Transcript

Okay, I think we're just past seven o'clock. Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name's Michael Jubb. I'm chair of the committee. Members, I'll now call your names. Please switch on your microphone and confirm your attendance. Once you have done so, please switch it off again. And can I remind you also to do something to your phone so that it doesn't interrupt the meeting? Councillor Belton. Councillor Belton. Good evening, members. Good evening, Chair. Councillor Owens. Good evening, Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward. Councillor Osborne. Good evening, everybody. Councillor Osborne. Mark Dodgson. Good evening, present. Roger Armstrong. Good evening, everyone. Roger Armstrong, representing the Climate Society. Francis Radcliffe. Good evening, Friends of Battersea Park. Edward Potter. Good evening, everyone. Yeah, here. Representing the RIBA, Libby Lawson. Hello, I'm here for Tuting History Group. Pamela Greenwood. Hello, I'm Wandsworth Historical Society. I don't see Peter Farrow from the Wandsworth Society, but Lynn Piercy, who's standing in for Andrew Cato. As he says, hello. Thank you. From the Putney, standing in for the Putney Society. Following officers also present. Sorry? Yes. Sorry. Following officers also present. Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair. Lauren Way, Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And Victoria Broxhop. Good evening, everyone. Yes, Senior Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And Democratic Services Officer. And Democratic Services Officer. Callum Wernham. Good evening, everybody. Callum Wernham, Democratic Services. And just to add, Chair, I've just had an email from Peter Farrow. He's given his apologies this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Declarations of interest. If there are any, can you please declare them now? Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Yes, Senior Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And Democratic Services Officer, Callum Wernham. Good evening, everybody. Callum Wernham, Democratic Services. And just to add, Chair, I've just had an email from Peter Farrow. He's given his apologies this evening. Thank you. Declarations of interest. If there are any, can you please declare them now and quote the item and paper number in which you have an interest? Do I take that as a nil response? Thank you. Minutes. May I sign the circulated minutes as a correct record? Or are there any amendments? Thank you. Are there any matters arising which will not arise elsewhere on the agenda? I'll just go through page by page on the minutes. Page one on membership. Anything on that? The work with the GIS team on the map of local listings. Still ongoing, Chair. Still ongoing. There will be a bit more of a meaningful update on the local listing consultation work in the July committee. Okay. Officers are still working through all of the data. Okay. First, I think you again, first down large. Is there anything to report? No, unfortunately, no significant update on that. The applicants from the previous application are working through a further application. I believe that pre-application engagement will be forthcoming to discuss the issue of the use, which was the main concern in the previous application, because it is a metropolitan open land, and therefore they need to give very special circumstances. But nothing to report as yet. That pre-application hasn't been submitted. But again, there should be a bit more of an update in July, we hope. Okay. Thank you. And is there any further information about the appeal that have been lodged for Waterfall House? No, it has been lodged, and we're going through the process of an appeal. It will be written representations. There's a bit of a backlog within the planning inspectorate at the moment. So we've got quite a few appeals that are sitting with the planning inspector. But we're still at the early stages of that appeal, but it won't go any further than the written representations. Okay. Item three on the last minutes is the next item on the agenda. Anything on the applications or on the decisions? I don't think there should be. Okay. Okay. Okay. Right. So we've done items one and two. Terms of reference, you'll recall that we had a discussion about this, and it was resolved that we should come back with a slightly revised set of recommendations. But you've had, I hope, put in front of you a slightly revised version of what was circulated. So, if you look at item 2b, there was something which was meant to be deleted from 2b in the first and second lines, the words, in the opinion of the council. It should have been omitted as it is in clause 2c. So, I think my first question has to be, are there any points that people want to make about this? Is it now broadly acceptable? Does anyone want to make any other suggested amendments? To be absolutely honest, Chairman, I'm not sure that it adds anything very much, because surely the committee can make reference as appropriate to any wider planning considerations if it feels like doing that anyway. But I wasn't present at the last meeting. I'm just left, it's not offensive, but I'm not sure it adds anything. I think the, if you had been at the last meeting, there was some feeling that the original set of proposed amendments, there was the concern that it might be seen as detracting from the committee's focus on conservation and heritage issues. I think it's true to say that, in the past, we haven't, on the whole, made reference to wider issues. I mean, they may have arisen in discussion, but I don't think they've been referred to explicitly in reports or in the recorded minutes of the meeting, setting out either our approval or our objection to any specific proposal. That's the reason for including it. If there are no other comments or amendments, can we accept these as the revised set of terms of reference? Okay. Thank you very much. I think that takes us on to item four, the applications. And first one, 2025 0799, Elko Street. Who's leading on this? Okay. Victoria, the rocks up. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. This site is the headquarters of the fashion brand, Vivian Westwood, located at the junction of Elko Street and Howey Street. The existing building is made up of two elements, including a two-storey brick warehouse on Elko Street and a later office development of five storeys, dating from around 2007, which fronts on to Howey Street. The site is not located within a conservation area, but is located 70 meters approximately from the West Bridge Road conservation area, the boundary of which sits partway down Howey Street. There is a row of locally listed buildings at 52 to 68 Batchesee Bridge Road, which sits opposite the junction with Howey Street and has some limited views towards the site. The site is fairly self-contained with localized views available down Elko Street and Howey Street. Got some photos just in the next couple of slides just showing the site as it is with that office development in the foreground and then the warehouse further to the rear. And then that's just a view from looking in the other direction. We've got some aerial views as well just to show the wider context of this location. You'll see it's very close to Battersea Bridge and the Albion Riverside building. That big area next to the big undeveloped area just in the background there, that's the Ransomed Dock development, which is forthcoming. In terms of just sort of slight context to the planning application, there was a lapsed permission on the site for a Part 6, Part 8-storey building, which was given permission in 2015. Since that permission, the planning context has changed in light of the new Warnsworth Local Plan, which designated the location as a tall building zone with this particular area identified as appropriate for buildings between 7 and 12 storeys or 21 meters to 36 meters. You'll also see on that image the developing RCA research and innovation building, which again just sort of is now part of the context of this site. Before submitting their application, the applicant engaged in a PPA agreement to explore maximizing development opportunities in light of the shifted planning context and the evolving local context. Moving on to the drawings, this is the Elko Street elevation as it is, and then this is what is proposed. So they are proposing a two-storey extension above the front part of the building where the office extension was, and then a Part 4 and Part 8-storey extension to the central and northern part of the building fronting Elko Street. The scheme is intended to deliver additional office