Agenda

May 7, 2024 View on council website

Transcript

everyone, welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jab and I'm Chair of the Committee. Members, I will call your name shortly. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you have confirmed, please remember to switch it off. I'll call names in order. Councillor BELLTON. Hello, good evening everyone. Tony Bellton, Planning Applications Chair and member for Bassie Bortwood. Councillor CUPPA. Thanks very much, Michael. Councillor LEANIE CUPPA, Deputy Chair of the Planning Applications Committee and First Down Ward. Councillor OWEN's. Thank you very much, Chair. I am Councillor OWEN's and I am a Ward Councillor in the Northcott Ward. Thank you. Mark Dodgson, I don't think is here. Nor is Francis Radcliffe. Andrew Catto. Yes, Andrew Catto from the Partney Society, standing in for Laura Poglas. No Chris Rice. Mr Potter. Thank you, Potter here on behalf of the R.I.B.A. Ms Lawson. Ms Greenwood. Pamela Greenwood wants a historical society. Mr Farrow. Good evening, Peter Farrow from the Wandsworth Society. And we have normally in recent meetings, at least, had Councillor Osborne here, the history champion, but he will not be attending this evening. Do we have any apologies for absence? Thank you, Chair. Just the one apology, it's Laura Poglas. Okay, and the following officers are also present. First of all, remotely, Laura and Wei. Good evening, Chair, Laura and Wei, Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And Mr Sellers. Good evening, Chair, Barry Sellers, and the Democratic Services Officer. Good evening, Becky Hickey from Democratic Services. And apologies, I didn't ask Mr Armstrong from the Clapham Society. Good evening, Roger Armstrong representing the Clapham Society. Apologies for that. Now, I'm asked to remind you to ensure your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking. And I would also add, please turn your phone off or onto silent so that you don't embarrass yourself during the meeting. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? If there are, please quote the item on the paper number. Are there any? No good. In that case, I think we move to the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March. First of all, are they a correct record and will you authorize me to sign a copy of them? I'll do that at the end of the meeting. Matters are rising. I'll take them in the composite set of papers, page three. First down launch, Councillor Cooper. I think you must have been reading that speech, thought the bubble that was popping out to the top of my head. It's still looking absolutely disgusting. It doesn't seem to be improving even slightly. I wondered if the lease that was scheduled to be signed at the end of the meeting had been signed and I wondered if there was any likelihood of any progress, any time, I don't know, before 2026 perhaps. Just a pluck of date from the air. It really is looking very sorry for it, and it's a beautiful building. Who can report on this? Is it Ms Wei or Mr Sellers? I can give some update on this, Chair. I have had an update this morning from our property services department. So there is now a final version of the lease being drafted and there's only one point that needs to be settled between the lease. So there is some progress, but they're hoping for the lease to be agreed in the next week or so. So there's only one point to be settled. The lease still hasn't been signed though. So hopefully we can have some positive news at the next Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. I'm sure the rest of my colleagues on the committee share that hope. It does seem to have taken rather longer than we had hoped. Okay, shall we move on to page 4? Any matters arising there? No. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Could I just raise a couple of items there? The renewed local listing exercise. We were told at the last meeting that it will start in July. Is that now confirmed or not? Ms Wei or Mr Sellers? Yes, Chair. I can confirm that it will take place in July. The exact date is to be confirmed, but it's in the forward plan with our consultations team for that date and there's no reason for it to be moved now at this stage. Good. I know there's been some correspondence with other officers about this exercise and some of the failings of the previous exercise in terms of making information available. I know Councillor Osborne is very much on that case. I hope we can manage to do a better job with the results of that exercise than was the case last time. The paragraph following that, the third paragraph on the page, the reviews of conservation areas, I presume that there is no progress on finding the resources to resuscitate that program of reviews. I think that's rather regrettable given that some of the appraisals of conservation areas are now very out of date. Could I have the support of the committee in urging officers and Councillors to try to find the resources to resuscitate the exercise that started more than a couple of years ago? Do I take that, take nods as support? Okay, thank you. Are there any other matters arising? Okay, could we then move to the applications that are due to be considered by us at this meeting and start with 2024, 1155, the Alton Activity Centre, and over to you in this way. Thank you, Chair. I apologise to everyone for not being able to be there in person today. Unfortunately, I am having issues with the train strikes. The first item on the agenda is 2024/1555, just before we go on any further. I wondered if Becky Hickey could just move to one side, because if we are going to look at things on screen, you are actually sitting in front of it. Sorry to request that. But we'd rather look at you, but as this is the agenda rising when you're not, do you mind? Thank you so much. That's fine. Sorry, Ms Way. Not a problem at all. If there are any issues with anyone hearing me, because I know that Teams is a little bit temperamental, please just flag that to me. So there's a bit of background to this site, so this just gives you some context in terms of the site photos of the areas that are subject to this application. So this application is focused on two areas within the Alton, West Estate, which is the down to fields open space to the south of the grade 2 star listed blocks. So the open space that's currently got a rather tired looking play area within it. And then also Alton Activity Centre, which is in the map there in the southwest of the site, which is again a sort of a play area space, but it's enclosed by quite tall railings. The third area that's subject to up this applications, which was not passed as the original master plan, is the site to the south of down to field, which is currently the location for the bull sculpture, which is a grade 2 listed sculpture situated there, if you can see in number 3. So this is just an area for you just to give you the context, but the red line plan is within the application to show you those two areas in particular that's to be focused on. And all the designations within, this is probably one of the highest concentration of heritage designations within the borough. So we have the Alton Conservation Area, it recovers Alton West and Alton East all the way down to the area of the boundary with Richmond. In 2020, a large part of the site, including down to fields and includes Alton Activity Centre, was registered as a registered park and garden at grade 2. You have the grade 2 star listed blocks to the north of the red line just outside of the red line, and obviously down to house, which is also listed. The bull sculpture is also listed. So you've got a multiple amount of heritage designations within the site, just within the immediate vicinity. Obviously we've got other listed buildings towards the south with Minster Gardens, Bongolos, Mount Clare and various other listed buildings, which are just outside of this map. So a lot of the members of the committee will be well aware of the context of this particular application, and that is the Consented Master Plan, which allowed for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to the south east of the red line plan, which included the redevelopment of the area, which includes the library, and included Alton Activity Centre and down to fields with some proposed improvements to down to fields, including a new play area, and also Alton Activity Centre having some improvements as well. Now as part of the review of this master plan and what can be implemented going forward, the Councillors and the Housing Team Housing Regeneration Team have been looking at ways in which they can implement parts of the master plan after the housing provider was, we lost the housing provider for the scheme after it was consented. So this is one of the first proposals coming forward that seeks to try to implement some positive aspects of that master plan. So it's focusing on basically down to fields and Alton Activity Centre, with a view of potentially reviewing in the future the sort of village square area and the redevelopment site to the south east, but that's outside of this red line plan. So this gives you a context in terms of what was consented as part of the master plan for these particular areas. So you've got here the down to field on the left, which shows that they were proposing to have a new trim trail and a review of all the pathways to allow this loop around, which was something that was considered important for those residents within Alton. And you were two new play areas, one within down to fields and then obviously the redevelopment of Alton Activity Centre that included an interactive play space. So again just looking at the existing view of the site, looking down with the high cliff drive blocks to the north. So the three main areas that we're looking at, there is the proposed new play space for down to fields which are shown here. So this is exactly the same location as the current play space, but obviously a significant improvement on the existing situation to have been through various pre-application discussions with council officers and has been subject to a design review panel. So you see here it's very much about sort of a kind of naturalised play space with lots of interactive features. It includes like a large climbing structure which you see on the left. And if I go through they've got a nest play down to the north and some water features towards the south which you see in the foreground in this image. And another concept area view of that play space that shows it looking back in the opposite direction. See more in the foreground there, you've got the kind of key feature which is that, that large climbing structure that sort of wraps around. But very much a distinctive change to what is there at the moment, much softened effect in terms of the landscape, how it impacts, particularly in relation to the boundary treatment of the play space. This just gives you a kind of general landscape arrangement plan, shows those, the elements of space that run through and that it very much linked through the paths to allow maximum access to the, to this play space. So the other element of changes have been implemented and this is a change from the previous master plan is as that the, the applicant team have reviewed the actual paths that run around down to fields. So this is the current path arrangement and you see here that there isn't that loop, the paths lead up towards the, the high cliff drive blocks and then come down. But there isn't any way of really linking through as a, as a, as a space. And here's the consent plan which you see that has quite, quite angular paths that lead from those blocks to the north down to what is a circular loop path around which links you through down. So what the applicant team has looked at is actually the original master plan and working with the existing path layouts, but in providing the improvements to it. So you'll see here that they've, they've introduced links that, that allows that loop path to be introduced as per the master plan. But they've softened some of those linking paths and brought some of those and retained some of those linking paths up to the high cliff drive blocks. And so you have the loop path that runs around, which includes the trim trail, which was part of the original consented master plan, which is the points on, that are in green at this point are the, of the trim trail. And then it links back to the, to the play area towards the east, to west, I'm losing my mind, to the east. And this just gives you an idea of all some of the furniture that's proposed to introduce a very much in, in keeping with the ethos of the master plan, but really the main changes are that is that pathway is more respectful to the, to the original pathway layout, but just linking it through so that you have, have that loop. So the, the, the next part of the application is Alton Activity Centre. So this part of the site has less sort of heritage does sensitivities to it. It is still within the conservation area in the Regis Park and Garden, see the structures and buildings within it are, of lesser significance. So this is again the consented master plan. So you see here the white block, that's, that's the existing centre that's on the site that's outside of the red line, it was part outside of the red line in the consented master plan, and it's still part outside of the red line in this master plan. And this is because it is managed by a different part of the council, and it's currently largely used as sort of after school, private after school club. And again, here's looking at the concept view of, of the activity centre. So what the, the applicant's team have really looked at and they've gone out to public consultation, quite extensive public consultation, and including speaking to school children of various different ages, male and female, to look at what they really want out of this site. So it's, it's very much a scheme that has responded to what the needs of, of the children within the local area and what they consider they would like from this space. So it is quite a bit different from the previous master plan. Another aerial concept view just to show that space, the different zones that have been proposed. So this is the general landscape plan, so I haven't included, there is sort of a play strategy which sets out areas with a, with a key at the side, which I thought might be a bit difficult for members to be able to see up on the screen. So the main areas, if you see here, within the southern part of the site, it's written to two different zones. We've got like an open space here, which has basketball, perhaps an interactive space, which is the space area, the kind of orangey, kind of taupe space that's quite interactive. And then on the other side, you've got another, a different sort of play surface, which has the sort of feature, kind of wall feature that runs around it. Towards the north of the site, you also have a science zone, so you see to the north of, the whites, quite blocked out space in that corner, that's to be a science stone. So that I'll have tables and magnifying posts and a little amphitheater seating area. But the main premise behind some of the changes basically really is, is looking at an interactive space that allows integration with all different types of children, different age ranges, but also allows spaces for, kind of boys related activities like the basketball net, but also spaces for girls as well, and that has been quite extensively considered and reviewed as part of the pre-application stage with offices. And the one area that has been included in the red line that wasn't part of the master plan, which is the, the, the ball sculpture area towards the south of Danja Fields, which at the moment, I think a lot of members will know, it was originally an open space that sat within the landscape and then introduced the car parking towards the back of it, which lost its space. It's an interesting image within, when you look at the list description, there's an image, an old image of children sitting on it, and it's sitting within the landscape with the, with the blocks towards, in, in the background, that, that setting has been eroded quite significantly. And as part of this application, they're looking at improving the landscape around the ball, which is, which is an additional feature. So this is an indicative plant landscape plan here. So you'll see they're proposing to increase the hedge behind the site to allow a little bit more masking and framing of the view of, of the ball sculpture, and then the landscaping around it to form sort of circular space around it, if I take you back here, with actually having the, the seating areas situated, looking more towards the ball sculpture, whereas at the moment you have a seating area that has your back towards the sculpture, so it's not really celebrating this, this sculpture in the right way. So there's improvements there in terms of the, the actual setting of the ball sculpture. Obviously, there's, it would be lovely if we could take the car parking away and reinstate its landscape to the rear, but obviously the reality is that's not possible. So this is just looking at, so those enhancements. And I think that's my last slide. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Ms. Wei. First of all, any, any factual questions, points that need to be clarified? No? Oh. Mr. Catto. Probably a rather technical point, but there's a red line as the application site, which doesn't bear very much resemblance to any real edges on the ground. And there's no sign of blue lines or whatever to, to indicate who, who else owns what around it. I suspect that's something that's convenient for this purpose, but it doesn't actually be rather meaningless if you look at the lines on the, on the map. Any, any response to that? I think that the, I think the red line is just trying to cover the area, which is just subject to the application of the sea, that the, I can check about the blue line because obviously the area of land owned by the council is much more extensive than the red line as we know. So I can't check that, but I think they've just tried to confine it to the areas that are subject to this application. That's why there's rather, there's no obvious reasons for the lines. Okay, thank you. Comments on, on this proposal or any part of it? Okay, if I may, Chair, and again this may sound very technical, but much mention was made of it being part of the master plan for the regeneration. Now as far as I'm aware, firstly, does anybody have a strong view from a planning law point of view whether doing any of this stuff constitutes starting the regeneration and therefore starting building the previous planning consent? And secondly, I might point out to council officers that the previous planning consent is actually completely unbuildable under modern building regulations because ever since the two staircase rule came in, none of the buildings approved are actually, can now be constructed under current building regulations. Ms. Wei. Just to add that this is a separate application to the master plan. So it's, it's come forward to seek to try to implement some of the positive aspects of the master plan, but this is a standalone application. It will, it's not linked to the previous consent because as I was stating, there are changes within this, within, that are shown in this application that show clear changes to the master plan. So this will not trigger that as a way of implementing the master plan, they would need to implement that original master plan as part of that application in order for it to be started. And I don't believe that is the intention of, of the housing and regeneration team. They're very much focused on looking at ways in which we can consider the master plan and the, the ethos of the master plan and what actually is, what could be delivered on the ground. There's a lot of, there's a lot of discussions and public consultation that has taken place on this. I hope that helps. Thank you for clarity, yes. Any other comments that people want to make about this, this application? Let me, let me stress one point that this way made, that this is an application in the heart of a, a very dense set of heritage assets, nationally and locally listed. So it is, it is important that we get this right, does anyone want to make any comment in that context? Elton. Well, I'm not really chair in the sense that I think it is an advisory committee for me and the planning applications committee, but I'm really encouraging people to make a comment because we would like us to know whether you think it, as it stands, it's okay or not. We are, as an, as an administration, we're very aware that the people of Roehampton have been looking forward to some kind of regeneration for ages and I, the history of this, everyone knows about. It would be really nice if we could get moving with something, so a comment would be helpful I think. Thank you. Mr. Faro. The application is essential for re-rooting the trim trail and the replacement of play equipment on two play areas. I don't think anything that I've seen indicates that it would have an adverse effect on the suggested buildings in the conservation area and, in fact, I very much liked the look of the play equipment that was being put up in the first area. To that extent, to that end, I would say that I would very much support what I've seen of the application for these items. Sorry if it's a cat time. Yes, I'm, I'm going to second what Peter Faro's just had to say about the play equipment. I think that's fine. There's obviously a concern that down Schafield is sometimes referred to, I'd say sometimes, as a capability brown landscape. I think if you look at its history, it's hugely, hugely changed since the estate was built. There were very few trees on that hillside in the 1950s and I think we have, I reasonably should be saying, is this having an impact, positive or negative on the landscape we see rather than a deeply historic landscape? I think that's gone and in that sense, my reservations which I had when I first saw this about putting a modern trim trail on a historic landscape are not as bad as they used. I think we're not really looking at a historic landscape but we should treat it as part of the estate. So in that case, yes, I'm in favour. When are the rest of my societies in favour? I will leave them to tell me later. Councillor Einde. Yes, I just want to can tell with what has been said about the children's pay area. I was particularly impressed by the range of ages that would be catered for. I know we're looking at different contexts but given on so many estates, we see children don't have that sort of access. I thought it was highly impressive and great to see being laid out. Thank you. Can I second what has been said so far? I've been very impressed looking through the thought that has gone into the proposal as a game, particularly in relation to the play areas. And I think there is an appropriate balance between the practicalities of the play areas and the sensitivity to the landscape in which this is all located. So I have nothing to say but praise about these proposals. Does anyone have any contrary view or modification to that view? If not, I think we approve of this application with a claim. And I hope that it succeeds at PAC. Just a small point. I'm very familiar with what's on the site at the moment and I think it would be really helpful to see better pictures of the actually existing alternate activity centre or if we're looking at other things in the future so that we can actually see the difference. I think Councillor Owens has said how positive it is to see something that will cater to children of many different ages and I think if you saw what was on the site at the moment and how limited it is, the claim might be even stronger. Okay, right. Do you have enough to put in a minute for PAC? Yes. Okay. Let us move on then to application 20240781, a very different kind of application, one's worth high street, over to you in this way. This is my colleague, Mr. Sellers, will be presenting this one. Sorry, Barry, I could hear you briefly for that moment in time. I think it's working now. I think your microphone wasn't working. The item is 198 to 200 Ballom High Road, if that's okay. Sorry, that is different from the list that I've been given. Sorry, so this is 2023, 3646, 1998, 200 Ballom High Road, sorry. Yes, certainly, Chair. This is a property in the Ballom Town Centre, involves a demolition of the existing second floor, and erection of a second, new second, third and fourth floor for partly C1 hotel used to provide 18 hotel rooms, and the fourth floor for residential use, two one bedrooms and one two bedroom flats, and you see that from the photograph here, this is the building as it stands at the moment, and you've got retail on the ground floor. The building there probably dates about 1960s, I believe, post-war, and there has been, it's part of that, you see the brick building along with the first floor, there runs through to the right there. There have been additions to that block in the recent past two, three stories, and we've now got one now on the corner of this plot. I should add that this is a view here from Chestnut Grove, looking towards the building on the right-hand side, you have the great two listed underground station, that gives you the focus of where we are in terms of this part of Ballom Town Centre, and that's looking towards the underground station, as we see there, and this is an aerial view of the Town Centre, showing the corner of that particular block, and its relationship to the underground station, and you can see that there's an existing second-story block on top of that corner, and that's proposed for demolition and the erection of three stories above the brick component part. This gives you this relationship, it's not too far away from the 90-gill laying conservation area, it's just not growing, you can see the yellow there is the heritage destination, you've also got to the south of the railway, you've got to the church, it's the most church, and you've got locally listed stations well on the right-hand side, so that's the heritage destinations in that area, one point should point out, which is not shown on the map there, but the area is this form within a mid-rise zone, so in terms of the local plan, so that's up to five stories in that particular area, that's the destination in terms of the parameter heights, so that's something which we have to take into account as part of the application, some material consideration, move forward, right, this is the shot of the building, it stands at the moment, the elevation onto Chestnut Grove, and you've got the existing second-floor component part which was an addition in the past to the red brick component at first floor, and here we have the proposal, Chestnut Grove, and with the three floors of brick structures to the above the ground floor, and a fourth floor in a render for the residential accommodation to the top floor, again on the Ballom High Road frontage, showing the existing situation, we move to the proposed situation, again you see the ground floor, actually there's the shop there where it's, I can't read the actual name of it, but the one second unit from the left is going to be the proposed entrance, so you lose a retail unit to make the entrance to the hotel going forward, and then you've got the three-story block that sits on top of the, which is basically a podium, which is the two-story podium to this development, and there's a view from the rear, and side elevation as well, and this is the existing side elevation, the proposed, so it's quite a change there, the dramatic structure in terms of its scale, in terms of that part of Ballom, and here we have some CGI's, so on the left hand you see the existing one, on the right you see the proposed CGI showing the additions to that corner block, and its impact on the listed building, now what I should point out is, as part of the premise heights zoning, whereby the premise heights can go up to five stories, in terms of the policy LP4, there's a consideration as part of that policy, which means that it has to not have any adverse effect on any house assets around, now therefore you could argue, was I had that in my notes to the case officer, that this could give rise to a list of sets out your harm to the setting of the listed building, by means of its height and scale, and so on, so that's I think a consideration for you to take on board as part of the considerations for this application, it does make quite a change to the corner of that particular block, I think we have another view of it as well here, looking down by past the railway station, towards the underground station, and you've got the block on the right hand side, so it's quite a change in scale from what it's a moment to what's been proposed, and the actual conversion is two to 18 units to the accommodation, it's quite tightly packed, there is an area where they can cook as well, but basically they're bedroom units going in there, so it's a referental, and then you've got the flat above that, sorry, two flats above that, the top floor, so I think that's probably the last one, is it not, and then we'd perhaps have some comments. Could we start with any factual questions about this application? If there aren't any, I invite comments, I'll start with Mr. Dodgson, who has just arrived in the nick of time from the Balham Society. Thank you, Chairman, I do apologise, it took me about an hour and 45 minutes to get here tonight, sorry, so I hope perhaps you'll indulge me if I speak at some length about this, clearly obviously the committee is concerned with this property primarily because of its impact on the listed building, which is Balham Underground Station, which was built, forgive me Mr. Sellers, I don't know what he said, but it was built in, I understand it opened in 1926. 1998's 200 Balham High Road, I think the context and the slight history of that building, although it's not within the conservation area, I think it's quite important because how it appears and how it affects the tube station is very important. Extensibly, it is a low-built building. I have looked into the history of it, and there might be others around the table who perhaps can correct me. There are a couple of books that were published with images of early images of Balham, which I think have got incorrect when the building was actually built. They talk about it as being the result of the 1940 bomb damage that created the crater in Balham High Road, for which there are some famous images of the bus that ended up in that crater. But actually one of the photographs of that crater is taken from a building that could only be the building that this application relates to because it's taken to a low level, there's a railing, and it's not one of the Victorian buildings. So I suspect that those buildings were pulled down between the date of the maps, which the London bomb maps are based on, which were around 1914 and hadn't been amended when they did the London assessment of bomb damage in the war. And the area of that building is tinted as just only having suffered minor damage, whereas a bank next door was fully demolished. So what we have was, in the 1930s, a building adjacent right next to the Underground station, the Holden Underground station, which was low built, sort of quasi art deco in style, and complimented the Underground station very well. And that modernist approach that was being taken there, what's been allowed to happen regrettably because the building is not in the conservation area, as you saw from the images, which is shown to you just now, add-ons have been added already, which are actually very detrimental to the building. Where that building in a conservation area, I'm sure we would not have let the Husco through, or we would have objected to the existing additions. But sadly, obviously the building is not in the conservation area itself. So turning then to the tube station, maybe this has already been enunciated, but Charles Holden was a really, really top architect of the 20th century. I mean, he was a R.I.B.A. Gold Medalist. He twice declined knighthoods. He was a vice president of R.I.B.A. at Wright Reber. He designed 55 Broadway, which is a landmark building in London. He was, you know, a great, I think, I don't know if Mr. Bottle would agree, but he was a great architect, and Balum, and any of the other places that have stations that were designed by him are very lucky to have those pieces of architecture in town centres. And as far as I'm aware, that is the only listed in terms of, you know, grade two and grade one or grade two-star listed buildings in the town centre of Balum. So in terms of the impact on Balum, that building is very, very important. I think as the years have gone by, people have regarded it as an even better building than perhaps it was regarded at the time it was built. I think it has so many good qualities to it, the stone, the port and stone, the detailing and so on. And therefore, to have a building right opposite it, have this extraordinarily inappropriate bulking and let alone the detailing of the building opposite, in my view, is extremely detrimental to the setting of a grade two listed building. To be quite frank, I think it should be a grade two-star listed building. But even if it's a grade two listed building, I think it's extremely detrimental to it. Mr Catto, I see about, you know, Mr Farrow then. In the words I think of Gwyneth Paltrow, you had me at Hello. I think the effect of this building on the splendid underground building would be extremely detrimental. I noticed that we have to use the term less than substantial because there are only two descriptions of harm that are allowed in planning legislation. But it seems to me a shame that the term less than substantial doesn't sound anywhere near harsh enough. I found this an application that was, it seemed to me to be poorly put together. And I think one significant element, which, well, minor element, if you look at the elevations of the building that Mr. Sellers showed us, they chose to put the, replicate the windows on the existing first floor, on the upper floors, whereas if you look at the drawing of the building next to it, they show what to self-evidently, I think, trickle windows that are existing. And the fact they didn't have the mounts to recognise what they were doing with indicates, I think, an extremely poorly put together application. And I can only reiterate that I find the height of the building, the bulk of the building, next to the underground station, to be very unacceptable. Thank you. Mr. Potter? I feel that this proposal is totally inappropriate. And really, it's in fierce contrast to the building that Sarah already holds at the tube station. Thank you. I just want to say one thing. I did say it's part of my comments that it would have been useful to have had like a master plan coming forward to show how if other people were going to do the similar thing, then how that would be done as going forward in a coherent manner rather than piecemeal. And what you probably look at is that most of these form within two property elements. This one's not 198, 200. And if you go down the line, then if they form pairs rather than singularly. So that's something to look at as part of that going forward. That's a strong argument for the development of design codes, isn't it? Which I think is something that the Council might want to take forward. Indeed, I know that some London boroughs are developing design codes to cover the whole borough. Councillor OWEN's. I just want to say I can care with an awful lot of what has been said from the point of view of the bulk and the mass and the high road. I know that particular stretch quite well. We've recently had some traffic changes just before there. So you now can't turn right on the road before you get to where the hotel would be because of the school, the two new several crossings that have been put in. It is an incredibly busy junction in the morning with the children. And I know it's a hotel. And I'm imagining people won't be parking and it's not in the remit. But it's just a surprise me because it is quite a sort of busy area. But thank you, that's just my point. Unless anyone has anything very important to say, Mr Cat. May I just take a completely contrary view on this one? I think the tube station was built as indeed its twin down the road at the various two tings and so on, to fit in with a Victorian street which was two stories taller than the existing building on that site and can hold its own whatever goes on next door because it is a completely different animal on the corner. It's attached to a three-story building round to the left of the view we've got. And equally, yes, design codes, let's please ask the council to do that while you're raising the topic thoroughly, I think can this panel thoroughly encourage the council to get on with design codes? But yes, this is an area where we should be looking to build a bit more, but maybe not three more floors. Councillor Belton and then Mr Duchson. I'm not sure, I don't want it the other way round now, because as I said before, I think it's not my role to speak about much other than to hear the advisory comments. But I was thankful to Mr Cat. Because I thought to myself, in a way, I'm inviting people who are dislike this to put their case strongly again, so to try and convince me, amongst other planning application members, perhaps, in that many of the – Mr Gator just mentioned the similar tube stations on the line, and indeed, low-rise and very famous tube stations all over London have now surrounded by all sorts of things, all kinds of heights and contrast. I rather wondered whether, in fact, the contrast between – might display it just as much as trying to compliment it. I don't like much. I don't think anyone does what's there now, particularly the new third floor, and I rather preferred the design version. But I'm open to be persuaded – I want to hear this because I just think it's a – given the development pressures on the borough and indeed on the city as a whole, that it may be a little bit unrealistic keeping it about the height, the height we're talking about, but I'm open to be persuaded. I think Mr. Dodgson – I'll give him one more go to help persuade you. I don't think it's necessarily the height per se. It's the disjointed nature of what's being proposed. It had somebody been proposing that entire row of 1930s low-built buildings were having the entire row with perhaps two more stories added on. As you say, that would be no higher than the buildings that were there previously at the