Transcript

My name is Michael Jubb and I am Chair of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. I will now call the names of members of the committee. Please switch your microphone on to confirm your attendance and once you have done so, can you remember to switch your microphone off. Councillor Belton. Good evening. Councillor Osborne. Good evening. Councillor Owens. Good evening. Councillor Armstrong, Clapham Society. Good evening, everyone. Francis Radcliffe, Friends of Battersea Park. I don't see here. Andrew Cato from Putney Society. Good evening. Yes, I'm here. I don't see Chris Rice from the River Thames Society. Edward Potter from the RIBA. Yes, good evening. Pamela Greenwood from Wandsworth Historical Society. Good evening. And Peter Farrow from the Wandsworth Society. Good evening. And I believe we have one apology for absence. Is that right? Yes, thanks Chair. We've received apologies from Mark Dodgson. Did I hear you call Libby Lawson from Tooting? How did I do that? I am so sorry, Libby. And I think I've done that before. I'm so sorry. The following officers are also present. Lauren Way. Good evening, Chair. Good evening, everyone. And Barry Sellers. Good evening, Chair. Barry Sellers here. And the Democratic Services Officer, Calum Wernham. Good evening, everybody. Okay. More prelims. Please ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking to avoid background noise interference and so on. Doedd leave any vegetative concerns of interest. Bud y If you do have any, can you declare them now? Quoting the item and paper number. Felly,'r un peth sy'n bwysig yw cyfleoedd o'r cyfleoedd yn 10 September. A yw'r record gwrth? Nid oes lluniau. Diolch. Rwy'n siaradu'r cyfleoedd o'r cyfleoedd. Bydd unrhyw pethau'n mynd. Felly a fydden i ni gyd o bryderio armillimeterwyr a dyfryngied Those o King Streeteth? Diolch. Y dyon i ddiroges i strwyth oments drwy'r strwyth. Brif hefyd. page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, page 6. No other matters arising? Good. Felly, rydym yn ymwneud â phopethau. A phopeth 2024, 3041, Llywodraeth Llywodraeth Cymru. Who's going to lead on this? Thank you, officers, for sending the slides in advance. And just before you start, can I welcome Frances Radcliffe to the meeting. Thank you, Chair. So first item on the applications agenda is the Northcote Public House at 2024 forward slash 3041. So the Northcote Public House is situated within Clapham Junction Conservation Area, which you see here in yellow. So it's right on the edge of the conservation area at the junction with Battersea Rise, St John's Road and Northcote Road. The building itself is also locally listed as well as other buildings within the vicinity. So you see here they're outlined in a pink colour and have a hatching over them. So those are all the locally listed buildings. This is the building itself. So late 19th century public house, purpose built public house, three story building at that junction. We originally had a corner entrance, which has been blocked off. Now the main entrance is towards the Battersea Rise elevation. It sits at a little plateau at the bottom of Battersea Rise. So it rises up and then towards the north and then down and then rises back up towards St Mark's Church. It's rather more utilitarian towards the rear of the building, which can be accessed by the coach entrance down the side on the Northcote Road elevation. So what's distinctive about the building is it doesn't seem to assert itself greatly within the street scene, unlike some other public houses from this period. Its parapet line, which is quite distinctive and strong, continues along Northcote Road and up Battersea Rise. It sits quite nicely within the street scene. Also importantly is this view, which is identified within the conservation area appraisals. An important view down Battersea Rise, which you see the Northcote at the bottom and then the land rises up behind it with St Mark's Church behind. So the image on the left is an historic image taken from the heritage statement within the application submission. And as is, although obviously in winter it's slightly different. So just some aerial views of the building to show in its context. As you can see here, its height is generally consistent with the rest of the building's either side of it and it has a quite a large area flat roof that is the subject of this application. And a chimney right in that corner point, which isn't actually shown in some of the existing plans, but is there as you will see. Though you see at the rear you've got quite a more utilitarian type of structure with two kind of sloping roofed elements towards the rear as well. So site plan, as you see here. So the main element of the proposals that they're seeking permission for is a roof extension, which includes retractable roof and glazed panels that recede as well, as well as the two storey extension towards the rear that will house a staircase. So proposed ground floor level. Another element of the proposals is you see here they're re-establishing the corner entrance here that has been blocked up and as part of that they're then introducing a new staircase. So internal alterations they're proposing as part of the works, but to maintain it as a public house. And then going straight to the roof plans to show those existing and as proposed. So they're taking in a vast majority of that flat roof extension to introduce a mansard style roof extension, which you'll see here has got retractable louvered roof in this area and this area and this area and these are sliding glazed panels. It's probably very difficult to see from this point, but I just added in for those who were able to see the presentation before when it was sent out as a PDF just to give an idea of what the actual extension will be. So a large majority of the roof of the mansard will be retractable to allow for it to have flexibility for open air space. So one of the main premises behind the application is to allow more outside seating area because they're quite limited in terms of just the areas around the building on the street. So this is one of the reasons why they're seeking the application with these retractable elements, but the mansard side walls will be solid in a metal cladding. So existing upper floors, just to give an example of the existing arrangements and then as proposed, there's quite a lot of internal changes. So not something that we necessarily need to consider as part of the committee, but the main element in the external extension to the second floor level, which allows that staircase up into the roof extension, which