This week in Wandsworth:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee discussed a new premises licence application for Wine Direct Ltd, focusing on concerns about noise and traffic, and reviewed the premises licence for Eelam Enterprise, excluding the press and public due to an ongoing police investigation.
• The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee opposed a mansard roof extension at 7 Vicarage Mansions and expressed concerns about a proposed development at the rear of 6-12 Endersham Road, citing potential harm to the conservation area.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 07 May 2025

The Licensing Sub-Committee convened to discuss a new premises licence application for Wine Direct Ltd and a review of the premises licence for Eelam Enterprise. The committee resolved to exclude the press and public for the Eelam Enterprise item due to its relation to an ongoing police investigation.

Wine Direct Ltd Licence Application

Wine Direct Ltd, an online alcohol retailer, applied for a new premises licence for a unit at 5B Parkfield Industrial Estate to operate as a delivery hub for South London. The application requested permission to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This request prompted concerns from the Council's Environmental Services Officer, Mr Robert Newby-Walker, regarding potential noise and disturbance to nearby residents, as it fell outside the Council's licensing policy framework.

Mr Newby-Walker objected to the proposed hours, stating they were not in line with the Council's licensing policy, which recommends hours of 7am to midnight Sunday to Thursday, and 7am to 2am Friday and Saturday. He cited noise surveys indicating that ambient noise levels fall around midnight during the week and 2am at the weekend. He argued that allowing a 24-hour alcohol premise would generate activity and increase traffic through a bottleneck entrance to the industrial estate, impacting residential properties.

Councillor Mark Justin raised concerns about the potential for increased traffic and disturbance in residential areas due to deliveries in the early hours of the morning. He questioned the frequency of deliveries and the minimum order size, suggesting that smaller orders would lead to more frequent trips and greater disturbance.

Representing Wine Direct Ltd, Mr Daly explained the company's business model, which involves delivering alcohol to residential premises via their own website and third-party platforms like Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats. He noted that the location of the premises was chosen to minimise impact on local residents, being situated near railway lines and away from residential areas.

Mr Daly argued that the business's peak hours would be from midnight to 3am, a time when people are less likely to visit a shop. He also pointed out that other licensed premises within the industrial estate, such as Deliveroo and Air Kitchens, operate until 1am and 5am respectively. He expressed concern that imposing a condition requiring electric vehicles for all deliveries, including those made by third-party couriers, would be difficult to enforce and could lead to inadvertent breaches of the licence.

The legal advisor, Mr Paul Greenham, clarified that while the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy sets framework hours, each application must be considered individually. He referred to Section 15 of the policy, which addresses potential public nuisance caused by delivery drivers and suggests using courier services that encourage the use of quieter vehicles.

Councillor Norman Marshall raised the possibility of a condition stating that if a third-party delivery driver turns up on a noisy moped or motorcycle, the business would refuse the delivery. Mr Daly responded that while they could try to encourage electric vehicle use, they could not guarantee it.

Councillor Justin expressed his disapproval of the application, stating that he was not interested in a 24-hour delivery service that could be used by anyone, by absolutely anyone, in whatever vehicle they may turn up in.

Mr Newby-Walker stated that his concerns would be resolved if the applicant was willing to offer a condition on electric vehicles. Mr Daly reiterated that Wine Direct Ltd would operate electric vehicles through their own drivers and asked the committee to grant the application as submitted, or to add a condition requiring the operator's deliveries to use electric vehicles.

Eelam Enterprise Licence Review

The committee then moved on to consider a review of the premises licence for Eelam Enterprise, a shop on Mitcham Road. However, following a request, the committee voted to exclude the press and public from this part of the meeting, as the application related to an ongoing police investigation. Councillor Maurice McLeod, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, stated that this was because it was likely to disclose exempt information under regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003, and as described in paragraphs one and seven and part one of the schedule 12, a, of the Local Government Act 1972.

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - Tuesday 06 May 2025

The Wandsworth Council Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) met to discuss revisions to their terms of reference and several planning applications, including proposals for solar panels, roof extensions, and new dwellings. The committee voted to oppose a mansard roof extension at 7 Vicarage Mansions and expressed concerns about a proposed development at the rear of 6-12 Endersham Road, citing potential harm to the conservation area. They raised no objections to the other applications, subject to conditions.