beginning of the last century. But I think it's the fact that we've got high-caliber architecture in terms of the underground station being immediately juxtaposed against what I think most people here would regard as not high-caliber architecture. The building that's creating is going to look very unsightly, inconsistent. So had they been proposing that all the entire row had been three floors high and it was good quality eye architecture, as is the case further north as you go along towards to the corner of the next road, Ramston Road, then that probably would have been more acceptable. But it's the spikiness, I suppose, of what's being done and a low-caliber of the detailing. Okay, so I think we have divided views here. Although I don't think I'm hearing anyone arguing for this particular proposal in isolation, I think what I'm hearing is that without some further development further to the north, this building rather sticks out like a sore thumb. It seems to me I'm not so worried about the, if I can speak personally, about the chestnut grove elevation, I'm concerned much more about the bottom-high road elevation, which just sort of sticks up in isolation from anything else. That's a personal view, but I think there is a case for densification and raising height, but not in this sort of isolated fashion. Yeah, I'm of the view that it's a story too high, at least. I like the way it wraps around the corner, but I think being that tall, it's going to threaten other buildings, like for instance, rather charming. I think it's station terracing, chestnut grove, which is lovely building with a little cartouche on the top, Victorian, and I think that I'm a bit worried about the use as well. Is it going to be a hotel? Is it really a hotel? And the traffic generation, everything, the aspects of it, but yeah, I think it's too high anyway, my view. Can I try and sort of square the various views that have been put here? That we would not be opposed to a height, a heightening of the terrace as a whole, proceeding up to the north. We have some concern about the fourth floor added, what the top story. We're not opposed to some height heightening, as I say, along the terrace as a whole, but as it stands moment, we cannot support this individual proposal. Is that a reasonable way of putting it? Mate, could I just answer it? Yes, I agree with very much what you said, and what others have said, at least one story too tall. Rather than say we have concerns about it, I'd say we would suggest that if the planning application's pretty is minded to consider the application or how do I put this? No, they shouldn't accept the top story. And I wondered whether we could also suggest that if the planning application is willing to accept the application that there should be conditions attached requiring details to be submitted. I'll return to the line I made only about the windows. I think they made a big mistake in the, what you call the, the fenestration, the appearance of the windows. And it does give cause to concern that the detailing may very well let the building down. So, as I say, conditions attached to sufficient details. And I would take it that the rider to that is that this is in a sensitive, that detail is important in such a sensitive location. Councillor BELLTON. Back on the comments. This is not making a judgement in any sense, but on your summary. Do you see the conservation area advisory committee just advising about form and architectural style? Or do you think that, I ought to know, I guess, as a question for the standing orders of the committee? Or do you think you have a role in commenting on usage? Because at least one person questioned usage. And you didn't mention it in your summary. I would not, as I understand our terms of reference, they give us a very, very wide competence in making comments, providing advice to your committee. Councillor BELLTON on anything relating to buildings in conservation areas and their surrounds. And in dealing with heritage assets. In which case, one of the members commented that, let's put it to the mildest, that he would like proofs that a hotel was required there. I mean, that was a comment from one person. It seems to me that as I read the application, it was very unclear to me whether what was being proposed was a hotel in the common sort of sense of that. Or something like a co-living arrangement even, or an apart hotel kind of arrangement. Because I mean, there is mention of sort of common areas, isn't there, for the use of residents. So it doesn't seem, if as I read the application, it didn't seem to me to come across as if I can put it this way, a conventional hotel. It would be a very small hotel, yeah. Thank you. So clarity, I think we would seek on what the precise usage is planned to be. On the basis of my summary as modified by, or added to by Mr Farrow and my subsequent comment about usage, does that meet the points that have been made in discussion? Are people happy with that? And if I can just reiterate a point that I think at least Mr Kato supports, I mean, this really does highlight the need for design codes. In that case, you've got enough, I hope. Let me move back in my list. I'm sorry, I seem to have two lists which are slightly in conflict with each other. Can we move to 2024, 0751, 61 to 63 ones with high street, almost opposite here? And I think that is this way. That's right, Chair. Thank you. So as you mentioned, this application is literally across the road from where you're residing. 61 to 63 ones with high street. So the application description is conversion of the upper first and second floors to self-contained flats along with a new third floor extension, third floor extension having two flats within it. So here's the siting question. So again, quite a sensitive environment. The siters actually built in the early 20th century. It's part of some infilling of some of the areas along the high street. There's quite a few of these early 20th century and 1920s blocks, so much of its period, red brick upper floors, and then a shop front to the lower floors with quite a prominent parapet towards the front elevation. This just gives you a bit more of a context on side elevation because of the sit down positioning of the Quaker meeting house next door to it. The side elevation is actually quite prominent as you walk coming down towards high street. And there is actually a ghost sign on that side elevation. The building at the moment has a flat roof which then goes towards the rear with a large hall attached to the rear. There you see there, there's the context of the site. So you have the Quaker meeting house directly adjacent to the building and that is a grade two listed along with its immediate setting to the rear which is the burial ground. And then you have obviously the town hall to the north. Further along you have South Thames College. You've got two buildings directly next to the other side of the building and then you have the Spread Eagle Public House which is a listed building that then goes towards the central part of one's worth town. So again this shows you the context and apologies. The red line is actually positioned on the Quaker meeting house, not the site itself. It is just to the next to it. But this gives you an illustration of the extent of heritage designation. So it's within one's worth town conservation area which was recently appraised as part of the program. So it's one of the first to be reappraised because the conservation area appraisal was particularly lacking in detail. And as part of that assessment offers is identified buildings that make a positive contribution or a negative contribution and in this particular site the building in question was considered to make a positive contribution by virtue of its continuous frontage forming that kind of continuous sense of enclosure on this southern side of the of one's worth high street. There's a degree of historic interest in terms of forming part of this small infill 1920s infill plots. But very sensitive in terms of its sandwich pretty much between a large number of of listed buildings bearing in mind that obviously the sort of hatched area that South Thames College is going in towards the rear of the site which has been quite heavily redeveloped which includes classes the tower and the blocks that are associated with the tower towards the south which have now built out and the library will go is going to go into it and then you have the the block next to a quick and meeting house which then comes down onto the high street itself as in a staggered arrangement. So this is this giving you an existing context view in terms of immediate surrounding so it's five bay building, three stories, ground floor, shop with two upper floors and you have the quick and meeting house directly to it and then the buildings the other side which have a semblance of architectural similarities to the spread eagle to it albeit not part of the spread eagle itself. Now the proposals as I stated so the conversion the upper floors to residential accommodation a total of eight flats so three on the first floor, three on the second floor and two that will be contained in a new extension on top of the flat roof extension so effectively what that will be there will be a setback on the front elevation behind that parapet as you see here the windows will maintain the rhythm of the base below but it will be a full story above. And here you see the existing rear elevation and there will be effectively a full story on top which towards the rear and the side will effectively come up as almost as a sheer story not the setback as you see on the front elevation behind the parapet. So here's that side elevation which has got the ghost sign and that shows you here that that floor is effectively quite a kind of box like structure on top obviously you know it's not full height but it is taking the whole of that top floor flat roof that's not set in towards the back or the side but only set in from the parapet at the front. Now forgive me there is very limited information within this application this is the only 3D sketch view that has been provided as public application and I appreciate it is a little bit deceiving when I first saw it because obviously what's proposed and showing in kind of a limey green yellow color is what's proposed but just to be clear that there's no extensions proposed to the lower floors it is actually just a floor to be added on top but I think it's just the coloring of the building towards the back makes it look like they're going to add extension on to the back but that's not the case but it is proposed effectively is a full story on top of the building which is situated within quite a prominent part of the conservation area and so I will leave it with this particular sketch as it gives a bit of a context but it would be helpful to see the committee members views on this proposal there's not been any pre-app on this proposal by the way it is coming as an application with no consultation with officers thank you okay thank you first as usual are there any factual questions people have about this application mr. Farrow do you think that the windows on the existing first and second floor are original contemporary with the construction of the building I haven't looked into that in as much detail because this hasn't come in very long so I can't answer that without having to go and see the site which is hopefully taking place tomorrow so apologies for that thank you and I've had a look it seems to me they could easily be contemporary with the building which is a shame so I don't like them very much but but if they are a result they're original so thank you for that clarification of any other factual questions before I ask for comments okay let me move to comments on this proposal anyone mr. Farrow it's in our area and I suppose we should have a view on it and first site I thought as I said I thought the windows were slightly weird it's a building this I was not overly aware of it is on the high street obviously but sort of a relatively anonymous building and I was initially reluctant to accept an additional story in as much as it would have an adverse effect on the on the Quaker meeting house and its burial ground but the adverse effect that this building already has on the burial ground in the Quaker meeting house and the adverse effect that got knows how many stories it is the tower behind the the building has I think this is this is going to make a fairly nominal adverse effect and I don't think that we would budget an objection to it I can't think of anything more to say I'm afraid thank you thank you other comments mister mister this might be by way more of a question for forgive me have I understood correctly that the side elevation the the the extension is is going to be slated it's and there's not going to be a wall built up so that it's to make it symmetrical or not I'm slightly confused by what I'm looking at on the right this obviously there's a there's a there's a wall with the next property but on the left because it's the it's higher building than the meeting house next door the bit that sort of looks orange from here I can't see what that actually is is that is an one able to clarify that let me just bring up the drawing so that I can actually look at what the text is that showing the side elevation because I appreciate that it's difficult to read some of the text in the presentation and so I'm just going to bring it up just to be very clear so you're looking at a zinc side elevation so the side elevation will be of a standing same zinc cladding so so in other words it's really not symmetrical is that the side or the rear sorry that's what about the side have you got a side so I just find that slightly straight I don't know it just means that the building has not been symmetrical it's not symmetrical what's being proposed so when you look at it from the the main street you're going to have on the left hand side a sort of slight high it's very sharply pitched but nevertheless a slate or zinc covered construction on the left whereas on the right it'll go but up right up against the the party wall with the next building on the floor looking from the front so I'm just thinking in my mind that if you're approaching that building would it doesn't look as though it would have ever been intended to have been built like that that's just a I suppose it's a comment I find it a little bit uncomfortable yeah in my view it ought to be carried up as the party wall yeah it's totally wrong to just have a lightweight structure on the boundary like that yeah can I please just second that one that should be raised as a wall in the same material as the wall underneath and ideally the front and rear slope should be a man sod Mr. Potter you were hovering so I was just bearing in mind in the comments about those windows you could introduce some dummu window been removed but a few times could I just ask whether mr. Potter's asking for these dummy windows to be on the elevator station facing the Quaker meeting house the dummy windows on the elevation facing the Quaker meeting house is that what you were considering well I think that possibly would be asking a great deal of the applicant it's a tricky one about the party wall I hesitated to disagree with Andrew but I think where the addition to be a man sod on all three sides no you're not happy with that the Quaker yeah should be raised in brick but the two front and rear extensions should be a man sod so that it looks like a building with a pitched unsarted roof with its party wall which is a very common form that you would find all over any part of the borough you care to look at and the party wall would not normally have windows but it does have windows it does but it is a party wall strictly speaking as long as those two little windows are each under one square meter they can just squeeze them through the building regulations but actually there's another there's a technical consideration to bear in mind here if they're going to put windows through that side this is a boundary situation can you turn your microphone off I'm reluctant to have to engage in an extended discussion about the the party wall I have to say I do agree about the man sod personally but mr. Dodgson I suppose the other alternative would be all four elevations were man sod like but then that would presumably create a gully which would be very difficult to handle I think what we're saying is that we we have no rooted objection to to this proposal but we would urge the applicant to consider making the front and the rear of the roof extension or the box on the roof as as man sod and to to have the party wall as a party wall is that is that what that would be sorted out in the party wall that yeah could be it could be okay is that I I'm as I say I'm reluctant on on this one to go into great detail but I think that there is an issue about the handling of the side elevation okay you put that very well we consider the side elevation to be unresolved properly resolved is that clear enough for you in a minute taking okay let us move on to the the final application which was added as a supplementary item this is application 2024 0183 mount clear campus and sorry there's a much longer title but let's just call it mount layer campus for for short this way thank you chair so yes item 6 LA time to back into Roehampton so a little bit of context just in relation to this particular part of of Alton estate and so I take you through to some some site photograph so Mount Claire grade one listed building part of the ensemble of 18th century residences that resided in in this part of Roehampton which you see here in the bottom corner and the top it's situated within the Alton West registered park and garden so it's it was originally a locally locally listed landscape and in 2020 when the landscape was officially nationally registered that kind of supersedes the local listing a site sits very towards the southern part of the site right close to the boundary with Richmond borough you also have the Alton conservation area and within the site you have these blocks sharp all kind of flat roof two story blocks which you see here that sit sit around the 18th century building which were added after the original master plan LCC master plan so original master plan kept the landscape surrounding Mount Claire is as open and then these were added later on in in existence by the 1970s when you look in the maps and were was essentially student accommodation and have remained as such since so again just to show you the context of where it is in relation to the landscape so right towards the southern side of southern part of of the Alton west site you have the vinster garden spunclothes as well theater showing again that site context in addition to Mount Claire we also have the temple which is grade two star listed which is cited just in the corner of the sites where it wraps around towards the eastern part of the site currently in an overgrown part of the site and surrounded by high metal raining railings to stop any current vandalism of the site this was located in this area in the early 20th century in originally form part of parkstead house which is the whitelands cottage it has many has taken many names over the years and was then relocated into the location it is now and originally right in front of it was was a small pond