and ancillary space to accommodate the Vivian Westwood Brands expansion and to house all their departments in one building. This is the rear elevation which faces the Radstock Street residential scheme behind, and that's what's proposed. And then the next one is the side elevation, and then that's proposed. We've got some CGI images as well just to provide some clearer understanding of what's proposed. This is the junction of Howey Street and Elko Street. You can see the applicant was very keen to retain the existing buildings on site. It's just possibly a slightly unusual approach, but they were very keen that it showed the history of their occupation on the site and showed those phases. So you can see the warehouse is still there, the office building, and then the floors above have got their own character as well. The white building there represents the Radstock Street residential scheme. So this is the view looking along Howey Street, and this is the distant view that you would get from the locally listed buildings towards the site and along that from the nearest part of the conservation area. And then there's the vertical meadow that was shown previously. This is the view from Hester Road from the north looking south. The big scheme to the left is the Ransomstock development. Sorry, yes, not yet built, sorry, yes. And again, that's the yellow scheme there showing the wider context of the forthcoming development on that site. You've got the RCA building to the immediate south, and then the Albion Riverside building further to the north. The applicant also provided this image, which is a view looking through Ransomstock. So just to show how they've tried to integrate with that forthcoming development. This image shows the viewpoints that were agreed as the basis for the heritage and townscape visual impact assessment, showing that a range of close and farther away viewpoints have been assessed. And we've just included a few of the main ones in the next few images. This is the one from Battersea Bridge, and you can see it popping up in the background behind Albion Riverside. This is an image from Battersea Church Road, which is the edge of the Westbridge Road conservation area. And then this is one of the views from Battersea Park, just to show how it will appear, but not above the tree line. And then this is just the last image just showing the Elko Street elevation. The elevations have quite a complex architectural treatment based on the concept of overlay, which is said to be a classic Vivian Westwood approach to their garment design. The very light shade of pink to the powder coated aluminum panels is also a signature color for the brand. Above the two original buildings is a grid of windows with larger irregularly placed statement windows. Are there any questions? Mr. Dodgson. I just want to clarify about the existing warehouse. So I've understood correctly. You're saying that they are retaining that existing warehouse building in order to show the origins of the site. But it's not apparent when you see it from the street. I mean, presumably it's going to be internal, is it? I'm just slightly unclear. Thank you. So, I mean, essentially, I think there is going to be a certain amount to support the development going on above. I think there's going to be a certain amount of redevelopment of that warehouse building. But their intention is to keep an understanding of it as part of the overall phasing. So it's the brick sort of two-story element to the bottom. And then you have a sort of a strip of windows. And then above that, that's where it starts to break out a bit more. So it's not really an addition. They're pulling it down and they're going to rebuild. They're going to rebuild with references to it. My understanding is that they're going to retain as much as they can. But I think they acknowledge that they can't keep it. Okay. With all the other structures being introduced, I think. Thank you. They're going to do as much as they can. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? If not, comments there on what do we think of this building? Remembering it is not in a conservation area. It is close to the Westbridge Road conservation area. And not too far away from the Battersea Park conservation area. So I guess it's particularly with those two conservation areas in mind that we're reviewing as CHAC this application. Comments? So, in the context of everything else around it, it seemed unexceptional to me. Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Armstrong? Yeah. I think the height of it. I mean, I remember Elko Street in the past. It's just little two or three-storey cottages. And it's very tall in relation to what was there historically. The height of the new building somehow threatens the heritage buildings along Bassie Park Road, which are all very small-scale buildings. And the implication is that Bassie Park, sorry, Bassie Bridge Road is a principal road, isn't it? And, you know, one would assume that the larger, taller buildings would be along Bassie Bridge Road. And here, you know, Elko Street was a subsidiary street historically. It was just a little street of cottages. And now we're having this very tall, very important building put there. And I just feel arguments could be made for redeveloping the heritage frontage on Bassie Bridge Road because it's too small. So that's my concern. I don't know whether that's a valid concern, but, yeah. I mean, I don't want to answer too much for the conservation officers, but I think we have, we're not looking at a building on Bassie Bridge Road. We're looking at the application we've got, which is in a small, which is in a tall building zone, up to 12 stories. And it will, I mean, there is planning consent for buildings of similar height on the, on the Ransom's Dock site opposite, on the other side of the road. Um, I, sorry. Um, Mr. Dodgson. Presumably we really have to stick to our comments on really how this impacts on conservation areas. So, uh, have we got a graphic for how it impacts on, um, Bassie Bridge Road? From sort of, I presume it just can't be seen, presumably for most visitors in that. I think the images that we showed are probably the, the ones sort of showing that the, the impacts of the conservation area. There's not one going along Bassie Bridge Road. So that's what we need. I think there was one from Westbridge Road, wasn't there? Sorry, yes, there was, well, there's one from there looking down towards, but it wasn't, sorry, there wasn't one looking along Bassie Bridge Road. Sorry. Would you mind showing it? Sorry. It'd be quite helpful. I've got so many images here. And that's right. That is which, which roads? So this is the view looking down Bassie Church Road, which is on the west at the edge of the conservation area. Right. So that the brown building is the application site and then the yellow is the Ransomstock development. Yes. Sorry. I meant. Thank you. I meant Church. That's the Church Road in the Westbridge Road, yes. I mean, I suppose in fairness, it doesn't impose enormously on that, on that Lister. I mean, I actually think the building's actually quite an interesting piece of architecture, but not everyone probably will agree. Thank you. Ms. Radcliffe. Sorry. Could we just be reminded what's been approved for the Ransomstock area in terms of height of the building and how they compare? Ransomstock is 10 stories, up to 10 stories, and I believe that's the same. So is it, when you say, sorry, when you say one is eight stories and the other is 10, are they both roughly the same height? The tallest elements are approximately the same between Ransomstock and Alco Street. Yeah. I mean, I feel if it doesn't impose too much on the park or the Westbridge conservation area, and there's already been approval for a slightly taller building not very far away, unless we hate the building, there's not much justification for opposing it. And it, I agree, it's quite an interesting building, though I wonder if they'll regret some of that gloss, but... And it's also an awful lot more attractive than what is there currently. I mean, I was interested in the differing heights as well, but obviously that's part of the architectural design and not necessarily related to the conservation area. But it's interesting that the way, obviously, you're using the warehouse, and obviously one side is perhaps more warehoused than the other. But yeah, I think it, I think it looks, it looks good. Okay, I don't think I'm hearing anything, again, this building. But it seems appropriate in its setting, and it is, the impact on the conservation areas is pretty minimal. And it's also a quite interesting piece