Western Lane Development

The committee discussed an application for the partial demolition of boundary walls and erection of 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings with associated gardens, bin and bike storage and boundary walls to the rear of 6-12 Endersham Road within the Nightingale Lane conservation area. The application site is surrounded by heritage assets, including locally listed buildings on Endersham Road and listed buildings along Nightingale Lane.

The officers noted that Western Lane has a more rural character, described in the conservation area appraisal as a quiet backwater with vestiges of rural charm. Many buildings along this part of Western Lane were formerly coach houses associated with the buildings on Endersham Road. The current site is largely hard standing, used for car parking. The proposal is for four dwellings, all three bedrooms and two storeys, with a consistent design featuring arch windows. The design is inspired by a building further south on Western Lane and also takes cues from buildings on Endersham Road. The development is intended to be car-free, with front gardens.

Mr Mark Dodgson, representing the Balham Society, raised concerns about the brickwork, questioning whether it would be Flemish Bond¹. He also disputed the applicant's claim that the boundary wall running at right angles to Western Lane was not original, suggesting that the terracotta or codestone decorative caps on the pillars may be heritage items. Mr Dodgson expressed a general concern that a uniform terrace was inappropriate for the lane's character, objecting to the height and describing the architecture as pastiche.

Mr Roger Armstrong, representing the Clapham Society, recalled that in the 1970s, a decision was made to limit development in the back gardens of Endersham Road to preserve the character of Western Lane. He noted that the arched window effect was taken from one of the original coach houses.

Ms Frances Radcliffe, representing the Friends of Battersea Park, questioned whether the proposed development was so bad compared to what else could be put there.

Other members agreed that building a terrace along this lane was extremely odd, given its character of diversity and gaps between the individual properties.

The committee agreed that the development would cause harm to the conservation area, specifically to Western Lane. Councillor Rex Osborn was keen for the committee to reach a view on whether the harm was substantial or not substantial damage to the lane, for the benefit of the planning applications committee.

An officer clarified that when looking at harm to designated heritage assets, it was necessary to look at the conservation area as a whole. She said that substantial harm is a very high test, and cited the MPPG² which talks about the key part of what's significant about the heritage assets and this being the conservation area.

The committee agreed that the development would represent harm to the conservation area and to Western Lane in particular. Mr Armstrong believed it would be substantial, blowing apart the country lane aspect and the whole feeling of that.

The committee also had concerns with the height of the building.

Elko Street Development

The committee considered an application for the headquarters of the fashion brand, Vivian Westwood, located at the junction of Elko Street and Howey Street. The existing building is made up of a two-storey brick warehouse on Elko Street and a later five-storey office development dating from around 2007, which fronts on to Howey Street. The site is not located within a conservation area, but is located approximately 70 meters from the West Bridge Road conservation area. There is a row of locally listed buildings at 52 to 68 Batchesee Bridge Road, which sits opposite the junction with Howey Street.

The proposals are for a two-storey extension above the front part of the building where the office extension was, and a Part 4 and Part 8-storey extension to the central and northern part of the building fronting Elko Street. The scheme is intended to deliver additional office and ancillary space to accommodate the Vivian Westwood Brands expansion and to house all their departments in one building.

Mr Dodgson sought clarification about the existing warehouse, asking if it was being retained to show the origins of the site, but would not be apparent from the street. An officer clarified that the intention was to retain as much as possible, but that some redevelopment would be necessary to support the development above.

Mr Armstrong thought the height of the new building threatened the heritage buildings along Bassie Park Road, which are all very small-scale buildings. He felt that Elko Street was historically a subsidiary street, and that larger, taller buildings should be along Bassie Bridge Road.

Mr Dodgson said that the committee should stick to commenting on how the application impacts on conservation areas, and asked if there was a graphic for how it impacts on Bassie Bridge Road.

Ms Radcliffe felt that if it doesn't impose too much on the park or the Westbridge conservation area, and there's already been approval for a slightly taller building not very far away, there's not much justification for opposing it. She also thought it was quite an interesting building, and an awful lot more attractive than what is there currently.

The committee felt the impact on the conservation areas was pretty minimal, and that it was quite an interesting piece of design.

Falcon Road Solar Panels

The committee discussed an application for wall-mounted solar panels on the southwest elevation of 160 Falcon Road. The site is located within the Clapham Junction Conservation Area, with a number of locally listed buildings and listed buildings within the immediate vicinity, most importantly Clapham Junction Railway Station and the Falcon Public Out. The proposals do not seek anything on the front elevation, but the rear elevations are quite prominent from Clapham Junction Station. The applicant is seeking permission for 63 solar panels on three rear elevations of the building.

