Transcript

All right. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. My name is Michael Jubb, and I'm chair of the committee. Members, I'm now going to call your names. Please switch on your microphone and confirm your attendance. Once you have done so, please turn your microphone off. So I'll read names in order. Councillor Belton. Good evening, Tony Belton, Councillor Battersea Park Ward. I don't see Councillor Cooper, Councillor Owens. Good evening, Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward. I don't see Mark Dodgson from Falham Society. Roger Armstrong. Good evening, Roger Armstrong representing the Clapham Society. Mr. Kato, Andrew Kato. Good evening, Andrew Kato from the Parkview Society. And while I'm here, can I give the apologies for Laura Polglase, who's on the list? And thank you, Mr. Edward Potter. Good evening. Yes, I'm Ed Potter. Yes, I'm representing your IBA. Philip Bradley. Philip Bradley, Tooting History Group, substituting for Libby Lawson, Conservation Officer. Pamela Greenwood. Good evening. Pamela Greenwood wants us his historical society. And finally, I think, Councillor Osbourne. Yes, Councillor Osbourne, Council's history champion observing at this committee. Thank you. And we've had a couple of apologies already noted. Can you let us know the other apologies, please? I'll read out the full list, just to be clear. Apologies received from Libby Lawson, Frances Radcliffe, Laura Polglase, Peter Farrow and Chris Rice. Thank you. And the following officers also present. Lauren Way. Lauren Way, Principal, Conservation, Urban Design Officer present. Barry Sellers. Good evening, Barry Sellers, Principal, Urban Design Officer. And Victoria Broxop. Good evening, Victoria Broxop, Senior Conservation and Urban Design Officer. And finally and critically, Callum Wernham as our Democratic Services Officer. Good evening, everybody. Thank you. Right. And I just see Councillor Cooper arriving. Councillor Cooper. Can I ask if anyone has any declarations of interest in relation to any agenda item? And if you do so, please say which the agenda item is and the paper number. And including whether or not you're going to participate in discussion on that item. Any declarations? No. In which case, can I ask everyone to make sure their phones are off so that you're not made a fool of or embarrassed by your phone ringing during during the meeting? And then item two is to ask whether I can sign the minutes of the meeting held on the 30th of January as a correct record. No corrections, objections. I shall do that now. Matters arising. Let us just go through page by page. Page one of the minutes or page three if you're reading from the batch of papers that have been circulated. I have one item just to ask whether there's been any progress on Fersdown Lodge. No, I pass it every day. It's progressing into a ruin, though. It will have completely fallen down very soon. I think someone's boarded up all the windows, so it looks an absolute eyesore. So it's progressing in terms of turning into an absolutely repulsive eyesore. And I write on behalf of Fersdown residents about once a month. And I'm told repeatedly by the officers, happy to share their names, that they are must be the longest set of lease negotiations in the history of lease negotiations. I mean, you know, but nothing actual has happened. I mean, maybe that maybe there is a new lease about which I have not yet been told. Hopeless. Officers have anything but report. All we know is that the lease has due to be signed this week and that the potential leases have got a heritage consultant involved now to start the pre application process once that lease has been signed. That's all we know, I'm afraid. Okay, well, you will have noted Councillor Cooper's concerns, and I'm sure that they're shared by by other members of the of the committee. Can I take this opportunity chair? It's not only gender officially, but can I reassure Councillor Cooper to an extent? I raised the situation of this. The smart vestry on Battersea Rise about 34 years ago and and was supported by Councillor Passmore loving memory on the two of us got it listed and it's been falling down ever since. And if you come parser recently, it's all been repaired. It's resolved. The brick works all being cleaned up. Take a look at it. You go down Battersea Rise. It's fantastic. And not after 34 years, there's an architect's practice moving in to make it a living building in the near future. That I don't find it especially reassuring to think that we might have to wait 34 years to see the same kind of attention paid to first down lodge. But, okay, well, even 33 years is about 33 years too long because it's already been at least three years since the occupant passed away. So it's already been empty for three years. And it's you know, it really needs to have something done. But, you know, perhaps it will take another 33 years. I mean, who knows? It's kind of smart targets, but you know, this is an interesting one. Okay. I'm sure members of the committee recall that we were hugely enthusiastic after long, long delays. I think almost every meeting of this committee since I joined it several years ago, there have been an item of report about St. Mark's Church School. We were hugely relieved and welcoming of the proposal that came before us I think a year ago. And it is indeed good to see that it's progressing well. I think there are probably a couple of months at least before we'll see the architects move in. I actually passed it today. And there was clearly work going on, but quite a lot of work still to be done. Can I move on to page four of the pack? Any items there? Item six, 108 Battersea Park Road live application, which I think it was two if not three meetings ago we discussed. Is there any progress to report there? No, I'm afraid not. There is a lawful development certificate in at the moment to make the lawful use of it to be non community based, but that's still being considered by officers. Thank you. And also on the same page under item six final paragraph, the Fitzhugh estate, I take it that the formal position here is that we're waiting for the housing department to submit a formal application. That's correct, yes. Page five. Is there anything? Page six. