essentially they do seem to have the others seem to have kept their chimney stacks. That's the only difference and obviously they've been filled in sorry most of them have been filled in yeah you're right but they've been filled in as you say slightly set back lucky them that they can create that extra space as well to the side of the house. So what are we saying about this application that we have we are not objecting in principle to the side extension we are opposed to the demolition of the chimney stack otherwise we are content with this application is that right or is content to I see mr. Just should we I mean I asked about the materials but I mean I presumably do we know it's going to be the same bond of brick and things like that because it would be pretty right yeah okay sorry mr. Armstrong can I just sort of ask there are two chimney stacks aren't there here they were proposing just to remove the front one there are two yeah yeah are they removing also the rear one no just just the front one in this application okay if is is that as is that agreed we accept in principle it should be can the materials bonding etc should be conditioned but no removal of the chimney stack okay let us move on then to 2025 0 0 double 6 6 so it's actually the next in the sequence the number sequence thank you yep so also three at the street this one is alterations including erection of a mansard roof extension to the main rear roof and extension above two-story back addition so again you know the same site same heritage context at this time it's just reserved to the roof they are proposing to put a small skylight at the front which I think is shown better in the next slide actually yeah so you can see the existing on the left and on the right they're proposing a small skylight at the front and on the side and then to the rear they are extending the dormer and the height and once you see it in elevation you'll you'll appreciate that they are raising the height I call it this the spine of the outrigger I'm not sure if there's a technical term but there's potential for visibility of that from Orville Street I think it's called yep so there is the skylight proposed flush conservation style roof light to match existing character and appearance existing front pitched roof to remain as existing no impact to street scene and then this is the existing roof elevation and then here you can see the extension at the roof existing which level to remain is existing to the front main part of the building but the proposed rear mansard roof dormers will be 70 degrees in pitch with slates to match existing they've mentioned that there are similar precedents with some mansard roof extensions to be found in the area they're proposing the lead dormer with sash windows to add a sense of character to the building and match existing appearance no outlook onto any neighboring properties and then yes existing chimney breast stack will be removed proposed wall filled with yellow london stock brick to match existing character do we have a side okay um as usual any questions relating to to this alternative proposal well no everything clear right comment there on i see mr arms one with his finger well i um um i would like to suggest that they ought to be keeping the rear main chimney stack as well because it's visible widely and it's a important feature of the group of 70 such houses and the last skin one of my may have extended it when it was first built can i accept that point but repeat on mike what i said as a aside just now this is not an alternative scheme this is an additional scheme so they'd do both if they got permission for both and i think we we have to be clear about that but the one doesn't preclude the other but i think we're going to say aren't we we're not we're not we're not going to uh well if it's our recommendation is that they should not be allowed to remove the chimney stack so both chimney stacks remain but are we again in principle um accepting this application with that very significant caveat as well as the the caveats as before you know about materials etc content conflites all that stuff yes okay let's move on uh 20 25 0 3 double 7 st john's avenue putney i think this is one where we're probably not going to comment as a society in fact i think we've already looked at it and decided not to comment to the society because essentially apart from the judgment about whether or not they should have that thing that's masquerading as a garage but isn't um there's nothing there's nothing to see from any realistic angle okay okay let's let's go ahead with the presentation is this you miss bade thank you chair so um as noted 29 st john's avenue so it's a pair of one of a pair of semi-detached buildings within the west putney conservation areas you can see here with the listed church towards the north here within its context so you have a three-story building mid-19th century victorian semi-detached building with um with a basement this is showing it towards the rear so it has a hip roof and then it has sort of another wing uh towards the rear that has a separate hipped roof as you can see here it's quite an italianate style to it with the the deep eaves and corbel corbels it has quite an interesting arrangement at first floor level with the windows projecting like aureole windows which is quite a difference from its neighbor and this is probably one of the best pictures and i didn't include that in the original presentation that i sent out we sent out yesterday just looking at it in its immediate context with its neighbor you'll see next door there is a side extension uh present which is a garage style extension and then burst and burst and road looking at it so the front elevation as well as the side elevation which is also visible from within public areas of the conservation area and you see that that wing towards the back that actually projects out slightly further than the front wing which is uh wanted to i wanted to highlight that because that forms part of the application in terms of extensions so as existing you see there it has a dormer towards the rear fairly modest dormer towards the rear part of the the front part of the buildings with the rear pitch of that of that hip with two uh roof lights on the front and as proposed there's a few um proposals um that are coming forward for this application so the roof light towards the front is being replaced with three conservation style roof lights as you'll see towards the front the dormer towards the rear is being enlarged quite considerably with new windows within it and a what appears to be air conditioning unit proposed on the rear wall of that that extension or that dormer side extension will be partially basement and partially ground floor extension which seeks to replicate some of the detailing of the next door neighbor with an aureole window of above a set of double doors here you'll see this is on the right elevation as existing and as proposed not much change on that side that's obviously the side that is attached to its neighbor but the left the left elevation you'll see some changes and just to note here so this is the extension here so so partially at basement level and then at ground floor level so slightly more than a single story and then here if i quickly flick back you have this single story very small element at this point which stops at ground floor level this will be raised up all the way with a flat roof all the way up to the eaves level to extend out this rear wing here it will come up almost up to the staircase window which is currently an arch window with stained glass there is a basement also proposed but largely those are those the manifestations associated with that extension rear extension is is these roof lights here that are being introduced within within the garden here you'll see the footprint of the building so it will be flush with the building unlike we saw with three edness street so there won't be any setback it will be flush and partially a storeroom at basement level and then a small section of that being used as a downstairs toilet at ground floor level at roof level you see here this is the existing roof plans and then the loft the loft the loft plans as well and as proposed you see here there's a quite a bigger quite a big difference in the in the dormer here and that's where you see this extension just picking up so it's a relatively small extension slightly set in just in here which is to accommodate some cupboards within those upper floors and this is just giving you some sections of some of those extensions as proposed include you see here this this small side extension that rises up just at ease level which will accommodate just some extra cupboards and then the dormer at the top and then these are some cross sections showing that that side extension between basement and ground floor level so it would be good to get the committee's views on these proposals the officers have raised a couple of points about some additional information just in relation to some of the front garden works i think the last image here does give an indication of some of those front garden works as well um there's not an awful lot of information if you see here there's some of some changes with sliding gate introduced as well uh which isn't showing in great detail in in some of these uh drawings so uh the officers have requested a bit more information as to what these will look like it's quite basic at the moment thank you all right thank you um any questions um anything's unclear about the proposal mr catter uh yes just uh is the clarification is the front garden paving specified as permeable um because this is a big concern in particular in that part of partly this is what we're seeking clarification on it's one of the matters that we're asking because if it's not permeable that there is uh it does technically need permission if it's non-permeable so it needs to form part of the application if it's permeable it doesn't necessarily need to form part of the application okay comments um mr catter i think has recused himself from making any comments um comments from anyone else do we really not have anything to say about this mr dodgson could i revert to a question rather than a comment would it be possible for you to show again the uh all right they said that that is the proposed on the right is it so at the moment there is the v-shaped um i don't recall impediment is that none of that is there at present i have to say i mean these are very fine buildings and i think despite the fact others have done this to their buildings i don't think i think it detracts considerably from really high quality architecture i know they've done it on the right uh i couldn't get my google google maps to show that that that in that way so that's really helpful i they are really fine and i just think adding a sort of really rather awful sort of pediment like that which has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the architecture is is inappropriate in my view yes can i just pick up on that um you can see in google maps it's also that funny thing to the the right which looks as if it was sort of you know added um without thought um on the house next door is there's a garage isn't it so it's actually you know somebody just built that as a garage whereas they're trying to do something completely different on their house aren't they but trying to um sort of have a bit of the character of the funny addition on the right which just just to me just seems a bit odd i know that obviously they want to sort of keep it in line but it's all a bit odd pastiche of a pastiche thank you uh mr armstrong yeah i'm agreeing with uh mr dodgson that i don't really think it uh helps the it's a very fine house and i think it rather detracts from it the that sort of strange extension i think they seem to be spending a lot of money to achieve not very much space at the side i mean that is extreme extremely expensive work to achieve a few little cupboards so what is the point um may i suggest what the point seems to be although i can't see that they're getting value for those cupboards is that every square meter in a prime site is worth more than the cost of building it unless you really go overboard and for some people that's all that matters um i i think those issues um i'm not referring back to our earlier discussion on our terms of preference uh i think are beyond our remit um i i agree but you know you we we do sort of wonder sometimes um it's also true of the storage and replacement downstairs luke's already got one um which is now we're going to become redundant um there does seem to be a lot of money spent for no apparent reason but that is not as the chair has rightly pointed out something we should consider we should consider the heritage these houses