so it kind of overlooked that pond now in a rather overgrown area with a very derelict lodged right next to it so this is the existing site plan as you see you have the the temple in that very eastern corner of the site and what we what we consider to be Picasso house which is the largest of the buildings right next door to Mount Claire so there's large one of the largest buildings still too Tory but kind of set forward of Mount Claire and then you have these smaller cuboid blocks interlink it can cubodic blocks that kind of wrap around the sort of topography of the site down towards the boundary with Richmond Park now and just to note that there isn't any physical changes proposed to the exterior of these buildings this is just a change of use of application for a temporary period of five years and it is for the use of temporary accommodation so you see here this is an existing typical student accommodation arrangement as you see in some of those blocks the two story cuboid blocks here and that's the proposal so a very minimal change to allow for the temporary change of use to what would be classes we generous use for temporary accommodation external changes will not take place which is why we only have very minimal information in terms of actual drawings most of them are existing plans existing pack Picasso house just for illustrative purposes again no changes proposed just utilising the existing accommodation for that temporary use a lot of these have already got existing bathrooms and importantly the existing Mount Claire house which is currently used for administration and offices for the university which is currently leasing the site that will not change there will be no physical works to the building and it will remain in its existing uses as office administration for this to for the administration of of the temporary use so there's no physical changes to the night site but it is obviously a change of use of of the the land and the buildings that surround the grade one listed building and there's no proposals as part of this temporary application for the temple but as part of the ownership that will all the red line plan that does include the temple their proposals are come forward for a prospective purchaser so the current site is owned by the Methodist church and leased by the university and the permit obviously these proposals come forward as a potential new owner of the site as is shown in the application form and so welcome the members views on this on this temporary application thank thank you there is a long and complicated history to the to this site and certainly the temple has recently been the subject of discussion in in this committee which approved recently the the retention of the fencing around the temple as a protection against against vandalism the the history is somewhat of a sorry history leaving the buildings in a rather sad state I think we could all agree but before going on to comments about this application are there any factual questions people want to raise mr. Dodgson just is the actual house itself it's currently being used as offices or is it empty the last time that I visited this site in November 2023 it was the it wasn't being occupied so no so we've got a listed an empty listed building at the moment and what is proposed would mean that it would be at least being occupied and kept an eye on is that that's correct yes thank you any other factual questions in that case I will go to mr. Catto first of all good evening panel I think I did ask and thank you very much chairman for getting this on the agenda a short notice when it came through I thought that it was very important that this panel have a chance to talk about this particular application we are looking as I the more I look at the documentation and there's really only one the drawings don't show very much they don't even they barely met they don't mention the temple at all they don't mention the lodge at all except as a ruin which is what it is they don't they really don't it's quite clear to me frankly that the the applicants don't actually want mount clear they've got no idea what to do with it what they want is the fairly nasty to put it bluntly out of place to put it bluntly student accommodation that is now on the side in order to make quite a lot of money over the next five years by renting it to the council's housing department for temporary housing so the funding for all of this is coming from this town hall I think this needs to be borne in mind that is the proposal the point I think that is important is that the more I read of the documentation the less there seems to be any sign that they are interested or care or really intend to do anything to protect and we are talking about a grade one listed building in Montclair there are only five in the borough that's how rare these are we are talking about a second listed building in the temple which is one of only two south west 15 buildings on the buildings at risk register and the only one the other ones got conversation going on at the moment about saving it these buildings matter and if they are handed over to somebody for a five-year temporary use who's saying that the income may go towards maintenance in the form of heating I don't think this committee should be endorsing this application thank you other views or comments I presume the lego the lego arrangement just a very limited life I'm I'm not competent to comment on that their 1980s buildings built probably not at great expense at the time they are built to the standards of their time which by today's standards makes them nearly uninhabitable the proposal because it is a five-year temporary use suggests that they will do the absolute minimum to these buildings including no external changes which means that the people to be housed there will be living in something with 1980s standards of energy efficiency and I would suggest very soon in something rather moldy with very low standards of energy efficiency mister I'm struggling to understand how the change of use would would not impact on the security of the of the relevant listed buildings I can't is it better that it's at their left empty or is it better that there are people in need of housing there I don't know I can't quite say that are they going to have to be special measures to protect the building because in some way or not is that you're right there are no proposals apart from using Mount Clare a four-story multi-roomed mansion sorry villa to be accurate as basically the security office you know if it wasn't there they'd put up a porta cabin for to house the security people who will be necessary the applicants obviously think to look after or prevent antisocial behavior but they're going to be using one room and a toilet I suspect and we all know anybody who's on this committee should know that an empty listed building look at the stories we've been hearing time after time after time on our updates you know from first download that an empty listed building is a deteriorating listed building and we really need an app this site deserves better particular grade one mount claire has suffered horribly it was the owner of mount claire who commissioned capability brown to do the grounds there is absolutely nothing left of what was done by brown that you can see in any way immediately around the building it's a shame it was built as a country retreat on a ridge of high ground with a view over down she fields in one direction now completely blocked out by trees and a view over Richmond park in the other direction great place to live you can't see out in either direction anymore sadly but I'm not going to propose taking down the trees but I do think we ought to be encouraging of the council to reject this as it stands because it does not contain sufficient provision for the protection of two listed buildings I think it's clear that I'll come to you Mr Armstrong in a moment I think it's clear that there are strong reservations about this this application and the the risk to the listed buildings which are central to the to the site the I mean all we are an advisory committee it clearly is for the council not just the planning department but the housing department I presume we'll have to take final decisions about about this but I have to say I share the reservations that have been expressed about the the risks to the to the listed buildings what can practically be done to to ameliorate those those risks which which will exist whatever the the view that is taken about this application I mean it's the emptiness that that essentially constitutes the the risk those practicalities of course are something that you know we can't we're not in a position to wear a advisory committee we we cannot take decisions about that I think all that we can do is to express concerns about those those risks so that they are taken very seriously by the planning committee and the housing committee in when they take final decisions Councilor Cooper thank you I just think we need to be careful that we don't overstep the parameters that the committee sits within a master here what you say about the housing committee I think it's more likely to be the housing department and the decisions that they make about the quality of temporary accommodation that they may or may not wish to procure is not really something I think that we can cover here although we may all have we may have no view or we may have very strong views on it but it's not really within the parameters of the conservation and heritage advisory committee because it's not actually a conservation issue it's a quality of temporary accommodation issue which is definitely not nothing you know that doesn't really speak to a detriment to the I mean you could argue that there's too much temporary accommodation on the alternate stage but it would be quite hard to argue what the relationship between that and the various different aspects of heritage there actually is in my opinion thank you I very much take that point which is why I was emphasizing that our concern is the risk that already exists to the two listed buildings I don't think we have a view we cannot have a view I absolutely accept that about the quality of the housing that will be presented that is not we've spoken already about the remit of this committee that is outside our remit I'm quite clear about that but do you have enough that we have concerns about the risks to the listed buildings under this application recognizing that those risks already exist so we're not saying that you know this is that the risk we're talking about are you need to this application but this application doesn't do anything to ameliorate them I think is the point that we're trying to make unless anyone unless I've got that wrong okay thank you let us move on to paper twenty four one one three eight page eleven in your PACS which is a report on applications which came before this committee and have now been determined after discussion at PAC they both relate to the Francis Barber pupil referral unit on on Franciscan Road we had had real concerns about those those applications but in the end the decisions that PAC made were to approve those applications to accept them Councillor Cooper again thank you I think it's actually slightly misleading the way that this paper is laid out because it does sound as though the planning applications committee approved the submission that was considered here there was the vote and the majority of the committee did not support the proposals actually it's come twice to the planning applications committee and the first time the planning applications committee didn't support the proposals either it then came back again and the planning applications committee then the second time around with the drawings having been amended and improved in the opinion of the committee to such an extent that some of the problems and issues that the planning applications committee had felt related to the first version of the application and that included setting back some of the height of the top level so that it was further away from the properties in Dewey Street including some more detailing so it wasn't quite so much you know a square box with blank walls being very rude here about it but anyway you know there were quite a number of changes and therefore members of the committee who had been as unhappy as this committee had been with the first version which this committee had seen felt abled with the revised application to support it so I'm not quite sure that that's included in full in the way that this has been drafted so I just thought it was worth mentioning that thank you for that I should have mentioned that I was aware that there have been somewhat tortured discussions in PAC on two occasions of about this I make no comment and I don't think it's our job to make comment on that but I know that there was a good deal of discussion let's put it that way on on PAC about these applications Councillor BELLTON she presided can I give a much cruder summary I think that you gave an impression that the committee took notice of these comments it did we agreed with you and amended it so I think instead of you could look at it as a positive from this committee's point of view I accept that of course okay is there any other business a chair I just have a quick update to give to to committee members about St Mark's school and because I visited the site last week as part of our remit of reviewing heritage at risk entries every year we have to do condition surveys I visited the site last week the site I think Councillor BELLTON kindly gave a bit of an update in the last committee as well it's now fully occupied and majority of the works have been completed the landscaping works are proposed to take place in the near future they're waiting on the railings they're being made at the moment would they have to be a replication of the railings and in the church but from the point of view of heritage at risk we have as officers recommended to historic England for its removal of the from the list as it has largely been repaired and all the structural works have been completed and then out the building is now occupied by the architectural firm I will update the committee hopefully by the next committee if the story can then have agreed to remove it but there I don't see any reason why they shouldn't remove it now when the works are largely complete so just a bit of a good news story to end the evening because I know that Councillor BELLTON has been involved in this site from a very long period yes not quite as long as that and I can report that work was going on yesterday even in the rain yesterday on the bank the bank holiday on the landscaping I happened to pass and took note okay any other other business really to say thanks for that update and I feel very good about it and I was going to go and call in myself and I should think I mean I'm sure Barry can probably give me the detail I should think we're talking certainly the 90s so we talk in the 80s not sure a long time anyway 90s to 2000 was it okay Mr. Catto sorry might I take advantage of having this way's presence to ask in respect of another building another building at risk I understand there may be a pre-application going on I don't ask you to divulge what's happening but if you could about the white line in funding and does that look like getting to a planning application at some point I can't really say much but there is a live pre-application inquiry in for that building and officers have visited the building as part of the heritage risk and petition survey I can advise that doesn't appear to be any worse condition than the previous survey it's still being occupied by guardians to the building I can't see much more than that I'm afraid in terms of pre-application but there is one in fully understood why you can't comment it's just nice to hear that something's happening Miss Lawson and hello Lauren I wonder if I could ask about if you're talking about reviewing heritage at risk is this something that you do all of the buildings on your list at this time of year I'm curious about choosing to get lodge and actually it was mentioned that waterfall housing might go on to that list if there wasn't a plan I know there's a planning application do but it's not been considered yet and even if I first down lodge as well actually at the moment until like this is agreed so my colleague David I know who attends the committee quite regularly he's in charge of the of tutoring beg beg lodge there's still some discussions around that because obviously the main thing is to might try and get some sort of occupation of the site which is not forthcoming at this stage so it was reviewed obviously the the building is in better condition because the repair works have taken place but there's still the the tool fencing which is around it which have now lapsed permission but offices are at first to try to make them take those down until some sort of agreement has come forward for the use of the building that includes occupation obviously because it is protecting the building but there's no unfortunately nothing I can add on that particular building waterfall house the last update that we had was that they're still working through the revisions to the put to the planning and it's the building consent application that will take account of some of the unauthorized works to the interior of the building and there hasn't been as much progress as we'd like to see so again that's David so we'll see if we can try and get a little bit more progress on on that one to get have a look and see what can come forward in terms of new additions to the to the list so my understanding is we do put forward new additions where there is no obvious solution going forward that's one of the key criteria we first down large there's an adversity to add it to the list unless we know that there is nothing coming forward but we do know that the lease is at the point where we really think it is or that I've been assured is nearly at the point where it will come forward and be signed and there be a credible solution coming forward for that building so it's quite a it's quite a lot of work to get things on to the list in terms of historic England's involvement as well so we only put them on unless we really don't see any proposed were coming forward the same before waterfall house again we can we can recommend additions to the list at any point in the year it's not just this year so if we do not see any progress and we can make those discussions with historic England but we want to give them the opportunity to try to rectify some of the structural issues in terms of the cracking and and the unauthorized works to see if there can be a solution found for that one whereas obviously things like the temple there's no obvious solution for that site at the stage and there needs to be something to allow for it to actually come off the list and even repairing it doesn't always take it off the list there needs to be some sort of long term solution for the site like sent marks thank you thank you thank you very much is there any other other business in which case all I have to do is to draw the draw the committee's attention to the list of dates of future meetings and to thank you for your contributions this evening thank you very much. [ Pause ] [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

win. Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jab and I'm Chair of the Committee. Members, I will call your name shortly. Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you have confirmed, please remember to switch it off. I'll call names in order. Councillor BELLTON. Hello. Good evening. I've run Tony Bellton planning applications, Chair, and a member for Bassie Bortwood. Councillor CUPPA. Thanks very much, Michael. Councillor leony CUPPA, Deputy Chair of the Planning Applications Committee and First Down Ward. Councillor OWEN. Thank you very much, Chair. I am Councillor OWEN's and I am award Councillor in the North COT ward. Thank you. Mark Dodgeson, I don't think is here nor is Francis Radcliffe. Andrew Catto. Yes, Andrew Catto, from the Partney Society, standing in for Laura Pueblos. No Chris Rice. Mr Potter. Thank you, Potter here on behalf of the RIBA. Ms. Lawson. Ms. Greenwood. Pamela Greenwood wants a historical society. Mr. Farro. Good evening, Peter Farro from the Wandsworth Society. And we have normally, in recent meetings, at least, had Councillor Osborne here, the history champion, but he will not be attending this evening. Do we have any apologies for absence? Thank you, Chair. Just the one apology, it's Laura Pueblos. Okay, and the following officers are also present. First of all, remotely, Lauren Wei. Good evening, Chair. Lauren Wei, Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And Mr. Sellers. Good evening, Chair. Barry Sellers, Principal Urban Design Officer Wandsworth. And the Democratic Services Officer. Good evening, Becky Hickey from Democratic Services. And apologies. I didn't ask Mr. Armstrong from the Clapham Society. Good evening, Roger Armstrong, representing the Clapham Society. And apologies for that. Now, I'm asked to remind you to ensure your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking. And I would also add, please, turn your phone off or onto silent, so that you don't embarrass yourself during the meeting. Those of interest, are there any declarations of interest? If there are, please quote the item on the paper number. Are there any? No good. In that case, I think we move to the minutes of the meeting held on 27 March. First of all, are they a correct record? And will you authorize me to sign a copy of them? I'll do that at the end of the meeting. Agreed. Matters are rising. I'll take them in the composite set of papers. Page three, first down launch, Councillor Cooper. I think you must have been reading that speech, thought the bubble that was popping out to the top of my head. It's still looking absolutely disgusting. It doesn't seem to be improving even slightly. I wondered if the lease that was scheduled to be signed at the end of the week of the committee meeting had been signed, and I wondered if there was any likelihood of any progress, any time, I don't know, before 2026, perhaps? Just a plucker date from the air? I mean, it really is looking very sorry for you, and it's a beautiful building. Who can report on this? Miss Wei or Mr Sellers? I can give some updates on this, Chair. I have had an update this morning from our property services department, so there is now a final version of the lease being drafted and there's only one point that needs to be settled between the lease. So there is some progress, but they're hoping for the lease to be agreed in the next week or so, so there's only one point to be settled. The lease still hasn't been signed, though, so hopefully we can have some positive news at the next Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. I'm sure the rest of my colleagues on the committee share that hope. It does seem to have taken rather longer than we had hoped. Okay, shall we move on to page 4? Any matters arising there? No. Page 5. Page 6. Page 7. Could I just raise a couple of items there? The renewed local listing exercise. We were told at the last meeting that it will start in July. Is that now confirmed or not? Miss Wei or Mr Sellers? Yes, Chair. I can confirm that it will take place in July. The exact date is to be confirmed, but it's in the forward plan with our consultations team for that date, and there's no reason for it to be moved now at this stage. Good, and I know there's been some correspondence with other officers about this exercise and some of the failings of the previous exercise in terms of making information available. I know Councillor Osborne is very much on that case. I hope we can manage to do a better job with the results of that exercise than was the case last time. The paragraph following that, the third paragraph on the page, the reviews of conservation areas, I presume that there is no progress on finding the resources to resuscitate that program of reviews. And I think that's rather regrettable given that some of the appraisals of conservation areas are now very out of date. So could I have the support of the committee in urging officers and Councillors to try to find the resources to resuscitate the exercise that started more than a couple of years ago? Do I take that, take nods as support? Okay, thank you. Are there any other matters arising? Okay, could we then move to the applications that are due to be considered by us at this meeting and start with 2024, 1155, the Alternate Activity Centre, and over to you in this way. Thank you, Chair, and apologies to everyone for not being able to be there in person today. Unfortunately, I'm having issues with the train strikes. So the first item on the agenda is 2024/1555. Sorry, Chair, just before we go on any further, I wondered if Becky Hickey could just move to one side, because if we're going to look at things on screen, you are actually sitting in front of it. Sorry to request that. But we'd rather look at you, but as this is the agenda item and you're not, do you mind? Thank you so much. Sorry, Ms. Wei. Not a problem at all. If there are any issues with anyone hearing me, because I know that teams is a little bit temperamental, please flag that to me. So there's a bit of background to this site. So this just gives you some context in terms of the site photos of the areas that are subject to this application. So this application is focused on two areas within the alternate western state, which is the downshift fields open space to the south of the grade two star listed blocks to the open space that's currently got a rather tired looking play area within it. And then also alternate activity centre, which is in the map there in the south west of the site, which is again a space, sort of a play area space, but it's enclosed by quite tall railings. The third area that's subject to up this application, which was not passed as the original master plan, is the site to the south of down Sheffield, which is currently the location for the bull sculpture, which is a grade two listed sculpture situated there if you can see in number three. So this is just an area for you just to give you the context. But the red line plan is within the application to show you those two areas in particular that's to be focused on. And all the designations within this is probably one of the highest concentration of heritage designations within the borough. So we have the Alton Conservation Area, which covers Alton west and Alton east all the way down to the area of the boundary with Richmond. In 2020, a large part of the site, including downshift fields and includes Alton activity centre, was registered as a registered parking garden at grade two. You have the grade two star listed blocks to the north of the red line just outside of the red line and obviously down to the house, which is also listed. The bull sculpture is also listed. So you've got a multiple amount of heritage designations within the site, just within the immediate vicinity. Obviously we've got other listed buildings towards the south with minstered gardens, bungalows, and various other listed buildings which are just outside of this map. So a lot of the members of the committee will be well aware of the context of this particular application and that is the Consented Master Plan, which allowed for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to the south east of the red line plan, which included the redevelopment of the area, which includes the library and included Alton activity centre and downshift fields with some proposed improvements to downshift fields, including a new play area and also Alton activity centre having some improvements as well. Now, as part of the review of this master plan and what can be implemented going forward, the councilors and the housing team, housing regeneration team have been looking at ways in which they can implement parts of the master plan after the housing provider was - we lost the housing provider for the scheme after it was consented. So this is one of the first proposals coming forward that seeks to try to implement some positive aspects of that master plan. So it's focusing on basically downshift fields and Alton activity centre with a view of potentially reviewing in the future the sort of village area and the redevelopment site to the south east, but that's outside of this red line plan. So this gives you a context in terms of what was consented as part of the master plan for these particular areas. So you've got here the downshift field on the left which shows that they were proposing to have a new trim trail and a review of all the pathways to allow this loop around which was something that was considered important for those residents within Alton and you were two new play areas, one within downshift fields and then obviously the redevelopment of Alton activity centre that included an interactive play space. So again just looking at the existing view of the site looking down with high cliff drive blocks to the north. So the three main areas that we're looking at that there is the proposed new play space for downshift fields which are shown here. So this is exactly the same location as the current play space, but obviously a significant improvement on the existing situation to spin through various pre-application discussions with council officers and has been subject to a design review panel. So you see here it's very much about sort of a kind of naturalised play space with lots of interactive features. It includes like a large climbing structure which you see on the left and if I go through they've got a nest play down to the north and some water features towards the south which you see in the foreground in this image. Just another concept aerial view of that play space that shows it looking back in the opposite direction. See more in the foreground there, we've got the kind of key feature which is that that large climbing structure that sort of wraps around. But very much a distinctive change to what is there at the moment and much softened effect in terms of the landscape impact, particularly in relation to the boundary treatment of the play space. This just gives you a kind of general landscape arrangement that shows the elements of space that run through and it very much link through the paths to allow maximum access to this play space. So the other element of changes have been implemented and this is a change from the previous master plan is that the applicant team have reviewed the actual paths that run down to fields. So this is the current path arrangement and you see here that there isn't that loop, the paths lead up towards the high cliff drive blocks and then come down but there isn't any way of really linking through as a space. And here's the consent plan which you see that has quite angular paths that lead from those blocks to the north down to what is a circular loop path around which links you through down. So what the applicant team has looked at is actually the original master plan and working with the existing path layouts but in providing the improvements to it. So you'll see here that they've introduced links that allows that loop path to be introduced as per the master plan but they've softened some of those linking paths and brought some of those and retained some of those linking paths up to the high cliff drive blocks and so you have the loop path that runs around which includes the trim trail which was part of the original consented master plan which is the points that are in green at this point are the of the trim trail and then it links back to the to the play area towards the east to west. I'm losing my mind to the east. And this just gives you an idea for some of the furniture that's proposed to introduce it very much in keeping with the ethos of the master plan but really the main changes are that is that pathway is more respectful to the to the original pathway layout but just linking it through so that you have have that loop. So the the next part of the application is alternate activity centre so this part of the site has less sort of heritage does sensitivities to it. It is still within the conservation area in the Regis Park and Garden to see the structures and buildings within it are lesser significance. So this is again the consented master plan so you see here the white block that's that's the existing centre that's on the site that's outside of the red line it was part outside of the red line in the consented master plan and it's still part outside of the red line in this master plan and this is because it is managed by a different part of the council and it's currently largely used as sort of after school private after school club. And again here's looking at the concept view of the activity centre so what the the applicant's team have really looked at and they've gone out to public consultation quite extensive public consultation and including speaking to school children of various different ages male and female to look at what they really want out of this site so that it's it's very much a scheme that has responded to what the needs of the children within the local area and what they consider they would like from this space. So it is quite a bit different from the previous master plan. Another aerial concept view just to show that space the different zones that are being proposed. So this is the general landscape plan so I haven't included there is sort of a play strategy which sets out areas with a key at the side which I thought might be a bit difficult for members to be able to see up on the screen so the main areas if you see here within the southern part the site it's written to two zones. You've got like an open space here which has basketball, perhaps an interactive space which is the space area in the kind of orangey kind of taupe space that's quite interactive and then on the other side you've got a different sort of play surface which has the sort of feature kind of wall feature that runs around it. Towards the north of the site you also have a science zone so you see to the north of the whites quite blocked out space in that corner that's to be a science stone so that I'll have tables and magnifying posts and a little amphitheater seating area. But the main premise behind some of the changes basically really is looking at an interactive space that allows integration with all different types of children, different age ranges but also allows spaces for kind of boys related activities like the basketball net but also spaces for girls as well and that has been quite extensively considered and reviewed as part of the pre-application stage with offices. And the one area that has been included in the red line that wasn't part of the master plan which is the the the ball sculpture area towards south of Danja Fields which at the moment I think a lot of members will know it was originally an open space that sat within the landscape and then introduced the car parking towards the back of it which lost its space it's an interesting image within when you look at the list description there's an image an old image of children sitting on it and it's sitting within the landscape with the blocks towards in the background. That setting has been eroded quite significantly and as part of this application they're looking at improving the landscape around the ball which is which is an additional feature. So this is an indicative landscape plan here so you'll see they're proposing to increase the hedge behind the site to allow a little bit more masking and framing of the view of of the ball sculpture and then the landscaping around it to form sort of circular space around it if I take you back here with actually having the the seating areas situated looking more towards the ball sculpture whereas at the moment you have a seating area that has your back towards the sculpture so it's not really celebrating this build this sculpture in the right way so there's some improvements there in terms of the the actual setting of the ball sculpture. Obviously there's it would be lovely if we could take the car parking away and reinstate its landscape to the rear but obviously the reality is that's not possible so this is just looking at those enhancements and I think that's my last slide. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you this way. First of all any any factual questions points that need to be clarified? No? Oh Mr. Catto? Probably a rather technical point but there's a red line as the application site which doesn't bear very much resemblance to any real edges on the ground and there's no sign of blue lines or whatever to indicate who who else owns what around it. I suspect that's something that's convenient for this purpose but it doesn't actually is rather meaningless if you look at the lines on the on the map. Any any response to that? I think that the I think the red line is just trying to cover the area which is just subject to the application. I can check about the blue line because obviously the area of land owned by the council is much more extensive than the red line as we know so I can check that but I think they've just tried to confine it to the areas that are subject to this application. That's why there's rather there's no obvious reasons for the lines. Okay thank you. Comments on on this proposal or any part of it? I may chair and again this may sound very technical but much mention was made of it being part of the master plan for the regeneration. Now as far as I'm aware firstly does anybody have a strong view from a planning law point of view whether doing any of this stuff constitutes starting the regeneration and therefore starting building the previous planning consent and secondly I might I point out to council officers that the previous planning consent is actually completely unbuildable under modern building regulations because ever since the two staircase rule came in none of the buildings approved are actually can now be constructed under current building regulations. Just to add that this is a separate application to the master plan so it's it's come forward to seek to try to implement some of the positive aspects of the master plan but this is a standalone application it will is not linked the previous consent because as I was stating there are changes within this within that are shown in this application that show clear changes to the master plan so this will not trigger that as a way of implementing the master plan they would need to implement that original master plan as part of that application in order for it to be started and I don't believe that is the intention of of the housing and regeneration team they're very much focused on looking at ways in which we can consider the master plan and that the ethos of the master plan and what actually is what could be delivered on the ground there's a lot of there's a lot of discussions and public consultation that has taken place on this I hope that helps. Thank you for clarity yes any other comments that people want to make about this this application let me let me stress one point start this way made that this is an application in the heart of a a very dense set of heritage assets nationally and locally listed so it is it is important that we get this right does anyone want to make any comment in that context Elton I'm not really chair in the sense that I think it is an advisory committee for me and the planning applications committee but I'm really encouraging people to make a comment because we would like us to know and that whether you think it as it stands it's okay or not we are as an or as a as an administration we're very aware that the people of rhohampton have been looking forward to some kind of regeneration for ages and the history of this everyone knows about it would be really nice if we could get moving with something so a comment would be helpful I think thank you mr. Faroe the application is essential for re-rooting a trim trail and the replacement of play equipment on two play areas I don't think anything that I've seen indicates that it would have an adverse effect on the listed buildings in the conservation area and in fact I very much liked the look of the play equipment that was being put up in in the first area to that extent to that end I would say that I I would very much support what I've seen of the application for these items sorry it's been me again yes I'm I'm going to second what Peter Faroe has just had to say about the play equipment I think that's fine there's obviously a concern that down Schafield is sometimes referred to I'd say sometimes as a capability brown landscape I think if you look at its history it's hugely hugely changed since the estate was built there were very few trees on that hillside in the 1950s and I think we have our reasonably should be saying is this having an impact positive or negative on the landscape we see rather than a deeply historic landscape I think that's gone and in that sense my reservations which I had when I first saw this about putting a modern trim trail on a historic landscape are not as bad as they used but I think you know we're not really looking at a historic landscape but we should treat it as as part of the estate so in that case yes I'm in favor whether the rest of my societies in favor I will leave them to tell me later. Councilor Ainds. Yes, I just want to tell with what has been said about the children's play area I was particularly impressed by the range of ages that would be catered for I know we're looking at different contexts but given on so many estates we see children don't have that sort of access I thought it was highly impressive and great to see being laid out thank you. Can I second what has been said so far I've been very impressed looking through the application but the thoughts that has gone into the proposal was again particularly in relation to the play areas and I think there is an appropriate balance between the practicalities of the play areas and the sensitivity to the landscape in which this is all located so I have nothing to say but praise about these proposals does anyone have any contrary view or modification to that view? If not I think we approve of this application with a claim and I hope that it succeeds up EAC. Just a small point I'm very familiar with what's on the site at the moment and I think it would be really helpful to see better pictures of the actually existing autumn activity centre or if we're looking at other things in the future so that we can actually see the difference I think Councillor OWEN has said how positive it is to see something that will cater to children of many different ages and I think if you saw what was on the site at the moment and how limited it is the claim might be even stronger. Do you have enough to put in a minute for PAC? Let us move on then to application 20240781 a very different kind of application, ones worth high street over to you in this way. I'm sorry Barry I couldn't hear you briefly for that moment in time. I think it's working now I think your microphone wasn't working. The item is 198 to 200 Balaam High Road, that's okay. That is different from the list that I've been given, sorry. This is 2023, 3646, 198 to 200 Balaam High Road, sorry, yes certainly Chair. This is a property in the Balaam Town Centre, involves a demolition of the existing second floor and erection of a second, new second, third and fourth floor for partly C1 hotel used to provide 18 hotel rooms and the fourth floor for residential use, two one bedrooms and one two bedroom flats. You see from the photograph here this is the building as it stands at the moment and you've got retail on the ground floor. The building there probably dates about 1960s I believe, post-war and there has been, it's part of that, you see the brick building along with the first floor there, it runs probably through to the right there, there have been additions to that block in the recent past two three stories and we've now got one now on the corner of this plot. I should add that this is a view here from just that grove, looking towards the building on the right hand side you have the great two listed underground station that gives you the focus of where we are in terms of this part of Balaam Town Centre and that's looking towards the underground station as we see there and this is an aerial view of the Town Centre showing the corner of that particular block and its relationship to the underground station and you can see that there's an existing second story block on top of that corner and that's proposed for demolition and the erection of three stories above the brick component part, now this gives you