Mr Dodgson asked what colour the panels would be, and was told they would be matte black.

Mr Armstrong raised a concern about pigeons nesting behind the solar panels. An officer said that if the principle was considered acceptable, then conditions could be put in place to potentially put netting or something around it, or pigeon spikes that avoid them roosting behind or on top of those solar panels.

Mr Dodgson felt that the addition of the panels themselves has no more distinct impact on the conservation area than the building does at the moment personally, and agreed about the pigeons and guano because also if more pigeons can be roosting there, then there'll be more problems for Clapham Junction station itself, which has already got a problem with pigeons.

Ms Ratcliffe thought solar panels are really pretty hideous when you get these great black. However, she said that solar panels are a good thing, and it doesn't seem reasonable on a building like that to say, no, you can't.

The committee had no objection in principle to this, but asked that a condition be added to address technical issues around how to deal with birds.

Vicarage Mansions Roof Extension

The committee considered a proposal for a mansard reef extension at 7 Vicarage Mansions, within the Parktown Conservation Area. The site is a corner plot at the corner of Queenstown Road and St. Peter's Square, just to the south of St. Peter's Church, which is Grade II listed. The building forms part of a small terrace which frames a view of the church. The proposal is for a simple mansard with 70 degree pitch with dormer windows. The rear chimney will be removed as part of the proposals. The new floor will house a much larger flat.

Councillor Tony Belton queried whether there was a lift in the block. An officer said there was not, and that there would just be a staircase leading up to the Newman's Island which is why the parapet is being raised up on that east elevation.

Mr Armstrong said that the building has suffered in the past, and it's lost its string course³, and he's noticed they're not proposing to put that back on the upper floor. He said that the drainage is quite ugly, and it would be better if this didn't happen, because it's going to threaten the other part of the composition on the opposite side of the road.

Ms Radcliffe agreed that it's a composition, and you don't want one side altered and the other not.

Speaking for the Battersea Society, Dr Michael Jubb said that there have been numerous applications in relation to this building, and it is clear from the objection comments that it has caused problems for some neighbouring properties. He said that it was imperative that we do as much as we can to seek to preserve and enhance the quality of the built environment there, which has been messed around, particularly on this building. He echoed Mr Armstrong's comments about the drainage clutter on this building, and hoped that if this application were to go ahead, it would be on condition that there would be a complete review of the drainage clutter on the building.

Mr Dodgson agreed that it would destroy the composition, and that to add a further mansard on top of this particular building would be wrong.

Councillor Belton wondered whether the committee could seriously make a condition to clean up what's already there, and whether the planning officers would allow that as a planning rule, a condition. An officer said that the rationalisation of the pipework could form part of the planning balance in terms of, if we sought for that to be taking place, then it would be considered a minor heritage benefit, which we could seek as part of the proposals as forthcoming.

The committee opposed the mansard roof, and asked that as part of the planning process, there should be a review of the pipework shown on the face of the building. Their grounds for opposing it are that it would detract from the overall built environment of the centrepiece of the Park Tarn estate viz St. Philip's Square.

Dealtry Road Alterations

The committee considered an application for alterations to 13 Dealtry Road, including erection of a side dormer extension to south facing roof slope; relocation of rooflight on south elevations, replacement of existing skylight on north elevation; replacement of existing roof lantern with flat roof skylight; installation of replacement windows to front and rear with double glazed timber sash windows including replacement of existing first floor rear doors/juliette balcony with window; insertion of new side window at first floor level; replacement of existing french doors to rear ground floor level with oiled oak timber framed glazing. The application site is within the West Putney Conservation Area.

Ms Laura Polglase, representing the Putney Society, said that they were not inclined to think that it does cause harm to the conservation area. She said that it's quite far back, it is hidden behind the chimney, and the street actually has a lot of variation in it already. She said that they would want there to be a couple of conditions put in for approval were the planning committee minded to approve it: to specify the sort of shingles that would be on the extension to match the shingles on number 15, and particularly to clarify that any glazing in those new windows should be obscured glazing so that they don't actually overlook number 15 from those new windows.