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. Let us then move on to item three, the meat of the of the meeting, which is the applications. And first of all, among those application twenty twenty three four four oh two sixty four Clapham Common Northside. Is that right, Victoria? Over to you. And just for those who are watching online, we have a representative of the balance society. Thank you. Good evening. This first site is a late 18th century property understood to have been built in the 17 80s. The history of the building can be traced through historic mapping and is directly referred to and discussed in the Battersea volume of the Survey of London. Originally a standalone building, the site was incorporated into a late 18th century or early 19th century villa called Northside. And when that property was demolished in the late 19th century for redevelopment with the current terrace, the site was spared and again incorporated. Various applications were submitted in the 1980s for alterations to convert it to a five bedroom house. The most recent applications were in 1988 and were refused and the decisions were upheld at appeal. There have been no more applications or pre application inquiries. Looking at the photos you can see on screen. The property is experienced as an interesting and rare remnant of the pre 19th century townscape around the common. It presents as a modest building indicating its historic cottage or gardeners cottage use set back from the road with a front garden and side entrance. It's been extended to the rear as can be seen from Taybridge Road. The site is located within the Clapham common conservation area in a sensitive location along the north side of the open common. It makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of conservation area revealing the time depth of development as a rare survival of pre 19th century development. The building is not currently locally listed but we would consider it in light of this application and as part of the upcoming review and public consultation. The image on screen shows the property at present. This is the proposal to demolish and replace the property with a three story residence. It includes a full width rounder and alters the bay rhythm from a single bay to sort of the two bay rhythm. There is a terrace to the rear and you can see that in the gap from the front elevation. And there's also a new glazed walkway to the side. To the rear the building has a more contemporary appearance being extended upwards and outwards with roof terraces to the side and to the rear. Thank you. You mentioned possibility of local listing. I recall from the applications in the 1980s that went to appeal before being refused that at that stage I think it was English heritage was asked whether it wanted to list the building and declined to do so. But there was a recommendation made in one of the reports in I think 1988 that it should be locally listed. So I think that is really overdue. There have been lots of objections on the planning portal. I'll start with Mr Armstrong. Good evening. I've actually applied for this building to be statutory listed again and I think there's a lot more supporting evidence now than there was thirty five years ago when it came up for radical alteration at that time. The property's been empty for thirty five years roughly which is shameful. I think they could have if they'd done a light renovation at the time and let it they could have I suppose been in receipt of rents to the amount of about a million pounds. It's directly overlooks Clapham Common and it's just bizarre that it's been left in this sort of state for so long. I have historic maps here. One of eighteen hundred and six which shows the building more or less on the same plan as it has at present. And there's another map of about seventeen eighty which shows the building standing alone with the site next door where we know that two houses were built in seventeen eighty nine and seventeen ninety which still stand numbers sixty two and sixty three Clapham Common Northside. They still stand although they've been Victorianized so they've got a Victorian frontage but they're evidently or were obviously Georgian at back. And it's extraordinary history that the house was actually incorporated into a larger building occupied by John Harris who's a bookseller. I think that occurred in eighteen hundred and thirty four and there is a stone tablet in the wall of number sixty three Northside which tends to suggest that that was when that development occurred. And then in eighteen eighty five to six when the redevelopment by Henry Nicholas Corsellis and John Stanbury which developed the frontage of Clapham Common Northside with the red brick three story Victorian houses. The cottage was preserved. Local legend has it that it was occupied by a gardener an elderly person and because it was on such a small piece of land that it just wasn't worth demolishing it at that stage. And so it has remained as a tiny cottage on Clapham Common to this day which is extraordinary. It's largely architecturally intact the only thing that's been altered are the windows were altered in the Victorian period. But I consider it you know I think it's extraordinary that it isn't grade two listed when most buildings of the eighteenth century in the London area that survive in any way intact are listed. And it's a rare house type because of course we've lost almost all the Georgian cottages from London. There's hardly any Georgian cottages left because they've all been demolished in slum clearance. So it's a very rare survival. And you know I would be I mean I think the proposal is just outrageous. And you know I think it should be refused. I'll take other comments. Does anyone. Let me put it this way. Is there anyone who's going to stand up in favor of this in effect demolition and redevelopment. Do I take it therefore that we object to this proposal. And I think we should offer our support to Roger Armstrong in his in his efforts to have the building statuary listed by historic England it be English heritage doing it these days. OK. With all due respect to to Roger as a person it may be him that's implying personally but it could also be that you're applying in your representative of the Clapham society guys. And I wonder if it might be more appropriate to record in our minutes that the committee supports the Clapham society in its attempt to get it listed. I mean it's a small point but possibly worth making. Well taken. OK. Let us move on then to 20 23 4 7 9 3 which is 6 4 festing road. Oh sorry I'm I'm getting I'm getting ahead of myself. Of course this application has been withdrawn has been refused because I've been withdrawn from our agenda because a decision has been made under delegated powers by officers to refuse the application. So essentially nothing for us at this stage to discuss. So we're on actually to 20 24 0 3 4 5 which is 23 Drakefield road. And just in case anyone hasn't noted it it is 0 3 4 5 rather than 4 7 9 2 which was originally printed in the in the agenda pack just for just make sure that everyone's got that straight. Right. Is this this way. Good evening committee. So this application is for 23 Drakefield road which