this relationship, it's not too far away from the United Guild Lane conservation area just not grove, you can see the yellow there is the heritage destination you've also got to the south of the railway, you've got to the church, it's the most church and you've got local listed stations well on the right hand side so yeah so that's the heritage destinations in that area, one point should point out which was not shown on the map there but the area is this form within a mid-rise zone so in terms of the local plan so that's up to five stories in that particular area, that's the destination in terms of the parameter heights so that's something which we have to take into account as part of the application, some material consideration, move forward right just as the shot of the building stands at the moment, the elevation on to just not grove and you've got the existing second floor component part which was an addition in the past to the red brick component at first floor and here we have the proposal, just not grove and with the three floors of brick structures to the above the ground floor and a fourth floor in a render for the residential accommodation to the top floor, again on the Ballom High Road frontage showing the existing situation and we move to the proposed situation, again you see the ground floor, actually there's the shop there where it's, I can't read the actual name of it but the one second unit from the left is going to be the proposed entrance so you lose a retail unit to make the entrance to the hotel going forward and then you've got the sort of the three-story block that sits on top of the, which is basically a podium, which is the two-story podium to this development and the view from the rear and side elevation as well and this is the existing side elevation proposed, so it's got to change their dramatic structure in terms of its scale, in terms of that part of Ballom and here we have some CGI's, so on the left hand you see the existing one, on the right you see the proposed CGI showing the additions to that corner block and its impact on the listed building, now what I should point out is it's part of the premise heights zoning, whereby the premise heights can go up to five stories, in terms of the policy LP4, there's a consideration as part of that policy, which means that it has to not have any adverse effect on any held assets around, now therefore you could argue, was I had that in my notes to the case officer, that this could give rise to a list of sets out your harm to the setting of the listed building by means of its height and scale and so on, so that's I think a consideration for you to take on board as part of the considerations for this application, it does make quite a change to the corner of that particular block, I think we have another view of it as well here looking down by past the railway station towards the underground station and you've got the block on the right hand side, so it's quite a change in scale from what it's a moment to what's being proposed and the actual conversion is to 18 units to the accommodation, it's quite tightly packed, there is an area where they can cook as well, but basically they're bedroom units going in there, so it's a referental and then you've got the flat above that, two flats above that, top floor, so I think that's probably the last one, is it not, and then we perhaps have some comments, could we start with any factual questions about this application, if there aren't any, I invite comments, I'll start with Mr. Dodgson who has just arrived in the nick of time from the Balaam society, thank you Chairman, I do apologise, it took me about an hour and 45 minutes to get here tonight, sorry, so I hope perhaps you'll indulge me if I speak at some length about this, clearly obviously the committee is concerned with this property primarily because of its impact on the listed building which is a Balaam underground station which was built and forgive me Mr. Sellers, I don't know what he said but it was built in, I understand it opened in 1926, 198, 200 Balaam High Road, I think the context and the slight history of that building, although it's not within the conservation area, I think it's quite important because how it appears and how it affects the tube station is very important, ostensibly it is a low build building, I have looked into the history of it and there might be others around the table who perhaps can correct me, there are a couple of books that were published with images of early images of Balaam which I think have got incorrect when the building was actually built, they talk about it as being the result of the 1940 bomb damage that created the crater in Balaam High Road for which there's some famous images of the bus that ended up in that crater, but actually one of the photographs of that crater is taken from a building that could only be the building that this application relates to because it's taken to a low level, there's a railing, it's not one of the Victorian buildings, so I suspect that those buildings were pulled down between the date of the maps, which the London bomb maps are based on which were around 1914 and hadn't been amended when they did the London assessment of bomb damage in the war, and the area of that building is tinted as just only having suffered minor damage whereas a bank next door was fully demolished, so what we have was in the 1930s a building adjacent right next to the underground station, the Holden Rondon Foundation, which was low built, sort of quasi art deco and style and complimented the underground station very well, and that modernist approach that was being taken there, what's been allowed to happen regrettably because the building is not in the conservation area, as you saw from the images, which are shown to you just now, add-ons have been added already, which are actually very detrimental to the building, where that building in a conservation area, I'm sure we would not have let the husk go through or we would have objected to the existing additions, but sadly, obviously the building is not in the conservation area itself. So turning then to the tube station, maybe this has already been enunciated, but Charles Holden was a really, really top architect of the 20th century, I mean he was a R.I.B.A. gold medalist, he twice declined knighthoods, he was a vice president of R.I.B.A. right Reba, he designed 55 Broadway, which is a landmark building in London, he was a great, I think, I don't know if Mr. possible to agree, but he was a great architect and Balum and any of the other places that have stations that were designed by him are very lucky to have those pieces of architecture in their town centres, and as far as I'm aware, that is the only listed in terms of, you know, grade two and grade one or grade two star listed buildings in the town centre of Balum. So in terms of the impact on Balum, that building is very, very important, I think as the years have gone by, people have regarded it as an even better building than perhaps it was regarded at the time it was built. I think it has so many good qualities to it, the stone, the Portland stone, the detailing and so on, and therefore, to have a building right opposite it, have this extraordinarily inappropriate bulking and let alone the detailing of the building opposite, in my view, is extremely detrimental to the setting of a grade two listed building. To be quite frank, I think it should be a grade two star listed building, but even if it's a grade two listed building, I think it's extremely detrimental to it. Mr Cato, I see about, you know, Mr Faro then. In the words I think of Grinneth Paltrow, you had me at Hello. I think the effect of this building on the splendid underground building would be extremely detrimental. I noticed that we have to use the term less than substantial because there are only two descriptions of harm that are allowed in planning legislation, but it seems to me a shame that the term less than substantial doesn't sound anywhere near harsh enough. I found this an application that was, it seemed to me to be poorly put together. I think one significant element, which, well, minor elements, if you look at the elevations of the building that Mr Sellers showed us, they chose to put the, replicate the windows on the existing first floor, on the upper floors, whereas if you look at the drawing of the building next to it, they show what to self-evidently, I think, crickle windows that are existing. And the fact they didn't have the mounts to recognise what they were doing with indicates, I think, an extremely poorly put together application. And I can only reiterate that I find the height of the building, the bulk of the building, next to the underground station, to be very unacceptable. Thank you. Mr Potter? I feel that this proposal is totally inappropriate, and really it's in fierce contrast to the building that Sarah already holds at the tube station. Thank you. I'd just say one thing. I did say it's part of my comments that it would have been useful to have had a master plan coming forward to show how, if other people were going to do the similar thing, then how that would be done as a, going forward in a coherent manner, rather than piecemeal. And what you probably look at is that most of these form within two property, two property elements, this one's not 198, 200, and if you go down the line, then if they form pairs rather than singularly. So that's something to look at as part of that going forward. That's a strong argument for the development of design codes, isn't it? Which I think is something that the Council might want to take forward. Indeed, I know that some London boroughs are developing design codes to cover the whole borough. Councillor OWEN's. I just want to say I can tell with an awful lot of what has been said from the point of view of the bulk and the mass and the high road. I know that particular stretch quite well. We've recently had some traffic changes just before there. So you now can't turn right on the road before you get to where the hotel would be because of the school, there's two new, several crossings that have been put in. It is an incredibly busy junction in the morning with the children. And I know it's a hotel and I'm imagining people won't be parking and it's not in the remit. But it's just a surprise me because it is quite a sort of busy area. But thank you, that's just my point. Unless anyone has anything very important to say, Mr Kath. May I just take a completely contrary view on this one? I think the tube station was built as indeed its twin down the road at the various two tings and so on to fit in with a Victorian street which was two stories taller than the existing building on that site and can hold its own whatever goes on next door because it is a completely different animal on the corner. It's attached to a three story building round to the left of the view we've got. And equally, yes, design codes, let's please ask the Council to do that while you're raising the topic thoroughly, I think can this panel thoroughly encourage the Council to get on with design codes. But yes, this is an area where we should be looking to build a bit more but maybe not three more floors. Mr Belturn, and then Mr Torchson? I'm not sure I don't want it the other way around now because as I said before, I think it's not my role to speak about much other than to hear the advisory comments. But I was thankful to Mr Katha because I thought to myself, in a way I'm inviting people who are just like this to put their case strongly again, so to try and convince me amongst other planning application members perhaps, in that many of the, Mr Geyser just mentioned the similar tube stations on the line and indeed low rise and very famous tube stations all over London have now surrounded by all sorts of things, all kinds of heights and contrast. I rather wondered whether in fact the contrast between might display it just as much as trying to compliment it. I don't like much, I don't think anyone does what's there now, particularly the new third floor and I rather preferred the design version. But I'm open to be persuaded, I want to hear this because I just think it's a given the development pressures on the barra and indeed on the city as a whole that it may be a little bit unrealistic keeping it about the height, the height we're talking about, but I'm open to be persuaded. I think Mr Dodgson, I'll give him one more go to help persuade you. I don't think it's necessarily the height per se, it's the disjointed nature of what's being proposed. It had somebody been proposing that entire row of 1930s low-built buildings were having the entire row with perhaps two more stories added on. As you say, that would be no higher than the buildings that were there previously at the beginning of the last century. But I think it's the fact that we've got high-caliber architecture in terms of the underground station being immediately juxtaposed against what I think most people here would regard as not high-caliber architecture. The building that it's creating is going to look very unsightly, inconsistent. So had they been proposing that all the entire row had been three floors high and it was good quality eye architecture, as is the case further north as you go along towards to the corner of the next road, Ramston Road, then that probably would have been more acceptable. But it's the spikiness, I suppose, of what's being done in a low-caliber of the detailing. Okay, so I think we have divided views here. Although I don't think I'm hearing anyone arguing for this particular proposal in isolation, I think what I'm hearing is that without some further development further to the north, this building rather sticks out like a sore thumb. It seems to me I'm not so worried about the, if I can speak personally, about the chestnut grove elevation, I'm concerned much more about the bottom-high road elevation, which just sort of sticks up in isolation from anything else. That's a personal view, but I think there is a case for densification and raising height, but not in this sort of isolated fashion. Yeah, I'm of the view that it's a story too high, at least. I like the way it wraps around the corner, but I think being that tall, it's going to threaten other buildings, like for instance, rather charming. I think it's station terracing and chestnut grove, which is lovely building with a little cartouche on the top, Victorian, and I think that I'm a bit worried about the use as well. Is it going to be a hotel? Is it really a hotel? And the traffic generation, everything, the aspects of it, but yeah, I think it's too high, anyway, my view. Can I try and sort of square the various views that have been put here, that we would not be opposed to a height, a heightening of the terrace as a whole proceeding up to the north. We have some concern about the, is it the fourth floor added, what the top story. We're not opposed to some height heightening, as I say, along the terrace as a whole, but as it stands at the moment, we cannot support this individual proposal. Is that a reasonable way of putting it? Mate, could I just answer it? Yes, I agree with very much what you said, and what others have said that it is at least one story too tall, and rather than say we have concerns about it, I'd say we would suggest that if the planning application's pretty is minded to consider the application, or how do I put this? No, they shouldn't accept the top story. And I wondered whether we could also suggest that if the planning application is willing to accept the application, that there should be conditions attached requiring details to be submitted. I'll return to the line I made only about the windows. I think they made a big mistake in the, what you call it, the, the, the appearance of the windows, and it does give cause to concern that the detailing may very well let the building down, so as I say, conditions attached to submission of details. And I would take it that the rider to that is that this is in a sense that detail is is important in such a sensitive location. Councillor BELLTON. Back on the comments, this is not making a judgement in any sense, but on your summary. Do you see the conservation area advisory committee just advising about form an architectural style, or do you think that, I ought to know, I guess, I'm not, it's a question for the standing orders of the committee, or do you think you have a role in commenting on usage, because at least one person questioned usage, and you didn't mention it in your summary? I would not, as I understand our terms of reference, they give us very, very wide competence in dealing, in making comments, providing advice to your committee. Councillor BELLTON on anything relating to buildings in conservation areas and their surrounds, and in dealing with heritage assets. In which case, one of the members commented that, let's put it at the mildest, that he would like proofs that a hotel was required there. I mean, that was a comment from one person. It seems to me that, as I read the application, it was very unclear to me whether what was being proposed was a hotel in the common sort of sense of that, or something like a co-living arrangement even, or an apart hotel kind of arrangement, because I mean, there is mention of common areas, for the use of residents. As I read the application, it didn't seem to me to come across as, if I can put it this way, a conventional hotel. It would be a very small hotel. Yeah, thank you. So clarity, I think we would seek on what the precise usage is planned to be. On the basis of my summary, as modified by or added to by Mr Farrow and my subsequent comment about usage, does that meet the points that have been made in discussion? Are people happy with that? And if I can just reiterate a point that I think at least Mr Kato supports, I mean, this really does highlight the need for design codes. In that case, you've got enough, I hope. Let me move back in my list, I'm sorry, I seem to have two lists, which are slightly in conflict with each other. Can we move to 2024, 0751, 6163, ones with high street, almost opposite here? And I think that is this way. That's right, Chair. Thank you. So, as you mentioned, this application is literally across the road from where you're residing. 61 to 63, ones with high street. So the application description is conversion of the upper first and second floors to self-contain flats along with a new third floor extension, third floor extension having two flats within it. So, here's the siting question. So, again, quite a sensitive environment. The siters was built in the early 20th century. It's part of some infilling of some of the areas along the high street. There's quite a few of these early 20th century and 1920s blocks, so much of its period, red brick upper floors, and then a shop front to the lower floors with quite a prominent parapet towards the front elevation. This just gives you a bit more of a context on the side elevation because of the sit down positioning of the Quaker meeting house next door to it. The side elevation is actually quite prominent as you walk coming down towards high street. And there is actually a ghost sign on that side elevation. The building at the moment has a flat roof which then goes towards the rear with a large hall attached to the rear. There you see there, there's the context of the site. So you have the Quaker meeting house directly adjacent to the building. And that is a grade 2 listed along with its immediate setting to the rear which is the burial ground. And then you have obviously the town hall to the north. Further along you have South Thames College. You've got two buildings directly next to the other side of the building. And then you have the Spreading Eagle public house which is a listed building that then goes towards the central part of one's worth town. So again this shows you the context and apologies. The red line is actually positioned on the Quaker meeting house, not the site itself. It is supposed to be just to the next to it. But this gives you an illustration of the extent of heritage designation. So it's within one's worth town conservation area which was recently appraised as part of the program. So it's one of the first to be reappraised because the conservation area appraisal was particularly lacking in detail. And as part of that assessment officers identified buildings that make a positive contribution or a negative contribution. And in this particular site the building in question was considered to make a positive contribution by virtue of its continuous frontage forming that kind of continuous sense of enclosure on this southern side of the of one's worth high street. There's a degree of historic interest in terms of forming part of the small infill 1920s infill plots. But very sensitive in terms of it's sandwiched pretty much between a large number of listed buildings bearing in mind that see the sort of hatched area that South Thames College is going in towards the rear of the site which has been quite heavily redeveloped which includes classes the tower and the blocks that are associated with the tower towards the south which have now built out and the library will be going into it and then you have the block next to a quick and meeting house which then comes down onto the high street itself as in a staggered arrangement. So this is just giving you an existing context view in terms of immediate surrounding. So it's five bay building, three stories ground floor shop with two upper floors and you have the quick and meeting house directly to it and then the buildings the other side which have a semblance of architectural similarities to the spread eagle to it albeit not part of the spread eagle itself. Now the proposals as I stated so the converging the upper floors to residential accommodation a total of eight flats so three on the first floor, three on the second floor and two that will be contained in a new extension on top of the flat roof extension so effectively what that will be. There will be a setback on the front elevation behind that parapet as you see here the windows will maintain the rhythm of the base below but it will be a full story above and here you see the existing rear elevation and there will be effectively a full story on top which towards the rear and the side will effectively come up as almost as a sheer story not the setback as you see on the front elevation behind the parapet. So here's that side elevation which has got the ghost sign and that shows you here that that floor is effectively quite a kind of box like structure on top. Obviously you know it's not full height but it is taking the whole of that top floor flat roof that's not set in towards the back or the side but only set in from the parapet at the front. Now forgive me there is very limited information within this application this is the only 3D sketch view that has been provided as public application and I appreciate it is a little bit deceiving when I first saw it because obviously what's proposed and showing in kind of a limey green yellow colour is what's proposed but just to be clear that there's no extensions proposed to the lower floors it is actually just a floor to be added on top but I think it's just the colouring of the building towards the back makes it look like they're going to add extension on the back but that's not the case but it is proposed effectively is a full story on top of the building which is situated within quite a prominent part of the conservation area and so I will leave it with this particular sketch as it gives a bit of a context but it would be helpful to see the committee members views on this proposal. There's not been any pre-app on this proposal by the way it is coming as a application with no consultation with officers. Thank you, okay thank you. First as usual are there any factual questions people have about this application? Mr Farrow. Do you think that the windows on the existing first and second floor are original, contemporary with the construction of the building? I haven't looked into that in as much detail because this hasn't come in very long so I can't answer that without having to go and see the site which is hopefully taking place tomorrow, so apologies for that window. Thank you. I've had a look and it seems to me they could easily be contemporary with the building which is a shame so I don't like them very much but if they are original so thank you for that clarification of the aim matter. Any other factual questions before I ask for comments? Okay let me move to comments on this proposal. Anyone? Mr Farrow. It's in our area and I suppose we should have a view on it. First site I thought the windows were slightly weird, it's a building that I was not overly aware of. It is on the high street obviously but it's sort of a relatively anonymous building and I was initially reluctant to accept an additional story in as much as it would have an adverse effect on the Quaker Meeting House and its burial ground but the adverse effect that this building already has on the burial ground in the Quaker Meeting House and the adverse effect that got knows how many storages is the tower behind the building has. I think this is going to make a fairly nominal adverse effect and I don't think that we would lodge an objection to it. I can't think of anything more to say I am afraid. Okay thank you. Other comments? Mr Mr. This might be by way