Mr Dodgson said that the other example that we were shown was considerably shorter in its length. He felt that the one here can be seen from the street, and it is breaking the general understanding that from the street these sorts of additions should not be made.

Mr Armstrong checked that the proposal does go is set back within the roof and so the gutter is continuous.

Mr Armstrong said that if the architect built this house, they would not have put that there in that way, and that this looks like an add-on.

Ms Ratcliffe asked about the velox window, and whether it was breaking a pattern.

The committee were of a mind to accept this application, even with some reluctance.

Planning Decisions

The committee noted the decisions on previous applications. Permission had been granted by delegated authority for the Star and Garter application on Lower Richmond Road, which the partner society was delighted about. The application for 14 Clapham Common West side was refused.

Future Meetings

The committee noted that the next two meetings in July and September will be in the council chamber.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Grants Sub-Committee approved grants for VE Day celebrations and the Borough of Sanctuary Community Fund, but deferred a decision on one application.

Grants Sub-Committee - Wednesday 30 April 2025

The Grants Sub-Committee met to discuss grant funding for community organisations. The committee approved grants for VE Day¹ celebrations and for the Borough of Sanctuary Community Fund, but deferred a decision on one application to allow for more information to be provided.

VE Day Anniversary Grant Fund

Ben Threadgold, Head of Strategic Projects, introduced Paper No. 25-142 VE Day Grants Sub OSC Committee Paper. He explained that the fund was established to provide community groups with funding to support activities commemorating the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. Of 14 applications, nine were successful, receiving a total of just under £5,000. The paper was for information only, and was noted by the committee.

Councillor Mrs. Angela Graham thought the scheme was absolutely brilliant, but was sad that more people didn't apply. Councillor Jack Mayorcas asked how the events would be advertised. Ben Threadgold responded that the council had been communicating about events across the borough, and that applicants had been asked to promote their events locally. He added that the council had asked for information and photos following the events, and had offered mayoral attendance where requested.

Wandsworth Borough Sanctuary Community Fund

Aaron Hardy introduced Paper No. 25-143 Borough of Sanctuary Community Grants Fund Round 4. He explained that this was the fourth round of the Borough Sanctuary Grant Fund, which was established in March 2023 with £200,000. Around £111,000 remained, with eight projects previously funded. For this round, eight applications worth around £82,000 had been received, and the recommendation was to fund five of them with a combined total of £49,000.

Aaron Hardy noted that this round of funding was the first to involve people with lived experience of seeking sanctuary. He introduced Tatiana Anisimova and Kostya, who are board members. They had reviewed each application, and their comments were included in the assessment summary.

He also proposed a Refugee Week grant scheme for events during Refugee Week², with grants of no more than £2,000 per application, using the remaining funds of at least £29,000.

The committee then considered each application individually.

Afghan and Central Asian Association

The application from the Afghan and Central Asian Association was for information sessions and workshops, as well as a community event, covering ESOL³, IT, and community health. The panel had concerns about the range of the project and its deliverability, and that it did not seem tailored towards Wandsworth. It was noted that the organisation had stated that they had supported bridging hotels in Wandsworth over the past 12 months, but the council had not had one in the past 12 months. The recommendation not to support the application was agreed.

Ace of Clubs

Ace of Clubs applied for £8,500 to deliver four themed weeks with events relevant to sanctuary seekers, including diverse meals, information displays, and wellbeing in ESOL activities. Although 40% of their expected attendees would be Wandsworth residents, the organisation is based in Lambeth, and the activities would be delivered in Lambeth. Given the availability of cross-London grants, it was recommended not to support the application, and this was agreed.

Keras

Keras applied for just under £10,000 for a Refugee Week event, followed by the creation of social media content to challenge negative perceptions about sanctuary seekers. The panel liked the challenging negative perceptions element, and the fact that it would help develop skills. The recommendation to grant the application was agreed.

Councillor Lynsey Hedges asked if there was a cap on the number of grants that could be awarded to one organisation. Aaron Hardy responded that there was no cap, as long as the applications were for different projects and met the criteria. He added that applications needed to show additionality⁴.

Councillor Mayorcas suggested that the council could learn from the project and potentially adopt it in its work with sanctuary seekers.

Catherine Lowe Settlement

The application from the Catherine Lowe settlement was for drop-in sessions for advice, offering nine hours of support across three different areas: family, youth clubs, and new arrivals. A key element of the application was the provision of childcare. The recommendation to award the grant was agreed.