is a 1960s end of terrorists building within the Hebrew estate conservation area. So it forms part of a group of terrorist buildings. I think it's six buildings on this on the street and there's a further six behind it on the on the corresponding street. And these were introduced in the 1960s following bomb damage within this part of the estate. As you see here in relation to the rest of the conservation area or with this part of Drakefield road. Twenty three Drakefield road here on the on the right. And then you have the kind of quintessential late 19th century buildings on the left hand side of the Hebrew estate. So set forward two stories with Attic story with those very distinctive detailing to the buildings that you see of the of the Hebrew estate. The Hebrew estate particularly is a particularly good example of the Queen Anne style and considered as one of the most one of the more exceptional estates by Alfred Heber. So the building here at the corner if you have a look just at some of the street views you see here there's there's a further view to show that that break in the consistent building line where you've got twenty three setback. And here just to give you a bit more clarity on it. So you've got a particular setback to the to the 1960s terrace also a gap between the two building types. So there's a clear distinction between the two that small kind of kind of sliding roof structure just between the two. And you see the flank flank elevation at the side elevation of the building next door. So as you can see here it's within the Hebrew estate conservation area and you can see this is the this is the grouping here and then a further grouping that side and then actually you've got further group on the other side of the street so it's more than six apologies. But this is this was a direct direct bomb damage in this location which obviously then led to clearance of of the terraces that were here and then the resulting development of these 1960s terrace buildings. So existing front elevation you see the red line here and you can see that distinctive gap between the two building types. What they're proposing here is effectively a kind of facsimile of the quintessential Hebrew estate buildings as you see on the left hand side albeit not completely the same. Closing the gap between the building next door so there will not be that distinctive gap and instead you've got this kind of very narrow single bay of windows that set back that then they get set back to the rear to the front elevation of the 1960s terrace. Other features you'll see is it's sort of not got it's not as wide it's not got the wide proportions of the of the buildings you see here so it's a slightly more narrow version of the Hebrew estate Queen Anne style buildings. But effectively they're seeking to introduce a development that's set further forward and continues the building line of the Queen Anne buildings and sort of squeeze it into the plot of 23. This just shows you a proposed 3D model so you can see here how in order to maintain the setback and due to the impact on neighborliness of the next door building they have to set back that bay quite considerably to fall in line with the bay the front elevation of the 1960s terraces which then it results in quite a significant plank wall here and a rather kind of awkward arrangement of the roof at this point. Just showing for the rear elevation the existing building as you see here and then what they're proposing here is again similar to what we have for the existing terraces but we have got a basement being introduced as well so it's two stories plus attic and a wonderful basement and you'll see here you've got an extension to the back as well as the first floor extension not extension but it sort of reads as an extension of the Queen Anne style buildings and this just giving you a 3D view just to show the extent of that light well to go into that basement area. It's an interesting one to see the committee's views on this because see it's a particular take with the style being pastiche appreciate this has different views on it but it's an interesting one to see what the committee's views would be on this one. Thank you. Thank you. So this is essentially an application to demolish the 1960s council property, to turn the plot of a three bedroom house into a three bedroom two story house into a four story six bedroom house in pastiche Victorian Queen Anne style. I think Balham society should have first go at this. Thank you Chairman. Can you hear me? Mark Dodgson, Balham society. It's an interesting one. This type of thing has been done elsewhere on the Hever estate, most notably at the top of Riverden Road. I think we may in fact have discussed those properties previously and I think they were quite well done. They maintained some of the brick detailing. It was Flemish Bond brick work in red to match the other properties and it would appear that that's what's going to happen here, although actually some quite extraordinary comments. They talk about red London stock brick. Well, I think it's a contradiction in terms, which slightly makes me worried as to whether whoever drew this up actually does know about these things. But, and obviously as has been said, it is a sort of pastiche. Personally, I wouldn't regard this as the sort of Queen Anne style revival. There are other properties on the estate that perhaps that could be applied to. But nevertheless, it's just an attempt to replicate what's next door. I think it's quite a shame in a way that the door, the porch will be narrower than the other porches, which are, you know, the character of those buildings is quite wide, spacious and so forth. Whereas this is going to be a little bit meaner. I can see that in the context of the 1960s properties that the reason why they have pushed that side bit back is obviously so that it's flush with the frontages of the 1960s houses. But it does sort of add a feature that's a little bit at odds with the other properties in that terraced group. Nevertheless, I think on balance, there are, well, actually no, before I give my sort of summary views, I think I would just turn to the rear because the approach that's been taken at the rear seems to totally ignore the characteristics of the other houses in that group. Firstly, they're not replicating the bay windows at the ground floor level or first floor level. And also the extent to which the property's being extended back is again much larger than the other properties. Now, I know obviously within other parts of the borough, you know, people all the time are doing lateral conversions at the back, extending kitchens backwards. But this is a conservation area. The aim clearly of these people is to try and replicate what's