is shown in outline in red. And this is showing those elevational drawings as existing above and as proposed below. So the mansard extension is set back from the parapet and around in front of the mansard extension will be a sedum roof, a grass roof. And this is showing it in its context within the street scene on Battersea Rise and Northcote Road to show that that parapet line will be maintained, but with the roof extension above. And you'll see here this is the section through, so you can see the extension that they're proposing towards the rear here, which is the extension of the staircase towards the rear that allow access up to the upper floors. And some of these sort of cat-slide roof elements of the building will then be made flat with the extension built over the top. So there will be some changes at roof level in addition to just the mansard itself. And then you can see here the changes here at this point in particular where you've got that extension towards the back, which is serving that staircase. So most importantly is the CGI's or the visuals to give you an idea, an impression of what it will look like in the street scene. So these are the two main focal street scenes in the immediate environment looking from Battersea Rise and from Northcote Road. So number one, Northcote Road, number two, Battersea Rise looking towards the extension. Further views towards the site. So we've got slightly longer range views from St John's Road and up Battersea Rise, but importantly some views from further up Battersea Rise to allow an appreciation of what impact it will have on that longer view where you see St Mark's Church in the background. So when the original application was submitted we did ask for some more of the views which have since been provided which are included in here. So this goes above is as existing and as proposed below to show different viewpoints from Battersea Rise looking down towards the site with St Mark's Church in the background. They are hopefully when you saw the presentation when it came through in PDF you're able to have a look at it in a little bit more detail. They're not, it's difficult to kind of focus in on them, but you can see there and get an understanding of what impact that might have. And again further views just on the other side of Battersea Rise on the other side of the pavement just to give you an idea of what that impact would have on that roof extension. And finally just a couple more images just to give you an idea of what the actual materiality will be. You see here that it's stated in the application that the manside will be clad with a metal material in a copper of a kind of bronze copper colour with standing seams as you can see here with examples shown at the top. And then you have seating rooms surrounding it and on the flat roof of the extension and CGI showing some of the images, further images of the building just a helpful slide just to end on. So it would be really helpful to get committees views on the proposals. Thank you. Thank you. First of all, are there any points of clarification questions that people would find helpful before moving on to comments? Okay, Mr Farrow. Thank you. I couldn't understand what the purpose or the use of the roof level is to be. Is it proposed to be outdoor seating area for the pub? I think that's what you indicated, but I couldn't understand it from the plan. So to make it very clear, because I've got it written down exactly what they've requested within the application. So there's a new bar servery dining and drinking area with retractable roofs with capacity for up to 103 people. So I think the main premise of it is for sitting, seating and dining. There will be other elements within it. It gives them that flexibility to have outside space with the retractable roofs. Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions? Okay. Comments about this proposal. It's a very prominent building on the corner of North Good Road and Battersea Rise. You see it from several different locations and it's quite a significant change to the appearance of the building and therefore to the appearance of the conservation area. I'm not going to make any other comment at this stage, but I welcome them from others. Good. Sorry. Yes, forgive me. In the event that an application includes a plant on the roof of a building, air conditioning and stuff like that, it's quite often that sound mitigation is required. If this roof area is to be used for entertainment, it's going to be an awful lot noisier than an air conditioning plant and I wonder whether any discussions have taken place with the applicant about the effects of noise on the open area. It's on upper levels, noise can carry a lot further than it does as it were at street level and helpful to know whether or not that's been under consideration. Thank you. I'd need to check that with a planning officer. They are proposing additional plant within that second floor level, so most of that second level, second floor level is taken in as plant to allow for the use of the roof. I do believe that will be something that the planning officer will be considering as part of her overall planning assessment and it's likely that they would have needed to have submitted some sort of noise assessment, something that is more for the planning officer to consider rather than ourselves. Really a conservation issue, I'm sorry about that, thank you. Yeah, this building's always had an invisible roof, didn't realise it was completely flat, but at one time I believe originally it was built in 1870-71 by James Blackmore, which is why it's somewhat less decorative than the pubs like the Falcon which are sort of, you know, at the very end of the 1880s, more exuberant. It, I think at one time had a sort of parapet feature on that canted corner, if you look in the old photograph, had a sort of cartouche in front of the corner chimney stack as it turns the corner onto Battersea Rise. My feelings about this is that the appearance of the roof extension is somewhat jarring in the copper coloured finish and were it to be extended it would be better in a sort of grey material that would most of the year blend into the clouds. I saw lots of notes at that point. Is there agreement on that issue? I think some of the CGIs are not quite clear about what the colour is. Some of them look quite grey rather than the copper colour that was shown in the slides towards the end. Is that right? That's correct. We did seek some clarification on the actual colour of both the cladding of the Mansard and also what colour they will be painting the actual public