Power to Connect

Power to Connect applied for £10,000 for digital skills courses. The project would consist of six courses over four weeks, including drop-in sessions, for two separate cohorts: sanctuary seekers with low levels of English, and sanctuary seekers with higher levels of English. The panel liked the different elements of skills, but were sceptical about whether 40 hours of drop-in sessions would be used. The recommendation to award the grant was agreed.

Councillor Daniel Hamilton said that he thought that improving English language skills was an exceptionally useful thing to fund, as it takes away the sense of isolation and gives people skills to get back into the workplace.

Councillor Graham suggested linking the project with lifelong learning opportunities at the local college, to provide courses to raise confidence. Aaron Hardy responded that the college is part of the Wandsworth Migration Forum, and that one of the conditions of the grants is that funded organisations are part of the forum, to ensure cross-referral.

Tooting Community Kitchen

The application from Tooting Community Kitchen was for group activities and workshops, as well as admin support to access advice. Kostya raised concerns that it was not clear how the organisation would ensure that guests were actually refugees, and that the project was ongoing rather than a new scheme. The recommendation not to support the application was agreed.

Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees - Children's Books in Wandsworth Libraries

Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees applied for funding for children's books in Wandsworth libraries. The Head of Wandsworth Libraries supported the application, and had confirmed that they would work with the organisation. The project would provide a collection of resources and a series of events in each library, aimed at challenging stereotypes and giving more access to resources about sanctuary seekers.

Kostya said that it was crucial to educate young people, and that meetings in libraries would provide a place for young people to share their experiences and make new friends. However, he said that it was necessary to advertise the scheme to parents as well.

Councillor Hamilton asked what the definition of sanctuary books was, and suggested that providing books in foreign languages would be a really important contribution to making refugees and sanctuary seekers feel welcome in the borough. He suggested that the organisation could be asked to include more books in Ukrainian, Somali and Portuguese. Aaron Hardy said that this was a very good point, and that he would encourage the organisation to do it.

Councillor Mayorcas asked if there would be any data collection on how often the books are taken out. Aaron Hardy said that he would see if the libraries were able to do that.

Councillor Graham asked how the project would reach schools, and suggested linking it to the Schools of Sanctuary scheme. Aaron Hardy responded that this fed into the next application.

Councillor Graham also raised concerns about the timeline for the project, and suggested that the libraries could take on the project officer on a more permanent basis. Aaron Hardy clarified that the project officer would be hired by Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees, not the library.

The committee agreed to the proposal, including allowing slippage in terms of the timeline.

Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees - Establishing Sanctuaries in Wandsworth

Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees applied to hire a project officer to help deliver their core activities, including establishing other places of sanctuary in the borough. They applied for £14,800, which is above the £10,000 limit, although higher applications are allowed if they are exceptional. Tatiana Anisimova said that while she supported the project, she did not find evidence that it was exceptional.

The recommendation was to grant up to £10,000, and it would be up to the organisation to scale the activities to that funding, find additional funding, or not do it.

Councillor Mayorcas said that some of the outcomes of the project were unclear, and that it would be useful to firm up more measurable outcomes. He also observed that reducing the funding to £10,000 would significantly reduce the allocation of the project officer.

The committee agreed to the recommendation, and to firm up more measurable outcomes.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee met, but no video was provided.
• The Planning Applications Committee voted to refuse the application for the Glass Mill redevelopment, citing concerns about height, scale, and impact on local heritage.

Planning Applications Committee - Thursday 24 April 2025

The Planning Applications Committee met to discuss several planning applications, tree preservation orders and enforcement actions, with the most significant discussion focusing on a large application for the Glass Mill building which the committee voted to refuse. The committee also discussed and made decisions on alterations to The Lodge in Tooting Bec, an office building on Upper Richmond Road, and a house in Elsenham Street.

Glass Mill Redevelopment - Application Refused

The committee voted to refuse the application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Glass Mill site at 1 Battersea Bridge Road. The proposal sought to demolish the existing building and erect a part 10-storey, part 28-storey building for residential, office, community and restaurant use.

Councillor Tony Belton, Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, noted the high volume of public comments and criticisms of the consultation procedures, but reassured the public that the committee would make a judgement on the application as it stands, not as a referendum.