um they rebuild their left is a rebuild after bomb damage but basically um um these houses are wrapped the three streets wrapped around that church and later the church itself represent the very earliest suburban development of partnery after the arrival of the railway um which is so they are early early of um suburban partnery i can put it that way and therefore significant more so than there than you might at first glance realize you only have to go four doors down the road and you're you're 30 years later okay i have to say i i agree about i mean the awfulness of the of the of the pediment of on uh garage um on the the adjoining joining house um and and i think i very much agree with um with council owens i can see no reason why that has to be replicated but apart from that you know the the extension itself seems to me unremarkable so i think we are commenting on this application rather than saying we're uh we're four or again in is that acceptable okay well i i'm i'm against it um is that are we not allowed to be against it i mean i was just trying to reflect the significantly detracts from the from the streets is the objection to the i mean just thinking of you know what we are passing on to officers and uh to the applicant uh are we objecting to the look of the extension from the from the front or are we objecting to the extension itself mr armstrong well i'd like to object to the whole thing really especially as you know i now have heard that these are one of some of the part of the earliest development housing development in that part of putney is that what we're saying yes i think the phrase comes to mind the two wrongs don't make a right copying next door's ugly extension is not necessarily um responding to the context in a sensible way um responding to the context in a sensible way miss greenwood what about the landscaping and that um paving enhanced anything or am i wrong i confess i didn't pay much attention when i looked at this to um the to what they were doing in the front garden and the sliding vehicular gate to use a cliche i have used earlier this evening i think it's a bird that has flown a long time ago but we are nevertheless objecting to in principle to the side extension and i'm just yes but i think we should also refer chairman to to the the appearance of the you know the pediment and that that design not just the principle both yes okay okay are we done can i just can i just quickly check so it's just the side extension because obviously there's the side extension to accommodate the extra cupboard so the committee members are not opposed to that or the extension of the dormer it's specifically the sort of garage style extension that's between basement and ground floor i don't know when i think that i speaking personally i find it difficult to object to the dormer okay have you got enough there um mr burnham uh let us move on to the last one uh 0603 uh 14 clapham common west side thank you chair last one on the the agenda for this evening so 14 clapham common west side as it says in the the address this is within clapham common constellation area you see it's part of a a small terrace of three houses that is situated to the south of sumber road but overlooking clapham common here you see it within its context looking from from google earth so we're looking at the building on the southern part of this terrace group as a typical late 19th century uh terrace with can two storey canted bay windows and a projecting gable red brick and then you've got your stock brick elevations towards the rear with the outrigger uh a typical outrigger two-story outrigger towards the rear it already has a dormer extension quite a modest dormer extension within the rear part of the main roof as you'll see it's it's blocked slightly with the um the marker here it is within its context so there is a consistency across these three groups you know in just in the corner there there's been some other roof extensions within this part of clapham common you see a glass box that is just peeking up towards the side but note that if you look within its context if you've got quite a kind of art deco flat development further towards the south of the site but then you've got slightly taller terraces further towards the north with three stories and that's one of the buildings that end that's got that glazed extension i see on street view it's difficult to actually see that extension as built because the uh it's changes to 2020 when you start going down the side streets so here again you see it within its wider context looking back down towards the south with a very consistent roof line to these buildings with those projecting gables being quite prominent and the canted bay windows and uh we've included this view because of the proposals as they are coming forward do relate to that rear dormer that you see peeking up just towards the rear picture of the building and then this is the rear elevation from sumber sumber road you can see there's a quite consistent for uniformity of the outriggers here with their um with their pitch roofs so there is a degree of visibility towards the rear parts of these buildings because of its orientation towards sumber road so noting that some of these drawings are not particularly accurate we've brought this to committee but we raised have obviously raised concerns already with the case officer with regards to the drawings uh so it would be a just an imprincipal view from the committee at this stage but noting that these drawings are not particularly um good in terms of showing that level of detail so a number of changes proposed for this so they're looking to uh increase the size of the rear dormer here so uh this rear dormer was the rear part of the main roof so it's being extended further up towards the ridge line and further towards the the side elevation we'll show you at the roof form to to give you an illustration of what that is this elevation which will perform a largely kind of gable will be fully glazed uh but brought much closer towards that the side elevation towards the front uh this is where i think the drawings can be a a difficult to quite discern but for what we can see is that there's going to be a cut out in the front pitch that will allow for a terrace to be introduced with a black frame double glazed door so it'll be set back when you look if you have a look at when we have a look at the internal level elevations you can see it's a setback in so there will be a cut out into the roof noted that none of these buildings have these but there is historic terraces on the other group that i referred to the set of four terraces further north north from this building but i've looked through planning history and all of these are quite historic so there's not any recent examples of these front terraces where you cut out part of the roof so as we say as existing on the side elevation and as proposed so you see this is the new much larger rear dormer what you see in blue is what will be fully glazed with a metal frame that is supporting that glazing here the existing roof form so you see the extent of the of that rear extension and that's so this is where it will be extended so the red is where it will be extended to so it'll be quite a bit larger here you see there's a new roof light that will be added very close to the terrace and this will be that's the entrance door to this terrace so it'll be set quite back so this will all be a flat terrace towards the front so a large chunk of that front roof will be taken out for a front terrace with railings proposed and that door set back close to eaves sorry close to the um the ridge line the building and i think that's it as i said the drawings are not particularly great and we really acknowledge that so it really is an understanding of the principles of these external works in relation to this building thank you well thank you um i confess i was the person who drew um miss way's attention to this this application um because it did seem to me extraordinary that it had got through um a validation because the drawings are so poor and which makes it quite difficult to understand fully what they are proposing to do uh but sorry that's by the by any questions to start with uh i hesitate to say any questions about what is not clear because i think quite a lot is not clear could we see the front elevation again please the proposed the proposed or the existing well that's that's is that proposed any other questions okay comments i i saw as this uh presentation went on lots of head shaking going on um i'll start with mr armstrong yeah i have already objected to this i think on behalf of clapton society i mean i do think i i did have great difficulty in understanding the drawings and i do have difficulty in understanding why they want to do this but it looks very poor um in relation i mean it's very prominent building because it's the first one in the terrace and it you can view it from the common opposite and you can view it you'd be able to see the side um glazed uh extension i would have thought from the comps just not very uh nice in terms of uh the effect on the uh terrace and the building so i don't think it should be approved councillor owens i suppose for me i mean agree with everything that said it's just so weird that that balcony on the um at the top i owned a house not not more than 10 minute walk from there it's victorian for 15 years that um has a on the first floor actually strangely it was done obviously by the builder in a 1910 or whenever it was a a bug i actually have about had a balcony just like that but on the first floor but i mean i've never seen a house without on the on the loft locally and i'm north i know that i think that house is in bannum because it's right beside in the bannum ward because it's 30 it's the other side of 30 road isn't it um but yes i mean that alone it's just so bizarre and whether it was you could see it from clapham common or from the from any of the roads i've not seen that okay mr dodgson i think i can answer councillor owens remark there is actually one just like it three doors down on the end of the next terrace and it does strike me that um the design process was to walk around the area between the commons and pick up all of the um show off glazed stuff that other people have got pile them all into one application and here it is um because yes the precedent seems to be collecting everything that this panel might um might uh dislike and um i think i said earlier about this about the last application to a degree um two wrongs don't make a right the fact that someone else has got one of these that somehow in fact i can think of two or three in the area that sneaked through um at some point and doesn't make this right in any way just miss way i just want to add to that so i've put this image back on because you can see just about the railings of these what they're seeking to largely replicate on this building the pitch is much shallower on this tear on this terrace yes um so the roof is not as prominent so the facades are the most prominent features um whereas these buildings it's it's quite a nice balanced composition where you've got the roof will be is a lot more caught a lot more visually prominent at this point it's a very small space as well so if you have a look here that's roughly where that terrace will be going um very excuse me very close to the edge will that railings come up at 1.1 meters to allow for there to be a safe use of that terrace and so you'll have railings coming up at this point very close to that gable and then a cut into the roof there so it will be quite different from what's historically taken place on these buildings here where the roof is not as visually prominent as this group of three could i ask um do you know when the planning permission was granted for the one in the other group of in the other terrace i actually try to find the planning history for some of these i can't find any planning history for any of the terraces on that on that northern group so it might they might be quite an old terrace they might looking through so it might have been pre before the conservation area was designated which was obviously quite early the box on the back of the second of the other terrace looks quite modern to me there's a sort of glass box on the back oh i didn't check that one apologies i can check that for you um oliver can check that's the date that will change my opinion of it but i i might have views i think it's wholly inappropriate um the the the balcony at the front destroys the appearance of the terrace from the street and because of the side you know the ability to see it on the side i think the box on the back which as far as i can make out is larger than the existing um again it's too large thank you so i think what we're