of design, it seemed to me. Does the Battersea, I mean, are you allowed to give the Battersea Society's view? I presume you are. The Battersea Society's view is that it is awaiting the review of this committee. Okay, can we move on? The next one is 2025 0582, 160 Falcon Road. Again, not strictly part of the conservation area. Thank you, Chair. So, something slightly different from the previous application. So, we have 160 Falcon Road. Proposals are to seek for wall-mounted solar panels on the southwest elevation. So, you see here the actual site is located within the Clapham Junction Conservation Area. And there's a number of locally listed buildings and listed buildings within the immediate vicinity, the most important of which are for this site. Clapham Junction Railway Station, just to the west, and then the Falcon Public Out, just on the corner, here to the south of the site. So, the proposals do not seek anything on the front elevation, but the rear elevations, which we see here from Google Street Map, from Google Earth. So, this is the site here, a rather modern, late 20th-century building that's situated right next to the railway lines, quite prominent from Clapham Junction, from the platforms from Clapham Junction Station. Another view here, just to show its immediate context, the conservation area wrapping around, down towards St John's Hill. Here, the front elevation showing here, the Falcon Public House, which is listed, and then the railway line and the railway station immediately behind the building. So, this is the building itself. Again, not particularly a positive contributor to the conservation area, a modern building. Brick, stock, well, not stock brick, but it's sort of a T-shaped arrangement towards the rear with this projecting wing, which is quite prominent. Again, you see here, so you've got its rear elevation is quite highly visible within public areas of the conservation area, and it's seen in the context of the rear elevation of the Falcon Public House, and then you've got the tower there, peeking out behind for the former Arding and Hobbs department store, which, with its extension as consented. This is to show the visual prominence of the building from the railway lines, and from the platform specifically, I think this is platform 17. And finally, another context view to show how its proximity to the railway station. So, as I said, it's really only the rear elevation that they're proposing, and quite fairly, I mean, we've not really come across this before, but a lot of solar panels can be added to buildings under permitted development rights, but this is wall-mounted solar panels within a conservation area which require planning permission. So, they're seeking in total 63 solar panels on three rear elevations of the building. So, here, showing them as proposed. So, you've got one on this face, which is a total of 12 panels. They are in total 1,134 millimetres by 2,094 millimetres. So, they're particularly large, covering the full length of the building at this point. Two further sets of panels within the projecting rear wing here, 18 on this side and a further 18 on this side, and then another further 12 just at this point, which is the closest point of the building to the Falcon Public House. And this is showing you the actual locations as on a street view image of the building. So, quite an interesting proposal that we've brought to Chak just to get their view on what they consider if there is any harm to the conservation area in the setting of those locally listed and listed buildings. I think that's our last slide. Yes. Thank you. Again, any questions relating to this, Mr. Dodgson? Could I just ask, do we know what colour the panels will be? There will be matte black. Okay, thank you. Comments? What do we think about this? As Ms. Bayer has said, it's a use of solar panels in a way which I don't think we've seen before. On a very undistinguished building. Mr. Armstrong. Yes, it's a very prominent building when you're going to Clapham Junction Station. One concern I have is pigeons nesting behind the solar panel, between the solar panels and the brick wall, because that is something that happens. I do know it is a problem with solar panels and any gaps or things like that. Cliff nesting birds love to colonize. Do we have any information on that? No, not really. We've got about 100 millimetre gap between the plane of the elevations and the solar panels in terms of the mounting. But if the principle is considered acceptable, then there will probably be conditions that we can put in place that seek to potentially put netting or something around it, or pigeon spikes that avoid them roosting behind or on top of those solar panels. Because obviously they will have an impact on their, any guano that goes on to those panels will obviously serve to impact on their functionality, should we say. Okay. Any other points that people want to make about this? Mr. Dodgson again. I feel that the building is an unremarkable building. It is prominent, as has been said by Mr. Armstrong. But I don't feel, if we're talking about the impact on the conservation area, I don't feel that the addition of the panels themselves has any more, more sort of distinct impact on the conservation area than the building does at the moment personally. Yeah. So I wouldn't object to it. But I do agree about the pigeons and guano because also if more pigeons can be roosting there, then there'll be more problems for Clapham Junction station itself, which has already got a problem with pigeons. Yes. Well, Clapham Junction town centre as a whole has problems, problems with pigeons. I live close enough to, to know that. Um, does anyone want, does anyone want to object in principle to this? Okay. So we've established that. Ms. Ratcliffe. No, I'm, I'm, I'm afraid I think solar panels are really pretty hideous when you get these great black. However, Matt, they're supposed to be, they're actually pretty shiny. But clearly, solar panels are a good thing. And it doesn't seem reasonable on a building like that to say, no, you can't. So I think what we're saying, uh, is that we have no objection in principle to this. Um, there are, there could be some technical, um, issues around how you deal with birds, whether they're pigeons or seagulls or whatever. Um, and we'd like that added as a, as a condition. Any other comments? Any other comments? Any other comments? No. Any other comments? No, no. Um, let us then move on rapidly to 20, 25.06 for eight Seven Vicarage mansions, which is on the corner of some Phillips Square. Um, in Queens, to off Queenstown road. Thank you, Chair. So moving on, we've got a proposal for a mansard reef extension within Parktown Conservation Area. So the sighting question, as you say, it's a corner plot at the corner of Queenstown Road and St. Peter's Square. It's just to the south of St. Peter's Church, which is Grade II listed. Quite an interesting ensemble here. I think we've had quite a few applications going for Parktown Conservation Area, but this is right at the heart of the conservation area. So the building in question is formed part of a small terrace which frames a view of the church, and it's part of the original, one of the first phases of development of the Parktown Conservation Area, which took place between 1865 and 1870. So quite a classically inspired formation with these five buildings and then a further five buildings to the north of the church. Here you'll see the site in question. So it's the way in which these two corner buildings were treated in a slightly more elaborate way, a little bit like a kind of palace frontage with two frontages that have equal importance and slightly taller to accentuate their visual prominence within Parktown Estates. So this is the building in question you'll see here. This is the area of the roof that is proposed to be extended with the further smaller central terraces in the middle and then not a completely symmetrical arrangement, slightly differing at the other end of the terrace. Another view of the site looking from Parktown Road. These buildings to the south of the site are all locally listed, again part of the early phase by T.J. Bailey. This is looking back towards the site from St. Philip's Square. Apologies, I think I said St. Peter's Square. And you see here you've got the other building at the other corner which has a similarity in terms of architectural treatment but the roof form of the building is fairly prominent when you're looking down from St. Philip's Square towards the site. And again, a fairly enclosed environment when it comes to Parktown Road but with this particular building at this corner