next door. And I think it's a shame that they're perhaps doing quite so much extensive work at the back. But of course, dare I say their argument would be, well, this is an improvement on what's there. Maybe there's some people who are going to defend the 1960s properties. I don't know. It does beg the question if this is being done now and if it succeeds, maybe other owners of the properties in that terrace might one by one want to replicate it. So I think it's quite important that we get this right now. So I think my overall view would be from balance societies that on balance, we support the general concept. I think there's quite a lot of room for improvement. But on balance, we support the general idea. Thank you. Other comments, other questions, other views? Yeah, I think they're trying to put too much on the site. With the basement, you know, the adjoining Victorian terrace doesn't have a basement in that. It's got a cellar, coal cellar, but not a basement like this. And I think that's sort of an element of overdevelopment. And I'm also concerned about the effect on the rest of the 1960s terrace of the, because there was a gap, wasn't there, which is now being infilled. And I'm sort of wondering whether it would be better if that gap was, or some kind of gap was maintained between one terrace and the next. And then we wouldn't have this little awkward junction, the roof and the junction between the two terraces. So those are my sort of observations. I'm rather against this addition, replicating what's there already. Because it really puts the 1960s houses in a real mix, and really, it overpowers them. And they're pretty wretched as they stand, and I think it would be doubly wretched when this thing is built. So I oppose it. Mr Catto, I would be, it would be very cynical of me to oppose this, because some years ago I got permission for doing exactly the same thing on a street in Putney, which unfortunately never got built for other reasons. But I'm with you that it looks as if this one needs some tuning up, I think. The idea is sound, but I'm worried, is there anybody else who finds a statement calling the red brick stock, for example, that may be the detailing. If you're going to do that sort of reproduction, it has got to be perfect. Thank you. I concur a lot of what's been said already. I suppose on the basement, I mean, on that road, there would be quite a few basements, wouldn't there? And obviously, if you're doing something from scratch, sadly, in the modern world and you can afford to do it, that's what you would be doing, given space is at a premium. But I do get, I mean, the back of it is, you know, it was quite out there. I mean, you know, for looking at the other houses and looking at the fact that it's in a conservation area, it's completely different and you wouldn't want the neighbors doing exactly the same. Councillor Cooper. I think it's hard to say that the existing property adds much to the conservation area itself. The doodlebug, which is what it was, was fairly extensive damage in a number of the roads there. And indeed, the Council still has its own carny lodge. And in fact, they celebrated the falling of the doodlebug. I think in the summer of 2019, it was actually before the pandemic. So I'm not particularly attached to the building that's there. However, I do agree that the proposed construction would sort of overwhelm the remainder of the terrace that would then be left. And whilst I can just about live with the front, I think the idea of a pastiche of a Victorian Queen Anne style, we've got quite a lot of references going on there, haven't we? Because obviously, Queen Anne was not a Victorian in any size, shape or form. So it does sort of speak to the some of the dwellings on one side, although it no longer speaks to its current neighbors that it lives with. It's the back really that I do find. I mean, there are people who put in light wells at the front of buildings on various roads on the Hebrew estate. This is really, I don't know if we could go back to that slide, but it's really very large. And it seems to also not just have a light well, but it also seems to me to protrude into the garden much, much further than the buildings that it's seeking to replicate, not just at the ground floor level. So the light well is actually halfway up the garden as well. Then you've got this sort of quite large, I was going to say monstrous, but that's probably a bit cruel, really over, it's just too big. And then at the first floor level, it also is very big. So I mean, I think we have agreed some things in Putney actually quite recently on the committee where we said it spoke to the neighboring properties in, it was somewhere near Colcroft Road, Hazelwell Road, Howard's Lane, somewhere around there, I can't remember exactly where. So in some ways, I'm not completely against it, but I do think the back is too big. I think that's an overdevelopment. And I think I'm probably with Councillor Owens's position on this. And yeah, I could live with it, but not quite in its current form. Well, I think what I'm hearing is something that I perhaps hinted at when I said a two story three bedroom house was being replaced by a four story six bedroom house. There is an element of overdevelopment going on here. Is that what I'm hearing? And particularly at the rear of the house. So we are, unless I'm getting it wrong, and I'll hear you in a moment, Councillor Belton. We're not again the notion of an attempt to continue what was there before 1944 or whenever the doodlebug fell. We're not again that, but we think that the scale of what is proposed here really is trespassing on the territory of overdevelopment, if I can put it that way. But Councillor Belton. Thank you. If I may add two points, one that you'll accept and the other one you'll be annoyed with me about. But sorry about that. The planning applications committee is always being told that we either accept it or refuse it. We don't have the ability to amend, as it were, but we have to judge the application in front of us. I suppose we're not -- so therefore the nuanced comments that you're making are all very well. But we actually have to decide yes or no. And therefore the nuances sometimes get lost. You might in nuances it tend to favor the position you wouldn't want the applications committee to take, if that makes sense. I think it's much stronger from your point of view if you actually say straightforwardly we will oppose this on grounds A, B or C, because that's what the committee will be forced to decide. The comment you wouldn't like, because I think it has a saying that's sitting next opposite the history -- heritage champion of Wandsworth Council, I just can't forbid -- this is happening all over