what we're saying is that we don't have full information about this and it is essential um that the applicant is told that they've got to provide a proper set of drawings a b we object strongly to the insertion of the um of the access to the um the access from the roof and the cutting away of of the roof and the insertion of this sort of terrace um beside the the gable on the front elevation uh and we equally as strongly it seems to me object to the box um extension at at the back with its glazed um frontage to the to the street which completely to my mind destroys the the the uh the appearance of the you know a quite you know standard sort of um rear and and side side wall i mean it would be so obtrusive and highly visible not just from sunborough street um but from uh from the common as as you can see in that in that picture um does that go far enough are there other points that we want to make i mean i think they're also more attractive houses than the the next set along that has got the front roof terrace i mean they are they are more attractive yes and they're three-story house they're three-story houses rather than two stories with with those gables in fact i think i might make that point but it's not really one that we should comment on but they've borrowed an idea from a house that's a story taller and further down the road if they put that glass box on then you will be in a way then if you try to use that as a bedroom and it is a top floor room you'll be overlooked in a big glass wall with no curtain from the flats next door they haven't spotted that is there anything that we want to add to our objection is it worth justifying it though by saying that that because the the it is more more visible than other similar extensions on taller properties or something of that nature because it will be no oh absolutely it's it's a corner property um um facing facing the the common because it's two stories rather than three stories um and and so on yeah okay and um i mean if we wanted to go to town we would we would make reference to uh various policies in the london uh in mppf london plan and local plan uh that make this completely unacceptable yeah and a whole load of others i suspect okay thanks very much that's the last of the applications uh next item item item five you have uh paper 25132 on page 21 of your pack if you've done it in pack form which is the applications that have been determined uh just to note that um the um waterfall house which has already been mentioned was refused and has gone to appeal um um i wouldn't rate not for minuting but i wouldn't rate their chances of success of the bill um the the the banners at the town hall was rightly withdrawn um the uh northcorp public public public house um was um planning uh planning approval was was given by delegated authority but i think um they took account of the points that we made about materials which i think was the the the main burden um of what we had to say on that application uh and the other the final one we have the the other waterfall house application from back in 2023 was in the end um approved that was for some um um internal alterations uh wasn't it um miss lawson and i mean i think again our our objection was on really on the on the grounds of the awful messing around with this building that has gone on over the years okay is there any other business uh councillor belton very briefly chair on the um the last paper i found it particularly confusing i think i said this before distinguishing between the committee and the committee um it would be um it would be useful from my point of view if it said pack and jack at least i know which they are yes um the committee and the committee i guess i'm all over the place on some of those i think you better have a conversation with mr burnham uh if not uh if not the chief executive um future meeting dates um we meet again on the 6th of may and uh at my request i plead guilty to this um i asked that the uh 17th of july meeting be changed to the 14th of july is that acceptable i don't think i haven't heard i don't know i don't think mr burnham has heard of anyone objecting to that okay and then the the other dates i think have already have previously been notified in any case is there any other other business anything right no i declare the meeting closed um just for callum's reference i'm giving my apologies in advance for may i will see to see if we can send somebody else
Transcript
Good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jobb and I'm chair of the committee. I will now call each member's name. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you've done that, please remember to switch off your microphone. and might I suggest, as I always do, that you do something to stop your phone interrupting the meeting and embarrassing yourself. So I start with Councillor Belton. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward. Councillor Osborne. Yes, good evening, everybody. Councillor Osborne. Mark Dodgson, the Ballam Society. Good evening. Roger Armstrong, Clapham Society. Good evening, everyone. Roger Armstrong. I believe that Francis Radcliffe may be arriving late. from the Friends of Battersea Park. Andrew Cato. Good evening, panel. Edward Potter from the RIBA. Good evening. Libby Lawson, Tooting History Group. Good evening. Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society. Good evening, everyone. and Peter Farrow from Wandsworth Society. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Do we have any other apologies? No, only from Francis, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Perhaps this would be a good point. Oh, no. Let me go on to the following officers are also present. Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Chair. And Oliver Taylor. Welcome to his first meeting, I think. Thank you. Good evening. And the Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham. Good evening. Okay. Perhaps this would be a good point at which to report that the River Thames Society has decided that for the moment it does not wish to continue membership of this committee. I think that it would be appropriate if we were to minute our thanks to Chris Rice, who served in that capacity for a number of years. And if we could write to him to that effect, please. Okay. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest, financial or of any other kind? If not, let us then move on to the minutes of the meeting held on the 28th of January. First of all, are they a correct record? Or are there any amendments? Okay. In that case, after the meeting, I will sign the record copy of the minutes. Matters arising. Let me go through page by page. On my copy of the papers for this meeting, they come up at page three. So any items on page three? On page four, I don't think this will arise otherwise. On the agenda. Can Lauren Way report on the progress of the local listing process, which has now ended? Thank you, Chair. So, yes. So the public consultation came to a close on the 28th of February. So officers with my team are just correlating all of the responses now. So we have got two projects running concurrently. So we have the historic street signs project, whereby we are looking at all of the nominations and lists that have been sent through from the societies to put together a single list that will be sent on to the highways team to inform the potential works for restoration of the street signs, street sign project. So that's ongoing and in progress. And then the other line of work is the local listing enhancement project, which is looking at the nominations for the local listing. So we're putting together a full list that we can take to the transport committee at a future date to add them to the local list. So that's just being correlated at the moment. And we're also looking at all of the information that has been provided by residents and societies to enhance the existing list locally list entries. And we're working with the with our GIS team to find ways in which we can actually show that on the web page. At the moment, it's it's not particularly good mapping system. So we're working with them to improve that so that things like the images that were provided in 2018 and this public consultation can now be shown when you hover or click on that locally listed building or structure. So it is in progress at the moment. And I will keep giving the committee updates for each committee on how we're progressing. But we have got dedicated officers in the team that are progressing those particular projects. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions on that? Let me just underscore the importance of getting all the information publicly available on the website, getting rid of the absence of links and the broken links, of which I think there are some still. Thank you very much. The other item just further down that page, Furs Down Lodge. Can you give us an update on the position there, please? Certainly. So an application for change of use of Furs Down Lodge was submitted to the planning authority. This has since been withdrawn on the basis that concerns were raised regarding the change of use and its impact on particularly the metropolitan open land. So at the moment the applicants are putting together a package of information to support a future application for the lodge that seeks to address some of the issues raised by the planning department. And they will engage with pre-application engagement with officers prior to submitting the application so that any issues can be ironed out at that stage. I think that's all we can say at this stage. I guess the obvious question which people will want to ask, so I'll ask it, is whether that means that the deterioration of Furs Down Lodge will continue? I don't believe so, no, because I think as part of the lease they have to maintain the building in a certain condition while these engagements are taking place. It's not in their best interest to allow it to fall into further disrepair, I suppose, because that's just additional cost for them when it comes to the actual works taking place. Understood. I hope therefore that the council also will keep an eye on that issue, which as everyone round the table will remember, that's been a major concern for us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other matters arising? I'll go on to page five. Page six. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, I understand that an appeal has been made in respect of Waterfall House. The advert. Yes. That's correct. Yes. So they've submitted an appeal for that one. So it's just being put through the process at the moment and is with officers to put their appeal statement together. Great. Thank you. Thank you. They're not intended to weaken our position, but rather to strengthen it. I think the clue to our position is in our title. We're the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. Conservation and Heritage is the focus of what we do. And we are advisory. We are not a decision-making body. The best that we can do is to make recommendations which either are or are not accepted either at the service officer level or at the Planning Applications Committee subsequently. I think it's important in this context to recognize that the planning regime in which we operate and which has operated in this country for the last 70-odd years requires everyone in the planning process to take balanced decisions based on policies which are now set out in three key documents. I suppose, I suppose, at national level, the MPPF, at London level, the London plan, and at borough level in the local plan. And so everything we do is in the context set by the policies set out in those plans in which conservation and heritage issues are covered more or less satisfactorily. There is room for disagreement or not, agreement or not on those issues. I think we've always been aware, and I think member societies are aware, that there is always a risk that conservation and heritage issues are not taken as seriously as we take them. By other people involved in the planning process, whether they are some planning officers and sometimes councillors who have to make decisions in this borough, which is called the planning applications committee. So there is always a risk that what we say is ignored, and I think we need to recognize that risk. And I think the discussions that took place in November in this committee were very much about trying to find out how we could avoid that risk, or mitigate that risk, at least to some extent, by strengthening the advice and the recommendations that we make. And we do that by presenting more evidence and by formulating our advice in the light of the policies set out in those three documents that I've mentioned. I might add, as a rider to that, the Battersea