there is quite a few longer range views. So from Prairie Street towards the west you can see it looking eastwards and that roof form is quite prominent from this point. So moving on to the proposals, as I stated, it is contained within the roof form. So the roof form at present, you've got a hipped roof which is largely concealed by quite a tall parapet line that you see in the previous images. What they're proposing here is a simple mansard with 70 degree pitch with dormer windows. On your east elevation you're looking at, so this is the main kind of main west elevation with the mansard included. The rear chimney will be removed as part of the proposals which you'll see here but all the other chimneys are proposed to be retained. Here on the east elevation they're seeking to increase the parapet line upwards to take account of this being, this will be the location of the stair core that leads you up to this new floor. The new floor will be housing a much larger flat. So at present it's a two-bedroom flat over one single floor. It's now proposed to be a two-storey flat with four bedrooms all with en-suites. Existing left elevation and then proposed with that mansard being added. And this is the only CGI unfortunately that was included in the application that shows that mansard is peaking up but bearing in mind that actually the roof is quite visible from rather longer views that I've shown you there. I think that's the last one. I think it would be interesting to see what the committee consider of this application. Okay, thank you. I should have mentioned many members of the committee would have seen applications relating to this building in the past. And there's quite a long history of attempts to alter the building. Questions to start with, anything that's not clear? Mr. Dodgson. Could I ask, have you got any visuals at all of the building on the other side of the church in Queenstown Road which is similar in design? I mean, it's part of a uniform arrangement. None of the visuals in the pamphlet we were sent actually show this. And obviously you've got images there with trees with full in leaf. But actually, if you're looking at the church and the two buildings on either side of it, they do form a uniform group. But presumably you haven't got anything further you can show. No. Okay. Thank you. Okay, comments on this. Councillor Belton to start with. Query really. It's quite a large flat, not the low end of the market. Is there a lift in that block? I don't believe so. No, it will just be a staircase leading up to the Newman's Island which is why you have that sheer story. Well, the parapet being raised up on that east elevation. But no lift. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, and I think in order to comply with building regulations, because there'd be a five-storey building, they would have to have a masonry staircase all the way up instead of the timber stair, which presumably currently serves the flats there. Is that correct? And is that one of the reasons why they're proposing to remove the quite prominent chimney stack, the rear? I couldn't answer that question. I know that there are some changes to building regulations when you go up by a certain story, but as far as I can see, there isn't an obvious reason why they need to remove the rear chimney stack, which is the main one that's being removed. Yeah. I mean, this building has suffered in the past, and it's lost its string course, and I've noticed they're not proposing to put that back on the upper floor. It's just a band now, just a concrete band, but that used to be a moulded course, like, and they don't show the building on the opposite side of the road, but that has, I think, its string course intact. And it's got all these drain pipes coming down, which they don't show in this, the drainage is quite ugly, that's been put there to serve the flats. I mean, really, it would be better if this didn't happen, because it's going to threaten the other part of the composition on the opposite side of the road, and the further down, all these Knolls-designed principal corner properties. And we're going to get applications to put on a fifth storey, and, you know, that will compromise the quality of the estate architecture and its originality. We'll lose the original roofs and roof form, and it looks like we're going to lose a lot of chimney stacks as well. Any other comments? Miss Radcliffe. Only to agree that it's a composition, and you don't want one side altered and the other not. Yes, also to agree, and also because the buildings on the other side of the road are particularly beautiful as well. Can I say something from the Bathsea Society perspective? As I say, there have been numerous applications in relation to this building, and it is clear from the objection comments that it has caused problems for some neighbouring properties, which may or may not be a planning issue. We do have a concern that basically the composition of the square, St. Philip's Square, which is the central square, as Miss Way has said, of the whole Parktown estate. They're the most prominent buildings in the Parktown estate, and it does seem to me, and to my colleagues, that it is imperative that we do as much as we can to seek to preserve and enhance the quality of the built environment there, which has been messed around, particularly on this building. And I must echo what Mr. Armstrong has said about the drainage clutter on this building. It's absolutely dreadful and really does detract from the look of the building, particularly on the St. Philip's Square frontage, the north frontage, rather more than on the Queenstown Road frontage. And I hope that if this application were to go ahead, it would be on condition that there would be a complete review of the drainage clutter on the building. So, speaking for the Battersea Society, we have grave reservations about this application. I won't go further than that. I think Mr. Dodgson wants to speak. It's really just to say, as it was implicit by my original question, I fully agree with that view. I think it would destroy the composition. All right, not every one of these towers is exactly the same as each other, but they do provide a consistency between them all. And I think to add a further mansard on top of this particular building would be wrong. It would destroy that consistency. Thank you. Councillor Belton. As you know, I always press that this committee is advisers, and I don't particularly want to give a view. I happen to agree with most of the comments. But I just wondered, from your knowledge, really, Chair, could we seriously make a condition to clean up what's already there? Do you think the planning officers would allow that as a planning rule, a condition? It might be informative, but do you think they could accept a condition? I think I need professional advice on that. The rationalisation of the pipework could form part of the planning balance in terms of, if we sought for that to be taking place, then it would be considered a minor heritage benefit, which we could seek as part of the proposals as forthcoming. So there is an ability to do that. It would be better to do that as part of the application rather than condition it, because obviously they'll need to consider the drainage. It's best to do it now, basically. I don't want to make – let's not sort of extend this discussion too far. I'll take one more from Mr. Dodgson. Sorry, I was slightly going to do just that, because I just wondered if the officers know whether this would be part of a whole-scale redevelopment, or presumably, I imagine not. In other words, all the existing functions of the building and the bathrooms and the lavatories and everything that require all this pipework, if they're not being reconfigured, I suspect that this will be a big ask. Whereas if the whole building is being redone inside, then that might be another matter. I just wondered if you knew. No, what we have before us is just the mansard extension. There's no proposals in relation to the rest of the building. So, yes, we would need to get them to consider the whole building. But it would depend on whether we think that there is enough traction for us to do that. If there's a balance to be struck, that enhancement could outweigh the harm from the proposed mansard. Okay, I think what we're saying is that we have grave concerns about, or we are opposed to? Opposed, yeah. We're opposed to the mansard roof. One of our fail-safes is if it were to go ahead, we would ask that as part of the planning process, there should be a review of the pipework shown on the face of the building. And our grounds for opposing it are that it would detract from the overall built environment of the centrepiece of the Park Tarn estate viz St. Philip's Square. Is that it? Okay. All right. Let's then move slightly out of Battersea to the rear of Endersham Road, in fact, facing on to Western Lane within Balham, or as it was formerly Streatham. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. So, the next item is, as we state, the site to the rear of 6 to 12 Endersham Road. So, here you see what's in the Nightingale Lane conservation area and surrounded by quite a number of heritage assets, including locally listed buildings, which are from, well, actually it goes further than that, but a whole row of terrace properties on Endersham Road to the east of the site. Some of those buildings, some of those buildings, some of those buildings back onto the site in terms of being part of the former rear garden of those properties. And then you have listed buildings, and then you have listed buildings along Nightingale Lane to the north of the site. All right. So, the site itself is in Western Lane, which is an interesting part of the Nightingale conservation area. It's quite, it's more rural in its character. The conservation area appraisal describes it as a quiet backwater with vestiges of rural charm. A lot of the buildings along this part of Western Lane were formerly coach houses associated with the buildings on Endersham Road, and it started to take on slightly more organic character to this part of the conservation area. So, here you see the site as it is. So, it was part, as I said, it was part of the rear gardens of Endersham Road. And then, historically, this part of the conservation area started to get built upon with stables and a garage, but the vestiges of those former garden plots remained once those stables then became cleared in the 20th century, and then you had this large area of hard standing, which has been left, which has been used largely as car parking up to this point. The vestiges of the previous rear boundary walls of the properties are still appreciated from Western Lane. It does include number six, Endersham Road, in which the rear garden plot and the boundary wall are still fully appreciated from Western Lane. So, this is the site within the site itself, which shows the land to the rear of 8 to 12 Endersham Road, which is largely all hard standing and quite run down and completely separated off now from the rest of the buildings on Endersham Road. There's sort of some vestiges of the historic garden wall that have remained just to the north, just as you see here, but largely it's been completely cleared. And again, views of the site from Endersham Road from the upper stories of the properties. And this is views from Western Lane to show the current condition of the site, so it's boarded up at the moment, largely to the rear of number six, and then we've got quite a large gate here to the rear of 8 to 12. Some various views towards the site, which were taken last week, to show that kind of more organic character to the conservation area. They've got modern development just to the north of number six, Endersham Road, rear garden, which you see here, which is slightly set back. But you've got some older properties as you go down south, down Western Road, which gives you some semblance of the former character of the site. As you look over, you can still very much appreciate those rear elevations of the properties, the locally listed properties on Endersham Road. And importantly here, you can see that boundary wall that separates number six and the rest of the site, so there's still that appreciation of the long, narrow garden of that particular plot. Again, looking further down Western Lane, you see here the more organic kind of Victorian character of the buildings. Something to note, however, is that a lot of these front gardens have now been taken over for parking, and that's becoming a rather detracting part of Western Lane in terms of its character. On the other side of the road, however, those buildings are slightly more hard up against the edge of Western Lane, so you haven't lost as much of that character through car parking. So this is immediately to the west of the site. Looking here, now, I've included this image, which is directly to the south of the site, because I think a lot of the character that's proposed in terms of the new build have come about from this particular building. And they've used this as a design queue for the proposals coming forward for the site. And then further north, this is where the character sort of degrades a bit, and we've got rather more utilitarian-looking development that's come forward, which is set back in any of these front gardens, which are taken over for hard standing. So as existing here above just a back, well, largely a back-land property now with the vestiges as a number six rear garden, what they're proposing here is four dwellings on the site, all three bedrooms, two storeys. All are quite consistent in the design that they've proposed with these arch windows, which they've stated in the design and access statement. They've picked up queues partly from that building that I mentioned to you just further south on Western Lane, but also picking up queues of the buildings on Endersham Road as well. Now, I had previous pre-application engagement on this, and you'll see in the design and access statement there's some evolution of the design. So they've now looked for quite a uniform and consistent approach to the four properties. Previously, there was four different, slightly varying designs to the four buildings. They sought to try to reflect that kind of more organic and gradual development of Western Lane, whereas now they're taking the approach of something more uniform. So as you see here, you've got projecting gables, which are a feature of Western Lane. Note that the building just on the opposite side of Western Lane has those projecting gables. To the rear, quite large dormers, but quite simple in the design. See, these elevations won't be visible from within public areas of the conservation area. And some indicative street scenes to show how it will be seen from within Western Lane. And you see they're slightly set back. With the front gardens, there was concern raised at pre-application about the use of front gardens for parking. It is a car-free development, so no car parking proposed as part of the development. But the buildings are slightly set back. There is a fairly generous front garden that would be, if they're considered to be acceptable, the conditions can be put in place to avoid those areas being later used for car parking. Again, now looking up north, up Western Lane towards Nightingale Lane. And then the last few slides of those CGI is mainly on that Western Lane elevation to show the proposed design materiality, which seeks sort of stock brick elevations with red brick arches and a very uniform, orderly arrangement of the four houses. Another one showing there with the very low hedges. There's been a bit of evolution with the front garden and the landscaping of those to try to soften the visual effects. And then finally, I think this is the last CGI to show that image and slightly more context to show the proposed design. And then the buildings within their plot to show a bit more context in terms of the positioning of them within the plot. Quite small rear gardens, but set back in a similar way to the current buildings on the site. And I think that's my last slide. Thank you. Questions? Questions, questions, not comments at this stage. Mr. Dodgson. Yes, I will have a lot of comments. But my question is about the brickwork. One of the graphics that I looked at online seemed to suggest, I think it was that, in fact, that it was going to be Flemish Bond. Has there been anything in writing at all about actual how, what type of brickwork it would be? No, but we can condition all of the materiality to ensure, even to the brick bond and pointing detail, we can actually go into that level of detail to make sure that the development is good quality in terms of materiality. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dodgson. Okay, comments. Yes, Mr. Dodgson again. Before I make my comments, I had a conversation before the meeting with Mr. Armstrong, and he does know quite a lot about the history that I don't know. But I will plow ahead with my own comments. But perhaps I could ask Mr. Armstrong to add a little bit of history. That would be quite helpful. A number of questions really come to mind. The first was actually the boundary wall that runs at right angles to the western lane. The applicant has suggested that this is a totally rebuilt wall made up of reuse stock and other bricks. I'm not entirely sure myself, and I just wondered whether the offices have any view about that. Before you answer that, I would just comment that, interestingly, that some of the features on the pillars on the lane have what look like terracotta or codestone decorative caps, which seem to reflect the nature of the buildings in Endersham Road, which use, I think it's terracotta, which the buildings were built, I understand, to promote the use of this terracotta by the manufacturer. And therefore, I just wonder whether we've got one or two heritage items. They may seem raised there, yes. Those caps are actually, look, genuinely old. And I wonder, again, whether they are sort of part of the feature of the original curtilage walls for those properties. That's my first issue there, because they're claiming, essentially, that the boundary wall that runs at right angles to that gate, that's, I think, on the left of that, the pillar on the left is at right angles to that. That boundary wall, they're claiming it's not even original, and I would dispute that. Can we just deal with that question? I'm just checking through my colleagues' comments on the pre-application, but here I did identify the boundary wall between, along six, so the boundary wall that runs down, that separates six and the rest of the site, that forms part of the local listing of the building. In terms of the boundary wall that fronts onto Western Lane, there is a degree of change to the brickwork here, you can see at this point. There is some semblance of some brick pillars here, which do have some potential heritage interest. It could have been that they were related to the rear part of the site for the stables, but we don't have conclusive evidence to say that these were an original part of the site or a very early part of the site, because there is quite a lot of change along this boundary, so it would have been a solid boundary when we see historic maps. But there is some heritage interest to the pillars, we would agree, and there is a concern that was raised about the loss of some of the wall, particularly along the boundary between six and eight, and some of that wall is now being retained within the development, but the part of the wall along the front was identified as a potential for harm to the conservation area within the pre-application comments, as it makes a contribution to the conservation area at this point, and there is some semblance of the brickbound, some semblance of what was here before, albeit it is heavily altered, because this is the very large opening now that you see in this view. Okay, carry on. My other comments are really, I think, a general comment about the lane. The buildings on that side of the lane are now varied, generally. That's part of the charm of the lane, although on the opposite side, I grant you that the original pairs of cottages, they did have consistency, but now the look of the lane is one of, as has been mentioned by the officers, one of a vaguely rural characteristic. I do feel that putting a terrace, a uniform terrace, albeit with projections forward, into this context, is just wholly inappropriate for the nature of this lane. Also, I object to the height, because what they've taken there, they've taken the height from the building at the left, which I think is number 36 from memory, which is to the left of that terrace, rather than from the building on the right, which is considerably lower. So I think that's another point I feel very, very unhappy about. And actually, the architecture. Yes, I know some of the more modern additions to Western Lane are not incredibly meretricious on their own, but actually it's the variety of the different styles in a way that's almost made it more interesting. And I think to have actually focused on a particular architecture here, which I know they've sort of taken from one of the existing new buildings, I think it's pastiche. It's neither trying to replicate what might have been subsidiary buildings to the main buildings in Endersham Road. There's no use of, for example, they've not used any of the terracotta or any of the codestone features in these. They've just tried to suggest them with the red brick rounds, those semicircular tops of those first-floor windows. But otherwise, personally, to me, I just feel it doesn't really bring anything major. Obviously, the existing sites are an eyesore, but then anyone who's demolished or cleared a site intends it to look an eyesore to encourage development on it. But it doesn't really, I don't think it fits what is needed here. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Armstrong. Yeah, I've been on this committee quite a long time, since the 70s. And the development of the back gardens of Endersham Road was a frequent subject that came up. We got lots of applications. And at that time, it was decided that there would be only five, I think, of those sites along the lane that could be developed. And they weren't all in a block like this. At the time, Mr. Engering, who was the DOE Historic Buildings Officer, owned a number of these buildings on Endersham Road, including number 12, where my girlfriend lived. And I spent quite a long... I was a young man at the time. I spent quite a long time there. And one of our architects at Solon, I worked for Solon Housing Association, one of our architects lived in number three, Western Lane. And the whole idea was to try and keep Western Lane looking like a little lane, country lane, without houses, really, on the frontages of that side of the lane. And the arched window effect is taken from one of the original coach houses, which I think is still there and has been developed into a dwelling on that side of the lane. But it always was one of the principles that only a certain number of those sites would be developed and we wouldn't allow, or the local authority wouldn't allow a terrace like this to happen. All those buildings along Endersham Road, they all had back gardens and boundary fences, which have been taken down since Mr. Engering, I think he's probably long dead. But he owned a number of these houses and he was concerned that this sort of thing didn't happen. Okay, are there any other comments? Ms. Ratcliffe. Sorry, I don't mean to be sort of awkward, but I do think it's too bad. And in a way, in London, to reconstruct a bit of terrace. Now, I take your point entirely about the character of the rest of the road. It's not such a bad thing. You know, when you think what could be put there, is this so bad? That would be my question. Just a comment. I do happen to know the lane. I happen to know the people in the house, just the other side of those houses. The pub, of course, is at the end of the lane as well. And it's a really nice, you know, if you're sitting outside on a summer's evening, it's quite nice. You can sit, you can be on part of the lane. Obviously, the main seating area is on, sorry, you can be a bit on Western lane, but the main seating area is on Nightingale Lane. I can concur with a lot of the comments to the side, to my left. I find it quite strange-looking, knowing the lane, in the sense that it is very different to the houses on that side and very different to the houses opposite. And I think they're lovely-looking houses. I'm not, you know, I think that they're interesting, but I'm not sure that that's what the lane had in mind. And it is quite a country lane, and we don't have any of those in London. I have to say that from my perspective, I mean, this isn't in Battersea, but I have a view. I do agree that there is something extremely odd about the idea of building a terrace along this lane, when its whole character is of diversity and gaps between, substantial gaps in some cases, between the individual properties. It has a sort of cottagey kind of feel to it, as you walk down the length of Western Lane. And my ears pricked up when I heard about 10 minutes ago that in pre-app there were discussions about whether to build separate properties or a terrace, if I've got that right. No, they always sort of a terrace-style property, but what they saw in the previous pre-app was that each house was slightly different, so you didn't have the uniformity that is proposed in this application. Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think it is the, I mean, if they were of different styles, it would make the terrace significantly different, no doubt, but it's the terracing that I find slightly odd in this context. I agree that the terrace as it stands, sort of in some other context, would be quite acceptable. But in this context, I think there's a big question mark about whether it's appropriate. But that, sorry, that is not a chair's comment, that is a personal comment from me. Mr. Dodgson, what's the comment? Just one thing I didn't talk about was the rear. But before I do that, the implication when I read the applicant's documents was that they sort of discussed, you know, a uniform versus non-uniform. And they implied that they'd been encouraged to put in a uniform terrace, but I mean, probably as officers, you probably don't really want to comment on that. But going back to the rear, I find that, I don't know whether we, I presume we can comment on the rear. I had to laugh, really, when I saw them, because if you look at those, what they've done there is they've done all the things that people who've got low-built houses do in their back gardens. They've got the added-on dormer, which people do in Victorian houses in the area. They just add on a dormer. They've got the ground floor, which has no historical, you know, there's nothing historical about three panes of a glass sliding doors there. And it's all the things that people do to existing Victorian houses to sort of, well, change the rear view. You know, when people are looking out of their windows from their houses in Endersham Road and they look at those, they're not going to think they're looking at pretty cottages in a lane, are they? Thank you. As you can guess from my remarks, I do object to this application. I'll take one more comment, I think, from Councillor Belton. Again, from the Planning Applications Committee's point of view, we have to decide whether it causes substantial, less than substantial, I'm sure the officer can remind me of the exact words, harms to the conservation area. And I think perhaps you need to wonder what you'd advise the committee on in those terms. Okay, I think what, I think the position that we've reached, and I am bearing in mind Ms. Radcliffe's comment. I don't know the area, so please ignore me. Okay. I think that at the very least we have concerns about the building of a terrace of this type in the context of Western Lane, and that we think that given the character, the specific character of Western Lane, we feel that a development of this kind would do, when it comes down to it, probably less than substantial harm to the environment of Western Lane. Now, the planning issue then becomes whether there is something to offset the, what I think, I think it would be difficult to make the case that it is substantial harm to the conservation area. I, I, well, maybe, but, um, in either case, it, it then becomes whether there is, you know, some, um, some countervailing benefit that comes from, from the, the development. Now, that is not our decision to make, uh, nor is it, I mean, that was a personal view that it's probably less than substantial. You can accept it or reject it. Um, but I think that our, our view, um, as the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee is that this would represent harm to the conservation area in, and to this particular part of the conservation area, Western Lane. is that acceptable? Well, from the environmental society's point of view, I believe it would, it would be substantial, but I'm, I obviously we've got to come to a majority view. I, I think there are other issues, you know, I raised the question of the height. You know, the, they have taken the highest building in the whole lane and they've replicated that in one big chunk. Um, I think if they wanted a way out, they should come up with some proposal which is more varied in its character. Um, possibly not everything actually being in a terrace. Maybe two pairs of houses. that you would want to add to, to our, our, our comments. I mean, I don't think we, as a, uh, in this committee can reach a view on whether the, the harm is substantial or less than substantial. That's not our job. It's not our role. It's the whole purpose of the committee is the, it's the whole character of the lane is going to be changed and it will spread along the whole lane. You know, it, it, it will blow apart the country lane aspect, the whole feeling of that. I, I, yes, I, that is substantial, isn't it? Well, I, I fully accept what you've said. Okay. Do we want to reach a view on whether it's substantial or less than substantial? Councillor Osborne. Yeah, I'd be keen to see the committee come to a, come to a view on whether it's substantial or not substantial damage to the, to the lane. I think that would be useful for the planning applications committee. Okay. Just to clarify for the purposes of the committee. So, when we're looking at harm to designated heritage assets, we need to look at the conservation area as a whole. So, obviously, we're looking at western lane and the impact of that and the character, but looking at the conservation area as a whole and usually when it comes to substantial harm, it's a very high test. So, when we, the key piece of guidance is the MPPG which talks about an example being the key part of what's significant about the heritage assets and this being the conservation area. So, I just wanted to keep, bear that in mind when you're taking that view on how much the levels of harm to the conservation area as a whole. Obviously, we have other heritage assets that you can take into consideration, namely the locally listed buildings towards the east and the impact on those, on their settings as well. Okay. With that, with that advice, do we want to, I'm prepared to take the committee's view, do we want to say that in our, in our view view that the development would represent substantial harm to the conservation area? Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask, Chair, did you want to add in the comments regarding that the committee has concerns with the height of the building that Mr. Dodgson raised? Yes. Yep. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Let us move on to Putney application, excuse me, 2025-0954-13 Dealtree Road. Thank you, Chair. So this has been brought to the committee in relation to one particular aspect of proposals that's coming forward, but I'll run over all of the proposals you see here. So we're looking at erection of a side dormer extension to the south facing roof slope, relocation of the roof light on south elevations, and there's replacement side elevation windows, so they're looking at changes and additions to the windows, and there is also some changes towards the rear, including, and towards the front, we're looking at replacement of existing windows with heritage-style windows along with a new heritage-style front door. So application sites within the West Putney Conservation Area. You see here we've got a number of locally listed buildings within the vicinity, but the key part, this particular part of West Putney Conservation Area is a very distinctive roof form of this part of the development with the very steep gabled end buildings with the pitched roofs, the gabled ends fronting a street which form a very distinctive skyline to Daltrey Street. Here on the other side you'll see this is the application site here and this grouping of buildings here you've got two semi-detached pairs which largely have got pitch roofs with front-facing gables towards Daltrey Street. This is the building itself which is a very distinctive Lake Victorian building of West Putney Conservation Area. And here's just a particular view of that side elevation. The key element that we would like to seek the committee's views on is the side dormer. So here you've got the distinctive pitch roof which is quite visible so all of the side pictures of the building roofs are quite visible from within the conservation area and public areas and then quite tall chimney stacks. And here you see some other side dormers that have been consented in the past which you see one of them being here that sits behind the chimney stack. And here you see that very distinctive character to this part of the conservation area and those gabled, very consistent and regularised gables that form part of that very distinctive character of Daltrey Street. And those side elevations of those buildings and the side roof pictures being fairly very, very visible within those public areas. Another roof dormer here but much smaller and more historic as well close to the site. Some other pictures. These are showing two particular examples of those side dormers that have been historically added on these side elevations of these buildings. So that's one of those and here's another one on that side. So I've focused just on the front elevation and side elevation proposals because those are largely those areas of change that are