the place -- in making a social and political comment, I do apologize. But this went from a council house which is no doubt being rented out at a rate of, in modern terms, 250 pounds, whatever the rent would be on that, and is going to be -- you can put the number of millions on it you like with the size of this thing -- a transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector, which is a massive example of what happened through the right to buy process. There's lots of examples of this. My favorite is in Sisters Avenue where six of these properties went and have been replaced by 3 million pound houses. I just make that comment. As I said, you won't like it because it's not to do strictly with the physical building, but it is to do with the history of what's happened to these places. I suspect that I will be told that you're trespassing beyond the remit of a conservation and heritage advisory committee who's -- Just as it is. Just as it is. It just happens to be true. I think we have a decision to make. I think the view is that the principle of, for want of a better term, pastiche development is supported, but we also think that the scale of this development is too large. It's a matter of are we saying yes, or even yes, but on the grounds of we're in support of the pastiche, or are we saying no because the overdevelopment is too important? Guidance, please, from around the table. Let's go back to Mark. Yes. I want to paint a scenario. If the applicants were given the impression that the application, as it stands, would not be passed by the paneling applications committee, and the officers perhaps, I don't know if they're in a position to discuss the application with the applicants to suggest the sorts of improvements to the application that would be more likely to get passed, is that a scenario that could occur? Any discussions in terms of the application are best undertaken at pre-application stage, so we would encourage them to withdraw and then engage in pre-application discussions to go further, to move it into the right direction, as it were. And it certainly has been the case that applications have been withdrawn after reports of discussions at this advisory committee have been passed on. Mr. Catto. Can I pick up on the point about what might happen if we give the sort of indication you're talking about? The national planning procedure does encourage officers to work proactively with applicants to get it right. So if we were to say, for example, we like everything up to and including the back wall, but the rest of it is too big, then it would make perfect sense for the case officer to take that back to the applicant and say, would you like to change this or not? It's an invitation for them to change it. And if they've got any sense, they'll say yes. But that's the procedure, and yes, in my view, I would go along with the decision you're trying to make, I think, which is that the principle's fine, but actually, if you look at the back, it's got at least three extensions that probably would fail if they were asked for as extensions to a genuine existing house. Mr. Dodgson, again. I think you've made the points that I was going to make, actually. I would just wonder whether the political point that's been made by Councillor Belton, I wonder if Councillor Belton could indicate whether he would be likely himself to accept the application or oppose it. Can I come back on that? I mean, I can't, that's of political and historic interest to me, and I might write about it, but it wouldn't influence my judgment about whether I thought it was an application that should be passed or not. My political objection wouldn't affect that. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, is it likely that the political hue of the Council now would mean that it would be rejecting it because of the reasons you've given? No, I personally do not think so. Councillor Cooper's here, and as in these Councillor Owens, I think members on both sides would decide this on the merits as they saw it as an application, full stop, regardless of tenure. If I can just intervene, I think it's important that we do not put Councillors who are members, still more Chair of Planning Applications Committee into a position where there's a risk that they might be seen as predetermining an application. So I think we mustn't press Councillor Belton any further on that issue. Apologies, Chairman. I think if I could... Can we also be active? We don't sit on it as Councillors who are Labour Councillors or Conservative Councillors. We sit on the committee as Councillors who happen to have previously been elected as Conservative or Labour, and, you know, our political persuasion has nothing to do with our decision-making processes, leaving aside your very well-made point about prejudging. Thank you. Can I come back to the question I put to you earlier? Are we saying yes, but, or are we saying that the but is so big that we say no? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm very pleased the Bellarmine Society is here tonight. I was afraid I might have to contribute from tooting. I think we've heard enough contributions from various members of the committee to object, but we're also looking for the reinstatement of the gap, something far more modest at the rear, a smaller basement. I'd also urge people to read the one objection that has come in from the unfortunate next-door neighbour who has lived in the next-door council house for 50 years and is very upset by the proposal to not only, with regard to the extensive building work, is going to enlighten, but I think she's going to lose amenity, although any occupant of the house next door is going to lose amenity, is going to be overseen, and I think there's grounds for objection for what it's doing. I won't quite make a speech in favour of a 1960s terrace, but it is part of the history of the Hevera estate, and I think one did fall on it in 1944. I'm not suggesting that, you know, we should defend poor planning and building decisions made in the 1960s, but it, the erasure of that gap or that hole, I think, well, it doesn't erase it, it erases one site out of six. One question I had for the officers about the application, if and when it goes to committee, that in terms of, you know, what colour a stock brick is and all the other kind of detailing they've identified, will that be secured by condition at, I mean, is that something that would be secured by condition at the planning committee if it goes forward in its present or in amended form to the planning committee? Thank you, Jim. I'm sure the answer to that is yes, and I see a nod. OK, I'm going to put it to a vote. Are we saying that the shortcomings of this proposal in terms of overdevelopment