Councillor Sir Jules Dillard-Jol, a ward councillor for the neighbouring St Mary's Ward, spoke against the application, highlighting the unprecedented public opposition with almost 2,000 objections submitted and over 5,000 signatures on a petition organised by local campaigner Robert Gibbon. He argued that the proposals contravene local and London plan policies, particularly regarding height, scale, and massing, and would harm local heritage assets like Albert Bridge, Battersea Bridge, and Battersea Park. He also raised concerns about structural damage to Battersea Bridge during construction, loss of daylight and sunlight for neighbouring properties, insufficient public realm improvements, and the financial viability of the scheme, noting that the affordable housing share was subject to viability assessments.

Councillors Lee and Colclough echoed these concerns in a written statement, emphasising that the scheme ignores local character and prioritises profit over community well-being. They argued that the tower would harm historic views and that the loss of daylight for nearby residents would be devastating. They also raised concerns about flooding and climate impacts, potentially breaching the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local plan policies.

Councillor Emmeline Owens questioned Councillor Dillard-Jol about an acceptable height for the residents, to which Councillor Dillard-Jol responded that residents suggested around ten storeys would be more commensurate with the local area.

Nigel Granger, the East Area Team Manager, presented the officer's report, which recommended refusal. He outlined the proposal's key components, including 110 residential units (56 private, 54 affordable at social rent), affordable workspace, a community facility, and a restaurant. He also highlighted the site's constraints, such as the narrow access path to the Thames Path and the fall in land.

Granger summarised the heritage balance, stating that while the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to heritage assets, the public benefits, such as the provision of housing and community facilities, were considered to outweigh this harm. However, he concluded that the excessive height and scale of the 29-storey tower in a predominantly low-rise area would cause significant harm to the spatial character of the location, conflicting with London Plan Policy D9 and Wandsworth Local Plan Policies PM9 and LP4.

David Tidley, the Head of Transport Strategy, addressed concerns about transport and traffic implications. He stated that while the development would generate an increase in trips, it would not materially impact the local highway or public transport network due to its residential-led, mixed-use nature and low car parking provision. He added that Transport for London had raised no objections on transport and highway grounds. Tidley acknowledged concerns about construction methodology and assured the committee that a construction management plan would be required, along with adherence to other regulations outside the planning system.

During the discussion, Councillor Finna Ayres, Deputy Mayor of the Council, criticised the scheme's enormous scale and the single aspect of some social rent flats. She also raised concerns about the lack of guarantee for the promised public housing.

Councillor Ravi Govindia questioned the applicant's consideration of river usage for construction and the suitability of the community space's three-level design. He also confirmed that 6 Hester Road, the block most impacted by the development, is social housing managed by Peabody.

Debbie Turner, the Principal Development Viability Officer, explained that because the application proposed 50% affordable housing, a full viability assessment was not required. She noted that a high-level assessment showed a surplus in the scheme, but there was potential for the applicant to argue that the affordable housing share would need to be reconsidered in the future.

Councillor Paul White asked if a smaller building with 50% affordable housing had been considered. Nick Calder, the Head of Development Management, clarified that the committee was there to decide on the current application, not a hypothetical one.

Ultimately, the committee agreed with the officer's recommendation to refuse the application due to its excessive height and scale, incongruous transformative change to the location, and failure to outweigh the identified harm with material considerations.

Councillor White stated that the building would represent a Trojan horse for the area, potentially encouraging other developers to build to similar heights. Councillor Guy Humphries agreed, stating that the local plan should be upheld to avoid developers thinking it doesn't evidently mean much. Councillor Sara Apps associated herself with the comments from other members, and noted that she had spoken to many of the would-be neighbours of the site a couple of weeks ago, and there was very very strong opposition to the block.

Councillor Belton noted that the developer has the right to appeal the decision within six months, and that the Mayor and the GLA may also call in the application.

The Lodge, Tooting Bec Road - Alterations Approved with Conditions

The committee approved applications for alterations to The Lodge, a Grade II listed building at 98-100 Tooting Bec Road, including demolition of existing extensions, erection of a replacement extension and outbuilding for garage parking, and part use of the outbuilding as a café. Councillor Sheila Boswell voted against the application, citing concerns about heritage, enforcement notices, and the impact on residents in Romberg Road.

Craig Raybould, with a planning hat on, presented the application, noting that the proposal seeks to bring the building back into beneficial use as a funeral director's office. He emphasised that no changes were proposed to the plan form of the lodge building itself.