proposed. So on the front elevation here you're looking at replacement of the sash windows with double glazed timber sash windows. They are going to be heritage style windows that seek to maintain that character of the building. but with side dormer that sits just behind the chimney stack here they do include proposals to replace the door which is not the main front door but the side door here with a heritage style timber door. Existing side elevation you see here so some Velux roof lights just on the side pitch and as proposed they're seeking to introduce quite a large side dormer so quite a lot deeper than those other examples that I've showed you on some of the images as existing within this part of West Putney Conservation Area so it goes quite far back. Other changes within this side elevation you've got another roof light that's repositioned much further forward so previously it was largely marked behind the chimney stack now it's proposed to be further forward and that dormer is proposed to be sited just behind the chimney stack and extend quite far back within that side roof slope a new window and aperture to proposed to make a three regular pattern of windows and then some other changes towards the rear including some rear end rear changes towards the rear extension which largely won't be visible from within the conservation area but the conservation officer has sought for this to come to the committee largely on the basis of the side dormer the reason being that one of the main justifications for the proposals that has been sought in the application is the fact that there are other presidents within the area albeit these other presidents are older and are predating the adoption of the current local plan which sets out specifically under LP5 that dorm is to be kept to the rear unless it's sensitive to the style of the building and locality so it would be helpful to get the committee's views specifically on the side dormer but obviously you're very welcome to take a view on any of the other works proposed as well as the building questions first of all if there are any if not comments and I think sorry I've forgotten you piercing yes partner society we discussed this and actually we're not inclined to think that it does cause harm to the conservation area three principal reasons it's quite far back it is hidden behind the chimney yes you do see it from the front but a lot of it is hidden behind the chimney the street actually has a lot of variation in it already you do get that uniformity at the front but there's a lot of different gables already put in as you've referred to and whilst they are older and they are varied I think they have set that precedent of having them there including to the one immediately next to it number 15 the one that has a scaffolding on it in the images it's got that that one already there and it seems yep that's it the one with the scaffolding there is immediately next to it so we would not be inclined to think that it causes harm to that part of the conservation area we would though want there to be a couple of conditions put in for approval were the planning committee minded to approve it the first would be to specify the sort of shingles that would be on the extension to match the shingles on the other extension on number 15 so you don't get variety there and also particularly to clarify that any glazing in those new windows should be what's the word obscured glazing so that they don't actually overlook number 15 from those new windows but otherwise we wouldn't object to it from Putney Society okay other comments Mr. Dodgson I can see that there are other examples of dormers in those positions but I think the other example that we were shown was considerably shorter in its length I think that you said there was an existing one you showed us an image there I think was the one on the right there well we can't actually see how far back it goes but it is there's quite a big gap between the chimney and where it begins and I don't know if there are any other examples there I just feel that the one here it can be seen from the street so it is you know it is breaking the general understanding that from the street these sorts of additions should not be made I just feel it is just too long I feel if it looked less if it was just shorter in its length it would be more acceptable just to pick up on the point of seeing from the front I think looking at those two examples there you can see that there is a block between the chimney breast and the slope of the roof just as there would be on this application I don't think there is on number 15 though I do agree there is on those ones Mr Armstrong yeah looking at this one the brickwork goes straight up and it goes through the gutter the gutter doesn't continue along but presumably what we're being shown on the proposal does go is set back within the roof and so the gutter is continuous isn't it I just wanted to check that that's correct no they are not proposing to continue the side elevation all the way up towards the dormer there is a break so that basically the eaves will be maintained along with the gutters yeah that's less objectionable in terms of but it does extend a long way back but you can't see that from the street frontage okay are we saying that this is acceptable or not my point of view I say not because I think what we should be asking ourselves is if the architect built this house would they have put that there in that way and I don't believe they would and this is what we're talking about this from the streetscape I don't think it is acceptable if it was a rear and can't be seen from the street I think we've all generally accepted that's what happens I just feel this looks like an add-on it looks like somebody trying to fill in and get as much as they can out of that bit of the roof and that's why I feel that if it was shorter in length maybe a gap between the chimney and where it began so maybe we're not going to have uniformity of you on this one I think with respect the question cannot be can you go back to square one and whether the architect would have done this or not I mean we are where we are to make the obvious cliched comment I think the question has to be whether this is going to harm to the conservation area and it does seem to me that given the variety in the street and I have walked down it recently I find it difficult to say that it would do significant I'm not using the word substantial I don't think it would significantly damage the streetscape at all would be my view but are we accepting this application went from Miss Ratcliffe sorry I'm just clear about that velox window is is that a new window and I think I saw one similar on another house or is that breaking a pattern because that really is very towards the fore so the velox window if I just take you back to the I don't think you can quite see it but there is an existing velox window but it's set behind the chimney so you can see it open a little bit at that point I don't think there was a possibility of an image looking at quite to the side but they are bringing it further forward in terms of precedents you see here this is this is the building here and you have got some that bring it further forward it will be further forward than the chimney so it will be more visually prominent than previously there are some roof lights on the side pictures as you see here are we of a mind to accept this application even with some reluctance yes okay thank you that brings us to the end of the applications we then have the decisions paper paper 25 146 to note I think that the the start and and garter application on lower Richmond road permission was granted by delegated authority could I just comment the partner society is delighted that that was the case good as you'll have seen this committee supported the application 14 Clapham Common West side was refused for I think basically the reasons that we discussed last was it last yes it was last time isn't it and hooray I think not for minuting okay is there any other business okay in that case just to note that our future meeting dates the next two meetings on in July and September will not be in this room they will be in the council chamber just to note so I will be sitting up on a big dais with a very uncomfortable chair because of the changes to the governance at the council we've moved the meetings of the cabinet formally executive and they now clash with the next two meetings are on the same evening that Chak is meeting but there's no crossover of membership thank you thank you very much everyone look forward to seeing you in July when I hope the weather will be warmer