Society, which I represented here, almost invariably, when it comments on applications, makes reference to policies at one or more of those levels. Because we believe that that strengthens the kinds of representations that we make. Now, some of you may be aware that a publication called Putney News has issued an article which alleges that the proposed changes to the terms of reference represent a plot by the council, a plot to make it easier to demolish historic buildings, to encroach on conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, and to disregard community concerns. I can't believe that anyone sitting around that table, this table, would accept that interpretation of what the changes are attempting to do. And even if they did, of course, they would not accept those changes. I also find it very difficult to conceive of a committee made up of representatives of civic societies who would willingly accept a risk of making it easier to demolish historic buildings, to set aside concerns, to encroach on heritage assets, and so on. But if you read, those of you who've seen it, the article more closely, actually you'll find that it's concerned above all with the mention of the three documents that I cited, the MPPF, the London Plan, and the local plan, which are described as highly political documents. Legislation, white papers, of all kinds, of course, are the result of a political process. Yes, I think we have to accept that. But it argues that it would be okay if the amendments that are proposed were restricted to, and I quote, simply a referral to wider issues, or to the social and economic impacts of the proposals that we consider around this table. I have to say, I would be strongly opposed to any reference to the wider social and economic impacts, because I think that would really risk driving a coach and horses through what we do. So I think that on all kinds of levels, this article is barking up a completely wrong tree. Now, having said all that, the amendments that have been put forward, which I, in the main, represent what I suggested, I recognize that there is room for people to disagree, for good and honest people to have good and honest disagreements about the changes, and I shall listen very carefully to what people have to say about them. I do believe that the objections are, at best, overstated, and at worst, based on complete misunderstandings of the way in which the planning system works in general, and the way in which this committee works in particular. But, I've said my piece on it, I want now to hear what other people have to say. And I see, first of all, Andrew Cato. Firstly, thank you, Chair. I had a conversation on Monday evening, because it was the Putney Society's AGM, the editor of Putney News, his own publication, it's only online, has a readership of about 400, he tells me, was there. So I went up and introduced myself as the Putney Society's representative on this committee, because I thought I ought to, and basically put him straight, I hope. Whether he listened, I don't know. I'm afraid he is one of the very large number of people who have fallen for the spin, dare I put it that way, that comes from DHLUC, or whatever they're called these days, sorry, local government, anyway. The Department of Local Government and whatever it's called these days, communities, yes. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Yes, anyway, them. That planning, but changes to planning policy can get stuff built. Actually, we all know that planning policy is entirely about what you can't do. And I had to put him straight on that very clearly, and that therefore, in my view, the more things we have to take, we are allowed to take into consideration, the more we can find something that says you can't do what we don't want you to do, as officers are very keen to do when it's appropriate from them. So I very much think we should keep this, and indeed, if anything, after the London Plan and the Local Plan, add other published policies. Other points? Mark Dodgson. Thank you, Chairman. I'm afraid I wasn't at the last meeting, unfortunately, and I'm not sure if I was at the previous one. I'm slightly unclear. What is the problem we're trying to resolve by adding this into our remit? Is it that we've been criticised for mentioning other policies whose subject matter is not conservation areas and listed buildings, or what? I'm not quite clear why we need to actually have this addition to our remit. Let me answer that first before other people come in. The problem that I think arose is that we were being asked to provide more than straight conservation advice, to provide ammunition, if you like, to councillors and others who were concerned that conservation advice alone would not carry the same weight if it didn't refer to other kinds of issues that are raised in policy. That was the concern, that strictly restricting the remit of this committee to advice on conservation matters meant that there was a risk that the advice would simply be ignored. And, of course, I mean, there is plenty of evidence that that has happened in the past. That, I mean, anyone who has sat around this table for any time will be able to recall cases where this committee has recommended refusal of an application and it has been accepted, the planning application has been accepted, either by delegated powers by office, under delegated powers by officers, or by the PAC. Of course, those officers taking decisions and PAC inevitably has to take other issues into account because, as I began by saying, the whole planning regime in this country for the last 70 years has been based on balancing of arguments relating to a whole series of spatial planning and other planning issues alongside conservation. So why should we simply restrict ourselves to commenting on conservation and heritage issues and thus potentially opening ourselves to the risk of being ignored? May I just respond to that? So it's picking and choosing the other policies that suit us to support our case for conservation. Is that really what we're saying? Because there'll be plenty of policies in the armory of the planning department where our view on a particular building or area might be at odds with their intentions to fulfil certain planning criteria. Of course, when balancing arguments about harms against benefits, which is essentially the essence, as in my understanding of how planning decisions are made in this country and have been made for the past 70 years, then the weight that one gives to conservation on the one hand to transport issues, to housing issues, to a whole host of other issues covered by those policies, those are matters of judgment and the weight that you or I might give to them around this table could be quite legitimately different from the weight given to different parts of the policy frameworks by other people. That's all I'm saying. If I may. I think we shouldn't be too burdened by the Putney News comments on the proposal because I think they do misunderstand the principle and the purpose of what it is that's proposed. But I do think they're probably right in thinking that we shouldn't include the proposed changes. The National Planning Policy Framework, the London and the Local Plan, have excellent sections on conservation and heritage and how to deal with them. and we could and should be guided by what they say, but they are only a part of the overall planning policies which those documents contain. I think our job is to advocate for heritage assets, listed buildings, locally listed national conservation areas and parks and parks and things like that. And that's what we should do. I cannot see that adding something other than the heritage aspects of the three levels of planning policy documents, I can't see what we can do when we come to make a comment on an application because we say that on the basis of our view of the heritage assets, it's a good scheme or a bad scheme. But if we then say, for example, if we're trying to oppose a scheme, oh, it's a jolly good scheme, but taking into consideration the need for affordable housing, we think that the application should proceed. I don't think that's our job. I think that's the job of the Planning Applications Committee and those that formulate policy if we're considering conservation areas. So I don't think there's a need to add this into our objectives. I think that reiterating, our job is to advocate for heritage assets. It's the job of others to do the weighing and the balancing. If we say at the end of any comments that we make, yes, we are aware of other planning issues, I mean, that's not adding a great deal to what it is that we have said. I think also that... Well, I've said enough for a while. I'll happily... I see you hovering. Councillor Belton. Thank you, Chair. I think I must confess to a bit of guilt in this. I was at the meeting two meetings ago and I was making a particular point about a particular application. And I think after many years on the Planning Applications Committee, I could hardly bear to tell you when I was first on it, but it was a long, long time ago. And having seen many applications go through or indeed been thrown out with some comment from Jack or its predecessor about what they thought. I am very used, if I may say so, to the Planning Committee members being pretty dismissive of what this committee or its predecessor thought. Dismissive in the sense of, oh, that's all about heritage. They would say that, wouldn't they? And what I was really trying to get at on a very particular application that we need to talk about now, but lots of people will know which one I'm talking about, which has things to be said for it and very serious heritage things to be said against it. The comment that was likely to come through to the Applications Committee was likely to be, and I'm being very crude here after the detail that you guys have given. I feel weak in presenting this. But the comment would come through that the check were against the proposal for a couple of reasons. And it's so easy when, in my experience, it's been so easy for many years for the Planning Applications Committee members, not all of them, but some members, to say, well, that heritage always say that sort of stuff. That's what you always get. And they're not necessarily terribly aware of how very, very planning-oriented this committee is. I mean, I think that would surprise many of... So I'm, in a way, just wanted to say, and I totally take your point, by the way, about this up to the Planning Applications Committee to make the assessment. But I'd just like to comment, and maybe this is a way the report is written and nothing to do with this committee at all. Maybe. I'd just like it to say, whilst it was drawn to... whilst CHAC were very aware of all the benefits of this scheme, for this reason or that reason, putting all that to one side from a heritage point of view. So it just gave an acknowledgement that this committee knew about these other issues. I think without that, Planning Applications Committee members are meant to think... sorry, tend to think, oh, we're under pressure from government to provide more housing. We're under pressure to do this. we've got a housing waiting list this long. We must do this, that, and the other. They don't fuss about all these other problems. And that's all I wanted, really, was to make the committee aware that the decisions of this committee are made in a very much broader sense. Sorry, not a broader sense, with a broader knowledge of the pressures, which you two have both been expressing, actually. You're both very well aware of it. It doesn't come over to the Planning Application Committee members. And that's really what I wanted to do. And I think what I'm really intrigued about is being somewhat responsible as the Chair of the Planning Applications is... I'm very intrigued about is where this came from. The actual... Was it you, Chair, may I ask? Because it wasn't me. And it wasn't any committee that I know of. And I... There's no name on the bottom of this. It just says on the item on the agenda from the Chief Executive. Now, I've got a lot of time for the Chief Executive's capabilities and so on, but I doubt whether he got to this. So I was very intrigued by where it came from. It came essentially from me. Oh, dear. Okay. Fine, fine. That's okay. Are there any further comments from people who haven't made comments up to now? No? In that case, I'll take... Okay. Mr. Dodgson and then Mr. Cato. And then I think we need to come to a decision. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little nervous that the phrase taking account as appropriate could be read as taking into account as appropriate by others. In other words, it could be read as saying that we... When making our comments or advice, we have to take into account all these other policies, which is the very reverse of what I think our role is. So I am very nervous of that wording. Thank you. The rest of what I would like to say, Chair, so small points of text and what have you. B and C, I think conservation areas and statutory listed and locally listed buildings should be or, not and. and that in E, I think possible suggestions is tautological and we just need suggestions. Tiny points well taken. Could I just comment on Mr. Dodgson's comment? Would where appropriate meet his problem? Where appropriate of the full range of policies? Sorry, I don't understand how that would work. Taking account. But it's not the appropriate, it's the fact that it's taking account. It sounds like taking into account to me. Sorry, I thought I saw a relatively straightforward way, but perhaps not. I mean, how about something more neutral, like whilst being aware of all the other issues, something more like that, whilst being aware of the considerable benefits and the complexities of the scheme, whatever it is, something that just recognizes that you're actually aware of a bit, I can only repeat what I've said before really, that I am impressed after a few years on this as well, fundamentally how much more members of this committee know about the planning process and theories than many of my colleagues on the applications committee who may find themselves there, not by choice, but the party has to put in someone there, as it were. So, I just wanted to make the committee aware of that. I think it's difficult to do drafting round a table, and I think there probably is a way, you know, using words like being aware of while being aware as appropriate or whatever. There is a way of making it clear that our terms of reference are different from the terms of reference of the PAC, which has to take decisions taking account, that do take full account of all the policies. Would it be acceptable for me in concert with the officers to come back with a slightly revised form of wording of that kind? But if I may an addendum, you've just said that we're not the Planning Applications Committee, and you've also sort of said that we are going to do what they do by taking into account all the planning policies. I really don't think there is a need to add this to our terms of reference. if what is required is that we try and get the Planning Applications Committee to take us more seriously, we have to put in better comments. I don't think simply saying and taking into consideration all the other planning issues is going to add much weight to an argument about the value of a heritage asset. If Planning Applications Committee and others don't take heritage very seriously, I'm afraid it's the nature of the beast. If you are advocating for heritage, there's a tendency to see it as regressive, reactionary, not very progressive. We have to live with that. What we have to do is make our comments more powerful and more forceful. I don't think a kind of, forgive me, a token remark or aside that we have considered all other planning policy issues is going to be terribly effective. I think what we do is we maintain our advocacy for heritage assets on the basis of the principles in the three plans that we have discussed and leave it at that. I don't think there is much to be gained by this and I think we do open ourselves up to misunderstanding as has happened if we leave it in. Obviously, I think it would be better not to come to a decision tonight and perhaps we can brood upon it before our next meeting. Okay, thank you. I think we have two options in front of us. One is to take this away and attempt some word crafting. The other is to abandon the proposal altogether. And I think I'm prepared to take a vote on that. I mean, I think the issues have been fairly clearly aired. So, could I ask for a vote on whether we should proceed on the basis that some further work is done on the wording, which we will bring back to the next meeting? All those in favour? or should we abandon the enterprise altogether? I think the majority is pretty clear there. I don't want it to be taken that simply because we have agreed not to abandon it, that a reworking is going to finish up being acceptable. Of course, that is, I mean, that is, the committee, it will come back to the committee and the committee will decide. Okay, I'll take one more comment, Mr. Cato. It's not a comment, it's just a report that obviously, ahead of this, I re-read all of this, stumbled across item 7 about representatives of other bodies. which has prompted me to contact the Victorian Society because one of their board members is also on my panel but I haven't had a reply yet. I think they're the most appropriate one of all of those given the age of the building stock in most of the borough. if I may say when I was considering what to think about this I looked up the issue of statutory consultees in the planning system and we've got a variety of the Victorian Society, 20th Century Society, SBAB, Georgian Group and others and I looked at all their objectives in terms of reference and they focus on what it is that I think is our core policy. They don't distract themselves by the need to reference other policies. There is one other issue which I confess I hadn't spotted until Miss Greenwood pointed it out to me that the ones with historical society which she represents and has represented around this table for considerable time is not specified in the list of members and I think that needs to be rectified forthwith. I was going to say thank you and also perhaps we should include other border organisations like Richmond Society and Merton Historical rather than just Streatham and Wimbledon because there are other people that share bits of heritage around the edges. I'm not averse to that except I think we should guard against getting too many people around this table. My understanding is that we have asked for representatives from Wimbledon and from Streatham without success without success. Is that right? My understanding Chair is in the past yes we have reached out to them. I don't think we've reached out to them particularly recently at least since I joined the council. I'm happy to do so again if we feel that's valuable. I have reached out on a separate matter to as you mentioned earlier the River Thames Society and the Royal Town Planning Institute who have put a note out in their bulletin to try and get a member back to the committee. If members want to I'm very happy to write to other societies. The gap that we were talking about for Wimbledon is covered in part at least by both the Sutherland Grove Residence Association and the Southfield's grid but neither of them really covers a big enough area but they might be asked. That area is also part of what I would have thought was wonderful society's remit as well. the Wimbledon Society lists the streets that they actually cover in planning and those are all in the borough of Merton and not in Wandsworth which I think SW19 might have been added at the time of Wandsworth was originally in the LCC and then in 1964 London expanded and maybe there was already part of SW19 in the LCC bit. I don't know. I was rather young at the time. I'm not concerned with planning. so I think that might be one of the things just like I live on the edge of that and some of the phone numbers are Putney numbers. There's a complete mishmash of things going on that I think developed from that time. I think it was Battersea within the LCC. I think Wandsworth was outside the LCC. Was it the ILEA? Outside the ILEA. Anyway. I don't know the boundary of our interest but I think we'd have trouble getting someone to deal with matters close to Wimbledon. I don't I think can we leave it for offline discussion you know which other bodies might be added to but bearing in mind we don't want I think to I mean we don't want to be exclusive but adding half a dozen new members would just change the nature of this committee and I'm I'm not convinced it would be for the better. Can we move on? Okay. Let us move on to item four applications and first of all 2025 0665. first of two applications relating to three Edna Street. Thank you. So we actually have two items relating to three Edna Street but they've split them up into two. The first one is demolition of existing garage alterations including erection of two-story front slash side extension and single-story side slash rear extension including removal of the existing chimney stack to the front and reconfiguration of the internal layout. And there is the site within the Three Sisters Conservation Area. It's not a locally listed building. It's not statutory listed. You can see there are no other similar assets in its setting. It's just the conservation area. And that is it within its context. You can see it's part of a series of semi-detached villa-style houses really. I think they date to the 1860s, 1870s. Quite a consistent pattern of development in this part of the conservation area but if you look in the bottom right along Edna Street you can see there has been some infill but mostly it's pretty well preserved. and again that's just from the rear and again you can see that pattern of villa development. And there is the site. So there's quite a generous gap with the neighbouring building. That's a fence. It's not a structure I don't think. Yeah and that's just a bit of a context photo from further down the road. And that is looking from the side street. I can't remember the name of it but you're looking towards the site. That house just right in the front is part of the pair and the chimney you can see which is probably more relevant to the second application is just the top spine of the outrigger. Yeah and that's just another example of the type of buildings along Orville Street. So that is the existing ground floor plan on the left and the proposed on the right which just gives you an indication of the scale of what they're proposing in terms of the extension. Worth noting in the bottom right corner of the proposals where they are wanting to bring the building line forward. They did note in the application that they had included a setback but I think you can see that generally speaking they're coming forward. Yeah just there. And that is at first floor. You can see the rear extension and then again it's a two storey side extension. front elevation and that is the existing front elevation and then that's the proposed. So it's more or less infilling really. They've left a little bit of space and there is a very small setback but generally speaking yeah they would be bringing it forward to the building line. And that is the existing rear and then again there is the proposed rear. Yeah and that is everything for item one. First of all are there any questions relating to this? Anything that's not clear to members? Mr. Dodgson. Could we be told a little bit more about materials? It will be in brick to match the existing. I don't think we've had any detail on what they're proposing with the windows. we would expect it to be timber to be appropriate to the conservation area with slimline double glazing if that's what they want to go with. I think with the rear extension again it's brick somewhat less concerned in terms of materiality to the rear but yeah I believe it's it's primarily to be matching. Okay. if there are no further questions can I invite comments on this application? I see Mr. Armstrong. Yeah I was I mean I think most controversial aspect is the removal of the chimney stack the front chimney stack if that's the main front chimney stack they're referring to because that's quite a prominent feature. and Victorian house without chimney stack is just looks wrong. So I quite like the way they've designed the side extension with a sort of flat roof and continuing the eaves sort of detailing but I do also think that should be set back maybe a bit further. Other comments on this application? Mr. Catter. Yes I had a look on Google Earth to just I always do on these occasions to check what the context is. Discovered that there is a side extension for a two story side extension of a similar kind on numbers 1 5 7 11 13 in other words the majority of that side of the street as I already done. The read coming back to your point about the setback they've set back to the same distance as the one next door which I think is probably the right answer. And if anything I'm going to advocate for slightly more because it's that curved notch that is the thing that shouts at me as being inappropriate in this setting. At the front. Yes. Any other thoughts? I mean from Battersea society point of view we don't like that curved notch either. but the I mean this is as Mr. Cato has pointed out in one sense a bird that has long ago flown along along Edna Street. I mean the