are such that we are saying no, even though we are not unsympathetic to the idea of a, for want of a better term, pastiche development on the site? OK, I think that's unanimous. Do you have enough to go into the minutes? Thank you, and thank you to members for that discussion. Let us then move on to 2024/03/07, the land at Whitnell Way on the Chartfield Estate. Who's leading on this? Good evening, committee, it's Barry Sellers here to report. Just to start off, really, in terms of this application, we have a number of applications being submitted at the present to do with the ones with homes across the borough, and there are a number of applications coming in of which this is one. The Whitnell Way Estate in Chartfield Avenue, they're proposing 32 residential homes in three blocks, and if you bring up, you can see on the first slide there, which shows that it's a very well treed estate, and it doesn't particularly show the topography there, but this particular slide does. It's a very undulating site, and the houses were 1950s, they're all about five stories and blocks, and they don't really follow any particular orientation necessarily. It's partly because of the topography, and the consultants who are working for the housing department, effectively, are looking at the infill parts of the estate to find room for some blocks, and basically they've chosen car parking sites or garage court sites, which are no longer used, and particularly is one of the examples here. So the idea being to develop a typology which is not akin to, necessarily, the existing one, but certainly in terms of scale and massing, they're not too far away from that. But there's one particular site which I particularly want to draw your attention to, because it actually sits next to the conservation area. So you see the yellow there on the drawing there, which is the West Putney Conservation Area, and the triangle, which is the site opposite there, is a site for WT2, the three sites, WT1, WT2, WT3, and really I thought that one ought to be perhaps brought to this committee. It is the three sites here, and the top one there in the north is one I thought ought to draw to your attention, simply because it's quite close by. It's next to the conservation area, effectively. When it came in as a pre-application, they came in at five storeys, and I was a bit concerned about the height, scale, and massing vis-a-vis the houses in Chartford Avenue, and I said it could be less of a substantial harm, and so they came back and drew up a three-storey scheme at the front there, and that went to design a view panel, who promptly said we could probably say another storey would be okay. So anyway, when I evaluated it as an officer level, I thought my comments perhaps were, it's probably neutral in terms of impact on the conservation area, but you might feel otherwise, but I think it is different in terms of the proximity right on the street scale there to Chartford Avenue, where all the other blocks are quite sort of well-treed around it, but this one is right on the back of the pavement, effectively. You might just go through one or two more slides, I mean, showing the relationship, perhaps, to the street. Here's the frontage onto Chartford Avenue, as existing, and there's as proposed, the four-storey development, and it's got these sort of rather uncharacteristic dormers at the top there, which I'll probably go into in more detail in a moment when we pass through to other slides. That's WT1, it's just away from the street, really. WT1 again, it's -- yeah. And carry on. Right, this is the frontage on frontage building, which is WT2, and as you see from the drawing, it's a four-storey building, where the roof has these dormers in, which are not actually housing at that level. They are actually for the louvers, for the air source heat pumps, and I suggested perhaps, you know, they could be flipped round to the rear of the site, perhaps, rather than having it on the front. But following a meeting today, actually, with the team, who are putting forward the schemes, they said that's impracticable, really, simply because of the fact that the pitch on the roofs that we've got, we can see from the angles on any of the drawings at all, but the pitch on the roof on that frontage one is slightly different each side, so that would be quite a cost to bear, to change the whole picture round. But what they could do is actually review the design of the louvers of the frontage there to make them a bit more palatable, perhaps, in terms of improving the design of the appearance of the louvered appearance. So really, I mean, it's -- whether you still feel, you know, it's too big and bulky for the -- you know, in terms of the conservation area, or whether you're okay with that, or whether you, you know, when you feel you support changes further to the design of the dormers in some way. Any comments, really? Okay, thank you, Mr. Sellers. Let me just emphasize for a moment that this is a good example of a problem that can arise in -- for the planning department, when it receives applications essentially from within the council. And, of course, we hope that there is good liaison between the housing department, when it is drawing up proposals of this kind, and the planning department. But on the other hand, the planning department cannot give preferential treatment to the council as an applicant as distinct from any other developer. So I think that we need to bear that in mind, when we're dealing with these kinds of applications. You will recall there was a discussion at the last meeting about the Fitzhugh estate, and the proposals that the housing department, as a developer, is currently engaging with the community on before submitting an application. But I -- this is not my patch. I have looked at this closely. So I think Mr. Catto should have first dibs on this from the Putney Society. Thank you, Chair. Yes, the Putney Society has looked at this. We discussed it in some detail at our February meeting, because it has been on the cards for a while. Firstly, in defense, if I may, of the council's own team on this, there were three public consultations on site. There was, as has already been mentioned, by Barry Sellers, a preapplication. So I don't think they have been hiding their light under a bushel, or keeping away from comments from the planning department. We looked at it and decided that actually it's pretty much in what we'd expect, given that the council are, understandably, looking at the empty spaces in estates that were built at a time when what was considered as the appropriate density, maximum density, because I built some council housing myself a long time ago, was considered those densities maxima would now be considered not too low