more of a question for forgive me. Have I understood correctly that the side elevation the extension is going to be slated. It's not going to be a wall built up so that it's to make it symmetrical or not. I'm slightly confused by what I'm looking at because on the right there's a wall with the next property but on the left because it's higher building than the Meeting House next door. The bit that sort of looks orange from here. I can't see what that actually is. Is anyone able to clarify that? Let me just bring up the drawing so that I can actually look at what the text is showing the side elevation because I appreciate that it's difficult to read some of the text in the presentation. I'm just going to bring it up just to be very clear. You're looking at a zinc side elevation. So the side elevation will be of standing seam zinc cladding. In other words it's really not symmetrical. Is that the side or the rear? Sorry. That's the side. Let me just bring up the side. I just find that it's slightly straight. It just means that the building's not symmetrical. It's not symmetrical what's being proposed. When you look at it from the main street you're going to have on the left hand side a sort of very sharply pitched but nevertheless a slate or zinc covered construction on the left where it's on the right it'll go butt up up against the party wall with the next building when you're looking from the front. I'm just thinking in my mind that if you're approaching that building it doesn't look as though it would have ever been intended to have been built like that. I suppose it's a comment. I find it a little bit uncomfortable. Yeah in my view it ought to be carried up as a party wall. It's totally wrong to just have a lightweight structure on the boundary like that. Can I please just second that one that should be raised as a wall in the same material as the wall underneath and ideally the front and rear slope should be a man sod. Mr Potter you were hovering. So I was just bearing in mind the comments about those windows. You could introduce some dummy wind. It's been removed but a few times. Could I just ask whether Mr Potter's asking for these dummy windows to be on the elevation facing the Quaker meeting house. The dummy windows on the elevation facing the Quaker meeting house. Is that what you were considering? I think that possibly would be asking a great deal of the applicant. It's a tricky one about the party wall. I hesitated this way with Andrew but I think were the addition to be a man sod on all three sides. No, you're not happy with that. The Quaker should be raised in brick but the two front and rear extensions should be a man sod so that it looks like a building with a pitched man sided roof but it's party wall which is a very common form that you would find all over any part of the borough you care to look at. And the party wall would not normally have windows there but it does have windows. It does but it is a party wall. Strictly speaking as long as those two little windows are each under one square meter they can just squeeze them through the building regulations but actually there's a technical consideration to bear in mind here if they're going to put windows through that side. This is a boundary situation. Can you turn your microphone off? I'm reluctant to have to engage in an extended discussion about the party wall. I have to say I do agree about the man sod personally but Mr. Dodgson. I suppose the other alternative would be all four elevations were man sod like but then that would presumably create a gully which would be very difficult to handle. I think what we're saying is that we have no rooted objection to this proposal but we would urge the applicant to consider making the front and the rear of the roof extension or the box on the roof as man sod and to have the party wall as a party wall. Is that what we put? That would all be sorted out in the party wall at that point. As I say I'm reluctant on this one to go into great detail but I think there is an issue about the handling of the side elevation. You put that very well. We consider the side elevation to be unresolved properly resolved shall we say. Is that clear enough for you for minute taking? Let us move on to the final application which was added as a supplementary item. This is application 20240183, Mount Clare campus. There is a much longer title but let's just call it Mount Clare campus for short. This way. Thank you Chair. Yes item 6 later I went back into Roehampton. A little bit of context in relation to this particular part of Alton estate. I take you through to some site photograph. Mount Clare, grade 1 listed building part of the ensemble of 18th century residences that resided in this part of Roehampton which you see here in the bottom corner and the top. It's situated within the Alton West registered park and garden so it was originally a locally listed landscape and in 2020 when the landscape was officially nationally registered that kind of supersedes the local listing. A site sits very towards the southern part of the site right close to the boundary with Richmond borough. You also have the Alton conservation area and within the site you have these blocks chart all kind of flat roof two store blocks which you see here that sit around the 18th century building which were added after the original master plan, an LCC master plan. So original master plan kept the landscape surrounding Mount Clare is as open and then these were added later on in existence by the 1970s when you look in the maps and was essentially student accommodation and have remained as such since. So again just to show you the context of where it is in relation to the landscape so right towards the southern side of southern part of the Alton West site. You have the Binstagarden Spunklos as well. Theatre showing again that site context in addition to Mount Clare we also have the temple which is grade two star listed which is cited just in the corner of the site so where it wraps around towards the eastern part of the site currently in an overgrown part of the site and surrounded by high metal reinding railings to stop any current vandalism of the site. This was located in this area in the early 20th century in originally form part of Parkstead House which is the Whitelands cottage it has taken many names over the years and was relocated into the location. It is now and originally right in front of it was a small pond so it kind of overlooked that pond now in a rather overgrown area with a very derelict lodged right next to it. So this is an existing site plan as you see you have the temple in that very eastern corner of the site and what we consider to be Picasso House which is the largest of the buildings right next door to Mount Clare so there is one of the largest buildings still to Torrey but kind of set forward of Mount Clare and then you have these smaller cuboid blocks into Lincoln cubodic blocks that kind of wrap around the sort of topography of the site down towards the boundary with Richmond Park. Now just to note that there isn't any physical changes proposed to the exterior of these buildings this is just a change of use of application for a temporary period of five years and it is for the use of temporary accommodation so you see here this is an existing typical student accommodation arrangement as you see in some of those blocks the two-story cuboid blocks here and that's the proposal so a very minimal change to allow for the temporary change of use to what would be classes for generous use for temporary accommodation. External changes will not take place which is why we only have very minimal information in terms of actual drawings most of them are existing plans. Existing Picasso House just for illustrative purposes and again no changes proposed just utilising the existing accommodation for that temporary use a lot of these have already got existing bathrooms and importantly the existing Mount Clare House which is currently used for administration and offices for the University which is currently leasing the site that will not change there will be no physical works to the building and it will remain in its existing use as office administration for this to for the administration of of the temporary use. So there's no physical changes to the site but it is obviously a change of use of the land and the buildings that surround the grade one list of building and there's no proposals as part of this temporary application for the temple but as part of the ownership that will all the red line plan that does include the temple their proposals have come forward for a prospective purchaser so the current site is owned by the Methodist Church and leased by the University and obviously these proposals come forward as their potential new owner of the site as is shown in the application form. So welcome the members views on this temporary application. Thank you. There is a long and complicated history to this site and certainly the temple has recently been the subject of discussion in this committee which approved recently the the retention of the fencing around the temple as a protection against vandalism. The the history is somewhat of a sorry history leaving the the buildings in a rather sad state. I think we could all agree but before going on to comments about this application are there any factual questions that people want to raise? Mr Dodgson. I just see is the actual house itself it's currently being used as offices or is it empty? The last time that I visited this site in November 2023 it was the it wasn't being occupied. So no so we've got a listed an empty listed building at the moment and what is proposed would mean that it would be at least being occupied and kept an eye on. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Any other factual questions? In that case I will go to Mr Catto first of all. Good evening panel. I think I did ask and thank you very much Chairman for getting this on the agenda a short notice when it came through. I thought that it was very important that this panel have a chance to talk about this particular application. We are looking as I the more I look at the documentation and there's really only one the drawings don't show very much. They don't even they barely met they don't mention the temple at all they don't mention the lodge at all except as a ruin which is what it is. They don't they really don't it's quite clear to me frankly that the the applicants don't actually want Mount Clare. They've got no idea what to do with it. What they want is the fairly nasty to put it brilliantly out of place to put it bluntly and student accommodation that is now on the side. In order to make quite a lot of money over the next five years by renting it to the council housing department for temporary housing. So the funding for all of this is coming from this town hall. I think this needs to be borne in mind that is the proposal. The point I think that is important is that the more I read of the documentation the less there seems to be any sign that they are interested or care or really intend to do anything to protect. We are talking about a grade one listed building in Mount Clare. There are only five in the borough. That's how rare these are. We are talking about a second listed building in the temple which is one of only two south west 15 buildings on the buildings at risk register and the only one and the other one's got conversation going on at the moment about saving it. These buildings matter and if they are handed over to somebody for a five-year temporary use who is saying that the income may go towards maintenance in the form of heating. I don't think this committee should be endorsing this application. Thank you. Other views or comments? I presume the Lego arrangement is a very limited life. I am not competent to comment on that. The 1980s buildings built probably not at great expense at the time. They are built at the standards of their time which by today's standards makes them nearly uninhabitable. The proposal because it is a five-year temporary use suggests that they will do the absolute minimum to these buildings including no external changes which means that the people to be housed there will be living in something with 1980s standards of energy efficiency. I would suggest very soon in something rather moldy with very low standards of energy efficiency. I am struggling to understand how the change of use would or would not impact on the security of the relevant listed buildings. Is it better that they are left empty or is it better that there are people in need of housing there? I don't know. I can't quite say it. Are they going to have to be special measures to protect the building because in some way or not? You are right. There are no proposals apart from using Montclair, a four-story multi-roomed mansion, sorry, villa to be accurate, as basically the security office. If it wasn't there they would put up a porta cabin to house the security people who will be necessary, the applicants obviously think, to look after or prevent anti-social behaviour. But they are going to be using one room and a toilet, I suspect. We all know anybody who is on this committee should know that an empty listed building, look at the stories we have been hearing time after time after time on our updates from first download. An empty listed building is a deteriorating listed building and we really need this site deserves better. Grade 1, Montclair has suffered horribly. It was the owner of Montclair who commissioned Capability Brown to do the grounds. There is absolutely nothing left of what was done by Brown that you can see in any way immediately around the building. It's a shame. It was built as a country retreat on a ridge of high ground with a view over down she fields in one direction now completely blocked out by trees and a view over Richmond Park in the other direction, a great place to live. You can't see out in either direction anymore, sadly, but I'm not going to propose taking down the trees. But I do think we ought to be encouraging the Council to reject this as it stands because it does not contain sufficient provision for the protection of two listed buildings. I think it's clear that I'll come to you Mr Armstrong in a moment. I think it's clear that there are strong reservations about this application and the risk to the listed buildings which are central to the site. We are an advisory committee. It clearly is for the Council not just the planning department but the housing department, I presume, who will have to take the final decisions about this. But I have to say I share the reservations that have been expressed about the risks to the listed buildings. What can practically be done to ameliorate those risks which will exist whatever, the view that is taken about this application is the emptiness that essentially constitutes the risk. Those practicalities are something that we're not in a position to wear an advisory committee. We cannot take decisions about that. I think all that we can do is to express concerns about those risks so that they are taken very seriously by the Planning Committee and the Housing Committee when they take final decisions. Councillor COOPA. Thank you. I just think we need to be careful that we don't overstep the parameters that the committee sits within. Whilst I hear what you say about the Housing Committee, I think it's more likely to be the housing department and the decisions that they make about the quality of temporary accommodation that they may or may not wish to procure is not really something that we can cover here. Although we may have no view or we may have very strong views on it but it's not within the parameters of the conservation and heritage advisory committee because it's not actually a conservation issue. It's a quality of temporary accommodation issue which is definitely not nothing. That doesn't really speak to a detriment to the—I mean you could argue that there's too much temporary accommodation on the alternate stage but it would be quite hard to argue what the relationship between that and the various different aspects of heritage there actually is in my opinion. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. I very much take that point which is why I was emphasising that our concern is the risk that already exists to the two listed buildings. I don't think we have a view. We cannot have a view. I absolutely accept that about the quality of the housing that will be presented. That is not—we've spoken already about the remit of this committee. That is outside our remit. I'm quite clear about that. But do you have enough that we have concerns about the risks to the listed buildings under this application recognising that those risks already exist? We're not saying that the risks we're talking about are unique to this application but this application doesn't do anything to ameliorate them. I think is the point that we're trying to make unless anyone—unless I've got that wrong. Okay. Thank you. Let us move on to paper 24138, page 11 in your PACS which is a report on applications which came before this committee and have now been determined after discussion at PACS. They both relate to the Francis Barber pupil referral unit on Franciscan Road. We had real concerns about those applications but in the end the decisions that PAC made were to approve those applications, to accept them. Councillor COOPER again. Thank you. I think it's actually slightly misleading the way that this paper is laid out because it does sound as though the Planning Applications Committee approved the submission that was considered here and the majority of the committee did not support the proposals. Actually it's come twice to the Planning Applications Committee and the first time the Planning Applications Committee didn't support the proposals either. It then came back again and the Planning Applications Committee then the second time around with the drawings having been amended and improved in the opinion of the committee to such an extent that some of the problems and issues that the Planning Applications Committee had felt related to the first version of the application and that included setting back some of the heights of the top level so that it was further away from the properties in Dewey Street, including some more detailing so it wasn't quite so much a square box with blank walls being very rude here about it but anyway. There were quite a number of changes and therefore members of the committee who had been as unhappy as this committee had been with the first version which this committee had seen felt abled with the revised application to support it so I'm not quite sure that that's included in full in the way that this has been drafted so I just thought it was worth mentioning that. Thank you for that I should have mentioned that I was aware that there have been somewhat tortured discussions in PAC on two occasions of about this. I make no comment and I don't think it's our job to make comment on that but I know that there was a good deal of discussion let's put it that way on PAC about these applications. Councillor BELLTON, since you've resided, can I give a much cruder summary. I think you gave an impression that the committee took notice of these comments. It did. We agreed with you and amended it so I think instead of you could look at it as a positive from this committee's point of view. I accept that of course. Okay, is there any other business? Chair, I just have a quick update to give two committee members about St Mark's school because I visited the site last week as part of our remit of reviewing heritage at risk entries every year and we have to do condition surveys. I visited the site last week. The site, I think Councillor BELLTON kindly gave a bit of an update in the last committee as well. It's now fully occupied and majority of the works have been completed. The landscaping works are proposed to take place in the near future. They're waiting on the railings. They're being made at the moment but they have to be a replication of the railings in the church. From the point of view of heritage at risk, we have as offices recommended to Historic England for its removal from the list as it has largely been repaired and all the structural works have been completed and then out. The building is now occupied by the architectural firm. I will update the committee hopefully by the next committee. If the Historic England have agreed to remove it but I don't see any reason why they shouldn't remove it now when the works are largely complete. Just a bit of a good news story to end the evening because I know that Councillor BELLTON has been involved in this site for a very long period. It's not quite as long as that. I can report that work was going on yesterday, even in the rain yesterday, on the bank holiday, on the landscaping. I happened to pass and took note. Okay, any other business? I'm really to say thanks for that update and I feel very good about it and I'm going and calling myself and I should think, I'm sure Barry can probably give me the detail, I should think we're talking certainly the 90s, so we're talking the 80s, not sure. A long time anyway. '90s to 2000, was it okay? Mr Cato. Sorry, might I take advantage of having this way's presence to ask, in respect of another building at risk, I understand there may be a pre-application going on. I don't ask you to divulge what's happening, but if you could, about the white line in punny and does that look like getting to a planning application at some point? I can't really say much, but there is a live pre-application inquiry in for that building and officers have visited the building as part of the Heritage Risk and Kishian survey. I can advise that it doesn't appear to be any worse condition than the previous survey, it's still being occupied by guardians to the building. I can't see much more than that, I'm afraid, in terms of pre-application, but there is one in. Fully understood why you can't comment, it's just nice to hear that something's happening. Chris Lawson. Hello, Lauren, I wonder if I could ask about if you're talking about reviewing heritage at risk. Is this something that you do all of the buildings on your list at this time of year? I'm curious about choosing that lodge, and actually it was mentioned that waterfall housing might go on to that list if there wasn't a planning application due, but it's not been considered yet. First down lodge as well, actually at the moment, until that list is agreed. My colleague David, I know who attends the committee quite regularly, he's in charge of teaching Beck Lodge. There's still some discussions around that because, obviously, the main thing is to try and get some sort of occupation of the site, which is not forthcoming at this stage, so it was reviewed. Obviously, the building is in better condition because the repair works have taken place, but there's still the tool fencing, which is around it, which have now lapsed permission, but offices are at first to try to make them take those down until some sort of agreement has come forward for the use of the building. That includes occupation, because it is protecting the building, but there's no, unfortunately, nothing I can add on that particular building. Waterfall house, the last update that we had was that they're still working through the revisions to the planning and the building consent application that will take account of some of the unauthorized works to the interior of the building, and there hasn't been as much progress as we'd like to see. So, again, that's David, so we'll see if we can try and get a little bit more progress on that one to have a look and see what can come forward. In terms of new additions to the list, so my understanding is we do put forward new additions where there is no obvious solution going forward. That's one of the key criteria. We first download, there's an adversity to add it to the list unless we know that there is nothing coming forward, but we do know that the lease is at the point where we really think it is or that I've been assured is nearly at the point where it will come forward and be signed, and there'll be a credible solution coming forward for that building. So, it's quite a lot of work to get things on to the list in terms of historic England's involvement as well. So, we only put them on unless we really don't see any proposal coming forward, the same before, a waterfall house. Again, we can recommend additions to the list at any point in the year. It's not just this year, so if we do not see any progress and we can make those discussions with historic England, but we want to give them the opportunity to try to rectify some of the structural issues in terms of the cracking and the unauthorised works to see if there can be a solution found for that one. Whereas, obviously, things like the temple, there's no obvious solution for that site at the stage and there needs to be something to allow for it to actually come off the list. Even repairing it doesn't always take it off the list. There needs to be some sort of long term solution for the site like St Mark's. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any other business? In which case, all I have to do is to draw the committee's attention to the list of dates of future meetings and to thank you for your contributions this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