trouble is it certainly is looking looks like an extension. it's not trying to pretend not to be an extension because it's not the roof hasn't extended. I have to say I do agree with Mr. Armstrong that I prefer it it was set back further but I wasn't aware that the one on the other side was not set back so far. Yes between them essentially they they fill the gap that originally existed. so in a sense what is what is happening on Edna Street is that the what was a series of semi-detached villas is being turned into something more like a terrace. yes thank you I mean they have a lot of them have been filled in but they haven't all been filled in oh sorry but I mean I'm just looking now on Google map but essentially they do seem to have the others seem to have kept their chimney stacks. That's the only difference and obviously they've been filled in sorry most of them have been filled in yeah you're right but they've been filled in as you say slightly set back lucky them that they can create that extra space as well to the side of the house. So what are we saying about this application that we have we are not objecting in principle to the side extension we are opposed to the demolition of the chimney stack otherwise we are content with this application is that right or is content to I see mr. Just should we I mean I asked about the materials but I mean I presumably do we know it's going to be the same bond of brick and things like that because it would be pretty right yeah okay sorry mr. Armstrong can I just sort of ask there are two chimney stacks aren't there here they were proposing just to remove the front one there are two yeah yeah are they removing also the rear one no just just the front one in this application okay if is is that as is that agreed we accept in principle it should be can the materials bonding etc should be conditioned but no removal of the chimney stack okay let us move on then to 2025 0 0 double 6 6 so it's actually the next in the sequence the number sequence thank you yep so also three at the street this one is alterations including erection of a mansard roof extension to the main rear roof and extension above two-story back addition so again you know the same site same heritage context at this time it's just reserved to the roof they are proposing to put a small skylight at the front which I think is shown better in the next slide actually yeah so you can see the existing on the left and on the right they're proposing a small skylight at the front and on the side and then to the rear they are extending the dormer and the height and once you see it in elevation you'll you'll appreciate that they are raising the height I call it this the spine of the outrigger I'm not sure if there's a technical term but there's potential for visibility of that from Orville Street I think it's called yep so there is the skylight proposed flush conservation style roof light to match existing character and appearance existing front pitched roof to remain as existing no impact to street scene and then this is the existing roof elevation and then here you can see the extension at the roof existing which level to remain is existing to the front main part of the building but the proposed rear mansard roof dormers will be 70 degrees in pitch with slates to match existing they've mentioned that there are similar precedents with some mansard roof extensions to be found in the area they're proposing the lead dormer with sash windows to add a sense of character to the building and match existing appearance no outlook onto any neighboring properties and then yes existing chimney breast stack will be removed proposed wall filled with yellow london stock brick to match existing character do we have a side okay um as usual any questions relating to to this alternative proposal well no everything clear right comment there on i see mr arms one with his finger well i um um i would like to suggest that they ought to be keeping the rear main chimney stack as well because it's visible widely and it's a important feature of the group of 70 such houses and the last skin one of my may have extended it when it was first built can i accept that point but repeat on mike what i said as a aside just now this is not an alternative scheme this is an additional scheme so they'd do both if they got permission for both and i think we we have to be clear about that but the one doesn't preclude the other but i think we're going to say aren't we we're not we're not we're not going to uh well if it's our recommendation is that they should not be allowed to remove the chimney stack so both chimney stacks remain but are we again in principle um accepting this application with that very significant caveat as well as the the caveats as before you know about materials etc content conflites all that stuff yes okay let's move on uh 20 25 0 3 double 7 st john's avenue putney i think this is one where we're probably not going to comment as a society in fact i think we've already looked at it and decided not to comment to the society because essentially apart from the judgment about whether or not they should have that thing that's masquerading as a garage but isn't um there's nothing there's nothing to see from any realistic angle okay okay let's let's go ahead with the presentation is this you miss bade thank you chair so um as noted 29 st john's avenue so it's a pair of one of a pair of semi-detached buildings within the west putney conservation areas you can see here with the listed church towards the north here within its context so you have a three-story building mid-19th century victorian semi-detached building with um with a basement this is showing it towards the rear so it has a hip roof and then it has sort of another wing uh towards the rear that has a separate hipped roof as you can see here it's quite an italianate style to it with the the deep eaves and corbel corbels it has quite an interesting arrangement at first floor level with the windows projecting like aureole windows which is quite a difference from its neighbor and this is probably one of the best pictures and i didn't include that in the original presentation that i sent out we sent out yesterday just looking at it in its immediate context with its neighbor you'll see next door there is a side extension uh present which is a garage style extension and then burst and burst and road looking at it so the front elevation as well as the side elevation which is also visible from within public areas of the conservation area and you see that that wing towards the back that actually projects out slightly further than the front wing which is uh wanted to i wanted to highlight that because that forms part of the application in terms of extensions so as existing you see there it has a dormer towards the rear fairly modest dormer towards the rear part of the the front part of the buildings with the rear pitch of that of that hip with two uh roof lights on the front and as proposed there's a few um proposals um that are coming forward for this application so the roof light towards the front is being replaced with three conservation style roof lights as you'll see towards the front the dormer towards the rear is being enlarged quite considerably with new windows within it and a what appears to be air conditioning unit proposed on the rear wall of that that extension or that dormer side extension will be partially basement and partially ground floor extension which seeks to replicate some of the detailing of the next door neighbor with an aureole window of above a set of double doors here you'll see this is on the right elevation as existing and as proposed not much change on that side that's obviously the side that is attached to its neighbor but the left the left elevation you'll see some changes and just to note here so this is the extension here so so partially at basement level and then at ground floor level so slightly more than a single story and then here if i quickly flick back you have this single story very small element at this point which stops at ground floor level this will be raised up all the way with a flat roof all the way up to the eaves level to extend out this rear wing here it will come up almost up to the staircase window which is currently an arch window with stained glass there is a basement also proposed but largely those are those the manifestations associated with that extension rear extension is is these roof lights here that are being introduced within within the garden here you'll see the footprint of the building so it will be flush with the building unlike we saw with three edness street so there won't be any setback it will be flush and partially a storeroom at basement level and then a small section of that being used as a downstairs toilet at ground floor level at roof level you see here this is the existing roof plans and then the loft the loft the loft plans as well and as proposed you see here there's a quite a bigger quite a big difference in the in the dormer here and that's where you see this extension just picking up so it's a relatively small extension slightly set in just in here which is to accommodate some cupboards within those upper floors and this is just giving you some sections of some of those extensions as proposed include you see here this this small side extension that rises up just at ease level which will accommodate just some extra cupboards and then the dormer at the top and then these are some cross sections showing that that side extension between basement and ground floor level so it would be good to get the committee's views on these proposals the officers have raised a couple of points about some additional information just in relation to some of the front garden works i think the last image here does give an indication of some of those front garden works as well um there's not an awful lot of information if you see here there's some of some changes with sliding gate introduced as well uh which isn't showing in great detail in in some of these uh drawings so uh the officers have requested a bit more information as to what these will look like it's quite basic at the moment thank you all right thank you um any questions um anything's unclear about the proposal mr catter uh yes just uh is the clarification is the front garden paving specified as permeable um because this is a big concern in particular in that part of partly this is what we're seeking clarification on it's one of the matters that we're asking because if it's not permeable that there is uh it does technically need permission if it's non-permeable so it needs to form part of the application if it's permeable it doesn't necessarily need to form part of the application okay comments um mr catter i think has recused himself from making any comments um comments from anyone else do we really not have anything to say about this mr dodgson could i revert to a question rather than a comment would it be possible for you to show again the uh all right they said that that is the proposed on the right is it so at the moment there is the v-shaped um i don't recall impediment is that none of that is there at present i have to say i mean these are very fine buildings and i think despite the fact others have done this to their buildings i don't think i think it detracts considerably from really high quality architecture i know they've done it on the right uh i couldn't get my google google maps to show that that that in that way so that's really helpful i they are really fine and i just think adding a sort of really rather awful sort of pediment like that which has no bearing whatsoever on the rest of the architecture is is inappropriate in my view yes can i just pick up on that um you can see in google maps it's also that funny thing to the the right which looks as if it was sort of you know added um without thought um on the house next door is there's a garage isn't it so it's actually you know somebody just built that as a garage whereas they're trying to do something completely different on their house aren't they but trying to um sort of have a bit of the character of the funny addition on the right which just just to me just seems a bit odd i know that obviously they want to sort of keep it in line but it's all a bit odd pastiche of a pastiche thank you uh mr armstrong yeah i'm agreeing with uh mr dodgson that i don't really think it uh helps the it's a very fine house and i think it rather detracts from it the that sort of strange extension i think they seem to be spending a lot of money to achieve not very much space at the side i mean that is extreme extremely expensive work to achieve a few little cupboards so what is the point um may i suggest what the point seems to be although i can't see that they're getting value for those