as a minimum. So inevitably, there is some spare space on that thing within the estates. And I commend the way they're looking at it. And I think the Putney Society is not averse to this. And by the way, we've got five more applications of a similar nature have arrived since this one. So we looked at it, we thought it was okay. We didn't bother to comment. Could I ask, I haven't had a chance to look at street view or whatever it is. Have we got any images of the properties on the other side of the street that would be overlooking this? Are there any images that any of the officers have? Broadly speaking, they're generally two-story detached houses, sometimes semi-detached, but that's a sort of scale. Maybe a third story in the roof. So again, it's quite near the street, isn't it, the one we saw. I just wonder whether that previously they've had sort of leafy tree area, green grass there or low built garages. It's going to make a bit of an impact on those properties. The buildings opposite and around are a bit of a mixed bag. There's one big late Victorian house on the corner directly opposite. But the immediate surroundings on the other side are in fact more recent infills from the '50s, '60s and what have you. So it's a really mixed bag of all sorts of scales and sizes. And the block proposed is actually one story lower than the one right next door to it that's been there since 1950, whatever it is. Other comments or any questions? So do I take it then that I see someone has got a -- one of the officers has found a street view. Yeah. That one in the middle of the screen is a pastiche from about 40 years ago. So it's worth saying that there has been a substantial number of objections from residents on the estate on grounds that Mr. Catto has really hinted at. I mean, there is a lot of open space and not unnaturally. Some of the residents don't want to lose that open space. But are we prepared to accept the local lead Putney society view on this? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I think then that takes us on to page 9 in the PAC paper, 24129. I'll just go through that decision by decision. Just -- I mean, this is just for noting, 179 Battersea Park Road, where PAC in effect agreed with us. Good. I think -- was it? So it was. I'm so sorry. Sorry. Number two, then, Battersea Park and the British Genius site. Any comment? Number 3 on page 11, Dial House on Burston Road but in effect on the Upper Richmond Road. I'll just briefly comment that the panel were very much concerned about the trees on that site. Work has now started on site. They put up a hoarding which has the trees on the public side of the hoarding. So we are hopeful that they will be spared from being knocked about by the workmen. Good. And finally, on page 12, number 4 of the decisions, the flower kiosk outside Clapham Junction Station, you'll see that slightly curiously a raft of supporting statements for the application was submitted, I think, three days before PAC met. And then on the day of PAC, the application was withdrawn. I don't know if we have any information on why it was withdrawn. I suspect we await another application. Okay. I think that brings us on to any other business. Mr Bradley. Sorry. I couldn't help noticing the Council's press release last week about Wandsworth residents said to be happy as thanks to historic local landmarks. And this, I think, arose from a report in the Times newspaper saying that Historic England had issued a report linking high satisfaction levels of residents with high numbers of Grade 1, 2 and 2 star listed buildings and other ancient monuments, et cetera. And the article in the Times said quite clearly that Wandsworth ranks first, according to this analysis in the report. Having read the report, which I do recommend committee members do on the Historic England website, there's actually no reference to Wandsworth or any other local authority or borough or local authority area. It's a very detailed statistical analysis of satisfaction ratings and the very strong correlation without explaining the causality with particularly interestingly Grade 2 listed buildings. So I just wondered, I'm not expecting kind of anything from officers today, but if anybody at Wandsworth Town Hall is going to discuss the value and importance and satisfaction and level of happiness that comes from having a high number of heritage assets in the borough, would it be appropriate to ask this committee to have a future report about where Wandsworth ranking first comes from and where the figure derived from, particularly since it isn't in the Historic England report? I'm sure it's true and I'm sure that there is a correlation and I'm sure Wandsworth is a happy place because it's got lots of listed buildings, but I'm just trying to pin down where Wandsworth is number one comes from. Thank you, Chair. I look to the Council's history, champion. Well, all I can say is I do know about it. As it happens, Philip brought it to my attention, but almost simultaneously the Leader's Office at the Council brought it to my attention as well. It's a little bit of a mystery and I think the only way to get to the bottom of what's given rise to the reference to Wandsworth is to make contact either with Historic England or with the journalists concerned. And my first stop, I think, will be Historic England. The idea of some sort of discussion on it, I think, is a very good idea as we move towards 2025 and Wandsworth as the London Borough of Culture, which will have a big heritage element in it. Could I raise just two other items of any other business? Firstly, do we have a date as yet as to when the renewed local listing exercise will actually start? Yes. So we're hoping for that to go out to public consultation in July. So it was supposed to go out a bit earlier, but there have been other priorities that need to take president in terms of public consultation, but it will be taking place in July. So that is in the forward plan for it to take place. There will be no delays anymore. Thank you. And my second one, again, I suspect it's Ms. Way who's going to have to answer this. We very much welcomed the reviews of some eight conservation areas that took place now a couple of years ago. It's been mentioned a couple of times since I think in this forum that we would like a renewed exercise on conservation areas, especially now that the Council has won or the Borough has won the Borough of Culture competition. I understand, of course, that there are resource issues involved, but I wonder if it could be taken back to senior officers and eventually, of course, to Councillors, to the Leader and other Councillors, whether the resource could be found to complete the review of the conservation area assessments