AI Generated

Summary

The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee discussed several planning applications concerning heritage sites and buildings. The committee provided feedback and raised concerns about the potential impacts of proposed developments on the historical and architectural significance of the areas involved.

Alton Activity Centre and Down to Fields: The committee unanimously supported the proposed improvements, appreciating the inclusive design and enhancements to play areas. The design was seen as sensitive to the heritage setting, with no objections raised about its impact on the surrounding conservation area.
198-200 Balham High Road: The proposal to add additional floors to an existing building faced criticism for potentially harming the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed Balham Underground Station. The committee was divided, with some members arguing that the development could overshadow the historic station, while others suggested that increased density might be appropriate for the area. The committee recommended that if approved, the development should include detailed conditions to ensure architectural quality.
61-63 Wandsworth High Street: The committee discussed a proposal to add a new floor to a building in a conservation area. Concerns were raised about the design of the side elevation and its impact on the adjacent Grade II listed Quaker Meeting House. The committee suggested architectural adjustments to ensure the extension is more in keeping with the existing structure.
Mount Clare Campus: The committee expressed significant concerns about a proposal for temporary housing on a site containing Grade I and II* listed buildings. Members were worried about the lack of a clear plan to maintain and protect these heritage assets during the proposed temporary use. The committee stressed the need for a robust strategy to ensure the preservation of the site's historical value.

Surprisingly, the meeting also touched on the ongoing issues with heritage buildings at risk, such as St. Mark's School and the White Lion, indicating ongoing preservation challenges within the borough. The Wandsworth Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee recently discussed several key topics, focusing on the preservation and utilization of heritage sites and buildings within the borough.

One significant topic was the proposed temporary change of use for the Mount Clare campus in Roehampton. The site includes the Grade I listed Mount Clare and the Grade II* listed temple. The proposal involves using existing student accommodation buildings for temporary housing, with no physical changes to the exteriors. Concerns were raised about the lack of a clear plan for the maintenance and protection of the listed buildings, particularly given their historical importance and current state of neglect.

Another major discussion centered on the application for additional stories and conversion of existing floors at 61-63 Wandsworth High Street. The committee expressed concerns about the design and impact of the proposed third-floor extension on the Grade II listed Quaker Meeting House next door. Suggestions were made to improve the design by making the roof mansard and ensuring the side elevation is treated as a party wall.

The committee also revisited the applications related to the Francis Barber Pupil Referral Unit on Franciscan Road. Although initially there were reservations about the design and impact on the local area, the Planning Applications Committee eventually approved the revised proposals, which included changes to reduce the visual impact and better integrate with the surrounding environment.

Overall, the meeting highlighted the committee's ongoing commitment to ensuring that development within Wandsworth respects and preserves the borough's rich heritage, while also accommodating necessary improvements and changes.

Agenda

Summary

Attendees

Documents