Councillor Boswell raised concerns about the historical safety of the site, citing three enforcement notices, and the impact of hearses parking on Romberg Road. She also raised concerns about the hours of business and whether cadavers would be stored at the site.

Councillor White echoed concerns about the size of hearses and the lack of a sustainability report.

Raybould clarified that the hours of operation are proposed to be between 8am and 5pm, and that the site would not be used as a mortuary. He also noted that a company, Evershed, had been identified to occupy the site.

Councillor Humphries queried whether the hard standing area could be permeable to allow for rain runoff. Raybould responded that permeable tarmac was proposed and that a condition would ensure the details are looked at in more scrutiny.

Councillor Govindia sought confirmation that signage would require a separate application and that the proposed use was allowed for in the user class. He also questioned whether the community space was workable and whether an occupier had been identified.

Raybould confirmed that signage would require a separate application and that the proposed use was allowed for in the user class. He also noted that there were three expressions of interest obtained by the applicant in terms of potential occupiers for the community space, one of which was the Catherine Lowe settlement.

Councillor Owens asked about the pitched roof of the cafe and whether consideration had been given to something flatter. Raybould responded that the pitched roof was in line with the previous greenhouse building on the site and that officers sought revisions to have the frontage set back to lessen its impact.

Upper Richmond Road - Demolition and Rebuild Approved

The committee approved an application for the demolition of an existing 5-storey office building at 166 Upper Richmond Road and the construction of a new 6-storey mixed-use building with office space and two residential flats.

Ellen Richards, the Team Leader for the West Area, introduced the application, noting that a similar scheme had been granted permission in 2017 but regulations and policy had changed since then. She stated that officers had worked with the applicants to improve accessibility and the public realm.

Councillor White questioned the ease of reusing the existing building, the low carbon emission reduction, and the lack of a flood risk assessment.

Richards responded that the applicants had submitted a statement justifying the demolition, citing issues with retrofitting and complying with regulations. She also noted that the carbon savings exceeded policy requirements and that the site was not in a flood zone.

Councillor Govindia requested that the construction management plan minimise disruption to traffic and pedestrian flows. Richards confirmed that the road was a Transport for London road and that they would have to consult with TfL.

Elsenham Street - Roof Extension Approved

The committee approved an application for a roof extension at 151 Elsenham Street, despite objections from residents. The proposal included a hip-to-gable roof extension, an extension above a two-storey back addition, and a roof terrace with a glazed safety surround.

Richards explained that a similar scheme had been granted permission in 2020 but had since lapsed. She acknowledged residents' concerns about the terrace but stated that screening would protect from overlooking.

Councillor Humphries noted that the property was converted into two flats, giving the upper floor a private amenity space. He reassured residents that the terrace would not generate significant disturbance and that each case would be judged on its own merits.

Tree Preservation Orders Confirmed

The committee confirmed two Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs):

• TPO 501/2024 for a Magnolia tree at 27 Deodar Road
• TPO 502/2024 for a London Plane tree at 43 Upper Richmond Road

Other Business

The committee noted reports on recent planning decisions made under delegated authority, the closure of investigation files, and closed appeals, as detailed in the Public reports pack 24th-Apr-2025 19.30 Planning Applications Committee.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 23 April 2025

The Licensing Sub-Committee met, but no video was provided.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Cabinet was scheduled to receive updates from Councillor Simon Hogg, Leader of the Council, and other cabinet members, but no video was provided.

Cabinet - Monday 14 April 2025

The Cabinet meeting on 14 April 2025 was scheduled to include updates from Councillor Simon Hogg, Leader of the Council, and other cabinet members. No video was provided.

The Cabinet is Wandsworth Council's main decision-making body, responsible for setting the overall direction of the council and making key decisions on policy and spending. It is made up of the Leader of the Council and the nine Cabinet Members, each of whom has responsibility for a specific area of the council's work, such as housing, environment, or finance.

The updates from the Leader and Cabinet Members would have provided an overview of the council's recent activities and priorities. These updates often cover a range of topics, including progress on key projects, responses to emerging issues, and announcements of new initiatives.

As we have discussed in previous emails, the Leader of the Council is responsible for providing overall leadership and direction to the council, while the Cabinet Members are responsible for making decisions on matters within their specific portfolios. The Cabinet meets regularly to discuss and make decisions on a wide range of issues affecting the borough.