cupboards is that every square meter in a prime site is worth more than the cost of building it unless you really go overboard and for some people that's all that matters um i i think those issues um i'm not referring back to our earlier discussion on our terms of preference uh i think are beyond our remit um i i agree but you know you we we do sort of wonder sometimes um it's also true of the storage and replacement downstairs luke's already got one um which is now we're going to become redundant um there does seem to be a lot of money spent for no apparent reason but that is not as the chair has rightly pointed out something we should consider we should consider the heritage these houses um they rebuild their left is a rebuild after bomb damage but basically um um these houses are wrapped the three streets wrapped around that church and later the church itself represent the very earliest suburban development of partnery after the arrival of the railway um which is so they are early early of um suburban partnery i can put it that way and therefore significant more so than there than you might at first glance realize you only have to go four doors down the road and you're you're 30 years later okay i have to say i i agree about i mean the awfulness of the of the of the pediment of on uh garage um on the the adjoining joining house um and and i think i very much agree with um with council owens i can see no reason why that has to be replicated but apart from that you know the the extension itself seems to me unremarkable so i think we are commenting on this application rather than saying we're uh we're four or again in is that acceptable okay well i i'm i'm against it um is that are we not allowed to be against it i mean i was just trying to reflect the significantly detracts from the from the streets is the objection to the i mean just thinking of you know what we are passing on to officers and uh to the applicant uh are we objecting to the look of the extension from the from the front or are we objecting to the extension itself mr armstrong well i'd like to object to the whole thing really especially as you know i now have heard that these are one of some of the part of the earliest development housing development in that part of putney is that what we're saying yes i think the phrase comes to mind the two wrongs don't make a right copying next door's ugly extension is not necessarily um responding to the context in a sensible way um responding to the context in a sensible way miss greenwood what about the landscaping and that um paving enhanced anything or am i wrong i confess i didn't pay much attention when i looked at this to um the to what they were doing in the front garden and the sliding vehicular gate to use a cliche i have used earlier this evening i think it's a bird that has flown a long time ago but we are nevertheless objecting to in principle to the side extension and i'm just yes but i think we should also refer chairman to to the the appearance of the you know the pediment and that that design not just the principle both yes okay okay are we done can i just can i just quickly check so it's just the side extension because obviously there's the side extension to accommodate the extra cupboard so the committee members are not opposed to that or the extension of the dormer it's specifically the sort of garage style extension that's between basement and ground floor i don't know when i think that i speaking personally i find it difficult to object to the dormer okay have you got enough there um mr burnham uh let us move on to the last one uh 0603 uh 14 clapham common west side thank you chair last one on the the agenda for this evening so 14 clapham common west side as it says in the the address this is within clapham common constellation area you see it's part of a a small terrace of three houses that is situated to the south of sumber road but overlooking clapham common here you see it within its context looking from from google earth so we're looking at the building on the southern part of this terrace group as a typical late 19th century uh terrace with can two storey canted bay windows and a projecting gable red brick and then you've got your stock brick elevations towards the rear with the outrigger uh a typical outrigger two-story outrigger towards the rear it already has a dormer extension quite a modest dormer extension within the rear part of the main roof as you'll see it's it's blocked slightly with the um the marker here it is within its context so there is a consistency across these three groups you know in just in the corner there there's been some other roof extensions within this part of clapham common you see a glass box that is just peeking up towards the side but note that if you look within its context if you've got quite a kind of art deco flat development further towards the south of the site but then you've got slightly taller terraces further towards the north with three stories and that's one of the buildings that end that's got that glazed extension i see on street view it's difficult to actually see that extension as built because the uh it's changes to 2020 when you start going down the side streets so here again you see it within its wider context looking back down towards the south with a very consistent roof line to these buildings with those projecting gables being quite prominent and the canted bay windows and uh we've included this view because of the proposals as they are coming forward do relate to that rear dormer that you see peeking up just towards the rear picture of the building and then this is the rear elevation from sumber sumber road you can see there's a quite consistent for uniformity of the outriggers here with their um with their pitch roofs so there is a degree of visibility towards the rear parts of these buildings because of its orientation towards sumber road so noting that some of these drawings are not particularly accurate we've brought this to committee but we raised have obviously raised concerns already with the case officer with regards to the drawings uh so it would be a just an imprincipal view from the committee at this stage but noting that these drawings are not particularly um good in terms of showing that level of detail so a number of changes proposed for this so they're looking to uh increase the size of the rear dormer here so uh this rear dormer was the rear part of the main roof so it's being extended further up towards the ridge line and further towards the the side elevation we'll show you at the roof form to to give you an illustration of what that is this elevation which will perform a largely kind of gable will be fully glazed uh but brought much closer towards that the side elevation towards the front uh this is where i think the drawings can be a a difficult to quite discern but for what we can see is that there's going to be a cut out in the front pitch that will allow for a terrace to be introduced with a black frame double glazed door so it'll be set back when you look if you have a look at when we have a look at the internal level elevations you can see it's a setback in so there will be a cut out into the roof noted that none of these buildings have these but there is historic terraces on the other group that i referred to the set of four terraces further north north from this building but i've looked through planning history and all of these are quite historic so there's not any recent examples of these front terraces where you cut out part of the roof so as we say as existing on the side elevation and as proposed so you see this is the new much larger rear dormer what you see in blue is what will be fully glazed with a metal frame that is supporting that glazing here the existing roof form so you see the extent of the of that rear extension and that's so this is where it will be extended so the red is where it will be extended to so it'll be quite a bit larger here you see there's a new roof light that will be added very close to the terrace and this will be that's the entrance door to this terrace so it'll be set quite back so this will all be a flat terrace towards the front so a large chunk of that front roof will be taken out for a front terrace with railings proposed and that door set back close to eaves sorry close to the um the ridge line the building and i think that's it as i said the drawings are not particularly great and we really acknowledge that so it really is an understanding of the principles of these external works in relation to this building thank you well thank you um i confess i was the person who drew um miss way's attention to this this application um because it did seem to me extraordinary that it had got through um a validation because the drawings are so poor and which makes it quite difficult to understand fully what they are proposing to do uh but sorry that's by the by any questions to start with uh i hesitate to say any questions about what is not clear because i think quite a lot is not clear could we see the front elevation again please the proposed the proposed or the existing well that's that's is that proposed any other questions okay comments i i saw as this uh presentation went on lots of head shaking going on um i'll start with mr armstrong yeah i have already objected to this i think on behalf of clapton society i mean i do think i i did have great difficulty in understanding the drawings and i do have difficulty in understanding why they want to do this but it looks very poor um in relation i mean it's very prominent building because it's the first one in the terrace and it you can view it from the common opposite and you can view it you'd be able to see the side um glazed uh extension i would have thought from the comps just not very uh nice in terms of uh the effect on the uh terrace and the building so i don't think it should be approved councillor owens i suppose for me i mean agree with everything that said it's just so weird that that balcony on the um at the top i owned a house not not more than 10 minute walk from there it's victorian for 15 years that um has a on the first floor actually strangely it was done obviously by the builder in a 1910 or whenever it was a a bug i actually have about had a balcony just like that but on the first floor but i mean i've never seen a house without on the on the loft locally and i'm north i know that i think that house is in bannum because it's right beside in the bannum ward because it's 30 it's the other side of 30 road isn't it um but yes i mean that alone it's just so bizarre and whether it was you could see it from clapham common or from the from any of the roads i've not seen that okay mr dodgson i think i can answer councillor owens remark there is actually one just like it three doors down on the end of the next terrace and it does strike me that um the design process was to walk around the area between the commons and pick up all of the um show off glazed stuff that other people have got pile them all into one application and here it is um because yes the precedent seems to be collecting everything that this panel might um might uh dislike and um i think i said earlier about this about the last application to a degree um two wrongs don't make a right the fact that someone else has got one of these that somehow in fact i can think of two or three in the area that sneaked through um at some point and doesn't make this right in any way just miss way i just want to add to that so i've put this image back on because you can see just about the railings of these what they're seeking to largely replicate on this building the pitch is much shallower on this tear on this terrace yes um so the roof is not as prominent so the facades are the most prominent features um whereas these buildings it's it's quite a nice balanced composition where you've got the roof will be is a lot more caught a lot more visually prominent at this point it's a very small space as well so if you have a look here that's roughly where that terrace will be going um very excuse me very close to the edge will that railings come up at 1.1 meters to allow for there to be a safe use of that terrace and so you'll have railings coming up at this point very close to that gable and then a cut into the roof there so it will be quite different from what's historically taken place on these buildings here where the roof is not as visually prominent as this group of three could i ask um do you know when the planning permission was granted for the one in the other group of in the other terrace i actually try to find the planning history for some of these i can't find any planning history for any of the terraces on that on that northern group so it might they might be quite an old terrace they might looking through so it might have