and management arrangements, some of which are now showing their age, I think would be a way of putting it politely. I hope I have the support of members of the Committee in urging that. Okay. Is there any other business? Ms. Way? Just wanted to make the Committee aware because I don't think it's in the decisions that we looked at because it's quite an old application, I think it was 2022, but 8 Victoria Drive. This came to Committee quite a while ago, but it got dismissed and we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago and the Inspector agreed with the Council decision for it to be dismissed. So just for context, it's a good decision because it's the cascade within the setting of Fairlawn, which is a locally listed landscape, not within the conservation area of Putney Heath, but the Inspector did agree that there was impact and just wanted to highlight that to the Committee is a good decision. Sorry, Councillor Belton. Thank you. The History Champion raised another issue with me, which I thought perhaps worth mentioning now. I'm not quite sure that you can do this very formally, but he was suggesting that developers might just get a little tiny tick, not a very important one, obviously, but just a little tiny tick in the approval rating if on occasions when it was a significant site they actually volunteered to put in their own foundation stone or whatever you might wish to describe it, some history marker about the site. This obviously doesn't apply everywhere, but whether it could happen, I don't think it's quite something that we could make a planning policy about, but I just raise it here because Mr Sellers might be able to influence the other planner to suggest it here or there when the sites came available. That's all. Thank you. I'm sure that there are major sites with major buildings. I can see the case for that very clearly. I'm sure you're right. There's no need for a planning policy on such matters. In fact, one on I don't know how to describe it, but I'm sure everyone recalls the giant gas holder used to be down the end of Princewell's Drive just where there's one there about that site and that particular gas holder, so they do exist. Can I just point out there are various means whereby when sites do come forward developers can flag up things that have an association with that development. I just bring out the Peabody development, for example, where they worked with a local artist and I was involved with that process as well, whereby they worked with the residents and they chose particular themes and those themes have been embraced in brickwork on the facade of the buildings. I think that adds to the richness of the development as well because there's a story there being told to the wider public. And I'm sure there are other examples around. One I'm sure that people are aware of is the redevelopment of the old hospital site at the top of East Hill. Yes, as you say, I think there are a number of such markers in developments, but development is an opportunity to add something to what's already there. In my dreams, I'd quite like to make it a planning requirement, but I think that's not really in my gift. But I suppose what I'm looking for, and I'm not quite sure what it is we do in order to provide it, what I'm looking for is greater encouragement because what we've got at the moment is kind of random. It depends on the developer and it depends on how they feel about the site. Obviously, it would be irrelevant if the site didn't have any kind of historic importance, but if it did have, we can't bank on the developer taking that into account. I'm searching for some form of encouragement. And I'm sure the conservation planners have heard the message. Can I just ask a question because I'm not quite sure the answer. In the case of listed buildings, if they're not in a conservation area, if there's going to be a development adjacent to them, is that something that this committee can consider? Yes, that is the answer. And there have been cases that have come before this committee simply because they are close to -- I raise it because there's a development proposed in Ballym right opposite the tube station, which is a Grade II listed building, and I'm just wondering whether it's something that maybe might need to be considered. Yes. Thank you. And I think that has been reinforced by the slight change, not just in the name, but the remit of this committee to consider not just conservation areas, but any conservation heritage issues. And you have just reminded me, I don't know how many of you have seen the latest weekly list, but there are a number of applications across the borough from open reach for the direction of -- if I'm rude about them, I would say advertising hoardings to replace telephone booths. It's a bit more complicated than that. Several of them are actually in conservation areas. I just alert the relevant societies to those because I think the information given by open reach or certainly made available on the website is striking by the absence of information. It's simply a covering letter saying that this is going to happen. Can I also say at the same time, also in the new lists, several from JCDecaux who want to do something very similar but fatter, but they are sweetening the pill with a defibrillator. Sorry. I've just realized I'm conflating two things. Open reach has put in some applications for new telephone masts, which are in conservation areas, too. Yes, it is JCDecaux here. So we can rely on all these masts and all these new screens from JCDecaux with all these moving. They're all going to enhance and complement and really enhance the conservation areas in some way that as yet we've not known about. The phone mass saga goes on and on and on, and our society has tabled a question several times about what the council's positive policy should be in finding locations, only to be told, well, they can find a tall building, which is all well and lovely in West Putney where there aren't any tall buildings and everything's a conservation area. So we've seen dozens and dozens of repeated applications for masts, often about 10 feet from where the last one got turned down, which all get turned down. And I'm afraid the official response we're getting from Wandsworth Council is we'll wait until they come up with one we like or worse of that effect. We really could do with some guidance. I have to say I have some sympathy with the planners here because their hands are very substantially tied by the legislation. Is there any other business? Just then to note the dates of future meetings, which I think were on the last set of papers. Thank you very much for your contributions this evening. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]