been pre before the conservation area was designated which was obviously quite early the box on the back of the second of the other terrace looks quite modern to me there's a sort of glass box on the back oh i didn't check that one apologies i can check that for you um oliver can check that's the date that will change my opinion of it but i i might have views i think it's wholly inappropriate um the the the balcony at the front destroys the appearance of the terrace from the street and because of the side you know the ability to see it on the side i think the box on the back which as far as i can make out is larger than the existing um again it's too large thank you so i think what we're what we're saying is that we don't have full information about this and it is essential um that the applicant is told that they've got to provide a proper set of drawings a b we object strongly to the insertion of the um of the access to the um the access from the roof and the cutting away of of the roof and the insertion of this sort of terrace um beside the the gable on the front elevation uh and we equally as strongly it seems to me object to the box um extension at at the back with its glazed um frontage to the to the street which completely to my mind destroys the the the uh the appearance of the you know a quite you know standard sort of um rear and and side side wall i mean it would be so obtrusive and highly visible not just from sunborough street um but from uh from the common as as you can see in that in that picture um does that go far enough are there other points that we want to make i mean i think they're also more attractive houses than the the next set along that has got the front roof terrace i mean they are they are more attractive yes and they're three-story house they're three-story houses rather than two stories with with those gables in fact i think i might make that point but it's not really one that we should comment on but they've borrowed an idea from a house that's a story taller and further down the road if they put that glass box on then you will be in a way then if you try to use that as a bedroom and it is a top floor room you'll be overlooked in a big glass wall with no curtain from the flats next door they haven't spotted that is there anything that we want to add to our objection is it worth justifying it though by saying that that because the the it is more more visible than other similar extensions on taller properties or something of that nature because it will be no oh absolutely it's it's a corner property um um facing facing the the common because it's two stories rather than three stories um and and so on yeah okay and um i mean if we wanted to go to town we would we would make reference to uh various policies in the london uh in mppf london plan and local plan uh that make this completely unacceptable yeah and a whole load of others i suspect okay thanks very much that's the last of the applications uh next item item item five you have uh paper 25132 on page 21 of your pack if you've done it in pack form which is the applications that have been determined uh just to note that um the um waterfall house which has already been mentioned was refused and has gone to appeal um um i wouldn't rate not for minuting but i wouldn't rate their chances of success of the bill um the the the banners at the town hall was rightly withdrawn um the uh northcorp public public public house um was um planning uh planning approval was was given by delegated authority but i think um they took account of the points that we made about materials which i think was the the the main burden um of what we had to say on that application uh and the other the final one we have the the other waterfall house application from back in 2023 was in the end um approved that was for some um um internal alterations uh wasn't it um miss lawson and i mean i think again our our objection was on really on the on the grounds of the awful messing around with this building that has gone on over the years okay is there any other business uh councillor belton very briefly chair on the um the last paper i found it particularly confusing i think i said this before distinguishing between the committee and the committee um it would be um it would be useful from my point of view if it said pack and jack at least i know which they are yes um the committee and the committee i guess i'm all over the place on some of those i think you better have a conversation with mr burnham uh if not uh if not the chief executive um future meeting dates um we meet again on the 6th of may and uh at my request i plead guilty to this um i asked that the uh 17th of july meeting be changed to the 14th of july is that acceptable i don't think i haven't heard i don't know i don't think mr burnham has heard of anyone objecting to that okay and then the the other dates i think have already have previously been notified in any case is there any other other business anything right no i declare the meeting closed um just for callum's reference i'm giving my apologies in advance for may i will see to see if we can send somebody else
Summary
The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) met to discuss proposed changes to their terms of reference, and to review several planning applications. The committee voted to continue working on the proposed changes to their terms of reference, and reviewed applications for work on Edna Street, St John's Avenue, and Clapham Common West Side, providing feedback to officers.
Terms of Reference
The committee discussed proposed revisions to their terms of reference, which had been suggested at the meeting on 28 January 2025. The proposed changes would have added references to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the London Plan, and the local plan, when advising the council on conservation areas.
Councillor Tony Belton explained that the proposed changes had come about because of a feeling that the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) could be dismissive of the CHAC's views, seeing them as only being about heritage. Councillor Tony Belton said that they wanted to make the Planning Applications Committee aware that the decisions of the CHAC are made:
in a very much broader sense. Sorry, not a broader sense, with a broader knowledge of the pressures, which you two have both been expressing, actually. You're both very well aware of it. It doesn't come over to the Planning Application Committee members.
Mr Mark Dodgson, representing the Balham Society, raised concerns that the phrase taking account as appropriate
could be interpreted as the committee having to take into account all other policies, which he said was the reverse of what the committee's role is.
Mr Roger Armstrong, representing the Clapham Society, said that he thought the committee should not include the proposed changes, and that their job is to advocate for heritage assets, leaving the balancing of different considerations to the Planning Applications Committee.
The committee voted on whether to proceed with further work on the wording of the terms of reference, or to abandon the proposal altogether. The majority voted to continue working on the wording, which will be brought back to the next meeting.
Mr Andrew Catto, representing the Putney Society, noted that Dr Pamela Greenwood, representing the Wandsworth Historical Society, was not specified in the list of members, and that this needed to be rectified. He also suggested including other border organisations like the Richmond Society and Merton Historical Society.
Planning Applications
The committee reviewed several planning applications, providing feedback to officers.
3 Edna Street
The committee considered two applications relating to 3 Edna Street. The first application (2025/0665) was for the demolition of an existing garage, alterations including the erection of a two-storey front/side extension and single-storey side/rear extension, including the removal of the existing chimney stack to the front, and reconfiguration of the internal layout. The second application (2025/0666) was for alterations including the erection of a mansard roof extension to the main rear roof and an extension above the two-storey back addition. The site is within the Three Sisters Conservation Area.
Mr Roger Armstrong said that the most controversial aspect of the first application was the removal of the front chimney stack, which he said was a prominent feature, and that a Victorian house without a chimney stack just looks wrong. He also said that the side extension should be set back further.
Mr Andrew Catto said that there were already similar side extensions on numbers 1, 5, 7, 11 and 13 Edna Street. He also said that the curved notch at the front was inappropriate in this setting.
The committee agreed that they were not objecting in principle to the side extension, but were opposed to the demolition of the chimney stack. They also agreed that the materials and bonding should be conditioned.
On the second application, Mr Roger Armstrong suggested that the rear main chimney stack should also be kept, as it is visible widely and is an important feature. The committee agreed that both chimney stacks should remain, and that they were otherwise accepting the application in principle, with the same caveats as before regarding materials.
29 St Johns Avenue, Putney
The committee considered an application (2025/0377) for alterations including the erection of a dormer roof extension to the main rear roof and erection of a single-storey side/front extension at 29 St Johns Avenue. The plans also included excavation to enlarge the basement, and installation of an AC unit to the main rear roof. The site is within the West Putney Conservation Area.
Mr Nick Calder recused himself from making any comments on this application.
Mr Mark Dodgson said that the buildings are very fine, and that the addition of a pediment detracts considerably from the high-quality architecture. Councillor Emmeline Owens agreed, saying that she could see no reason why the pediment has to be replicated.
Mr Roger Armstrong agreed that the extension detracts from the house, and that they seem to be spending a lot of money to achieve not very much space at the side.
The committee objected in principle to the side extension, and also referred to the appearance of the pediment.
14 Clapham Common West Side
The committee considered an application (2025/0603) for alterations at 14 Clapham Common West Side, including an increase in height and width of the existing rear dormer, including provision of a glazed flank elevation, and erection of a front dormer to form access to a proposed front roof terrace. The site is within the Clapham Common Conservation Area.
The committee noted that the drawings were poor and difficult to understand. Mr Roger Armstrong said that he had already objected to this on behalf of the Clapham Society, and that it looks very poor. Councillor Emmeline Owens said that the balcony on the top is bizarre.
Mr Mark Dodgson said that the design process seemed to have been to walk around the area and pick up all of the show-off glazed stuff that other people have got, and pile them all into one application.
The committee objected strongly to the insertion of the access from the roof and the cutting away of the roof, and the insertion of the terrace beside the gable on the front elevation. They also objected to the box extension at the back with its glazed frontage to the street.
Decisions
The committee considered a report on recent decisions on planning applications previously considered by the committee.
- Waterfall House, 223 Tooting High Street (2024/3012): The committee had previously objected to the installation of advertisement banners. Planning permission was refused by delegated authority, and the applicant has appealed this decision.
- Town Hall, Old Municipal Buildings, Wandsworth High Street (2024/4469): The committee had previously objected to the installation of tension banners. The application was withdrawn by the applicant.
- The Northcote Public House, 2 Northcote Road (2024/3041): The committee had previously objected to the proposal. Planning permission was granted by delegated authority.
- Waterfall House, 223 Tooting High Street (2023/3261): The committee had made comments on a proposal for internal alterations. Planning permission was granted by delegated authority.
Councillor Tony Belton said that she found the last paper particularly confusing, and that it would be useful if it said PAC and CHAC, so she knew which committee was being referred to.
Other Business
The committee noted that future meetings were scheduled for 6 May 2025, 17 July 2025 (proposed to change to 14 July), 8 September 2025, 4 November 2025, 8 January 2026, 10 March 2026, and 12 May 2026.
Attendees