house because on some of the CGIs they're showing that some of the stucco elements, so the architraves and the fascia is going to be painted in a lighter brown colour. We haven't unfortunately got any confirmation back on that. Apologies for not being able to give confirmation on that at this committee, but it's hopeful that they'll give us some clarification. Painting can be done under permitted development rights, so they are at liberty to be able to paint any colour they like, but obviously it is a consideration when we're looking at the materiality of the extension, so we have sought clarification on that. Building of such prominence, I think materiality is a key consideration and I think that we would encourage you to have some quite hard discussions with the applicant about materiality. But are there any other points? Councillor Owens. Thank you. It's not in the Northcote ward, but it used to be in the Northcote ward and it's a pub I know quite well. Many are christening Children's Party and in fact meetings with officers where we've discussed pedestrianisation of Northcote Road have been held in the room above the downstairs pub. I suppose I just had a couple of questions. One was to do with the church. When I was looking at some arts church, when I was looking at the pictures, I could see that as you walk down Battersea Rise, obviously at times it seemed to be a bit obscured, but obviously other times it's not obscured, so obviously it depends on how far back you are, I guess, as you walk down the road. And it is obviously going to sort of, with the extra height, it will be what, four storeys or three? Because at the moment I know it from the function room above the pub, but I'm not sure what's above it at the moment. So it will be four storeys in total with the Mansard. Yeah. But I don't really know if the current, the storey that's above the one we use for the function room is used much at the moment anyway, because it's really downstairs pub in the function room. No, I think that's why they've decided to utilise that for the plant. Yeah, yeah. Comments about the overall design. I won't do that exactly, because it's up to you to give your views to the committee. But on the comment about the outside seating and the noise, am I missing a trick? I thought the Mansard was actually protecting the sitting area largely, so that there would be a sound buffer nearly all the way around, and that shouldn't be a problem. You will get more detail about that later on, I'm sure. But surely that's where the seating and bar arrangement is meant to be, isn't it, behind the Mansard? And I would presume, obviously, that if the retractable roof isn't retracted, the sound should be largely held within the overall structure. Largely held, not totally, obviously. But some waves do go in. I mean, they don't go around like light does, no. Just to clarify on that point, much of it is moveable louvers, so they're never going to be completely shut. This is always presumably going to be the smoking area at the outside area. We'll have very little use in days like today, but basically it is outside space. But you're right, it's walled in. It's a walled garden, effectively. I'm not hearing any comments at the moment about the principle of effectively, from a conservation area point of view, adding an additional story to this building. If I could put in that one, Michael, I think the answer is, looking at it, if anything, it enhances the building to be a story higher. I think it's good for the corner. If you look on the other side of Battersea Rise, the building's opposite are three stories plus prominent gables. I think it's actually beneficial in that sense, if the colour and detailing can be right. I have a separate question, however, to raise about the reopened door and what goes on inside it. Reopening the corner door, because this is the kind of Victorian pub that used to have four or five separate doors to separate classes of bar. Like most of them, many of those doors have now become windows. It's nice to see the corner one back, except for the fact that they're then going to put a staircase inside the big plate glass window facing Battersea Rise. All of the windows on the right-hand side of the Battersea Rise elevation will have a staircase inside them, which they do not now. The second window from the right on the Northcote Road elevation, top floor, I don't know if you can bring the elevations up, if that would be at all possible, is shown on the plans with a wall coming up against it and blocked up, but it's still shown on the elevations as if it was a full-blown window. So I think there's a bit of confusion going on here about how much of the internal work might or might not impact on how the building is actually perceived from outside. Which, if we are talking about a locally listed building, okay, probably locally listed because it's licensed, because remember there's that element of the list. On a prominent corner site, very prominent corner site, lots and lots of us, everybody here has passed it on many occasions. It will, that corner will not quite look the way I think the drawings are implying, shall I put it that way? You went on that. Yes, oddly enough, the roundhouse at the top of the road has a very prominent staircase just behind the windows, so you could say it's a feature of local pubs. But I share your concern as to how it might affect the elevation. You asked for a sort of, as it were, a general comment. I share Roger Armstrong's concern about the colour of the cladding of the mansard, and I agree, I think it would be better were it to be grey aluminium or lead. But that's very largely because the existing building is fairly grey, and if they're considering repainting it, that could have a difference. As to the appearance of the extension, I share Andrew Cato's view that the building is probably enhanced by an additional story. But I have an aversion to mansard roofs that aren't mansard roofs, and I would prefer them to have the courage of their convictions and make the extension an additional story, if that makes sense. I think trying to sort of be discreet about making it a mansard roof is a mistake, and that it would be better considered as a proper additional story. Thank you. Okay, can I sum up where I think we've got so far? We have concerns about materiality colour. I think I'm hearing that the principle of an additional story is accepted. But there are concerns about the way in which the internal alterations actually affect how the elevations actually will work in terms of fenestration. I can put it that way. I think the dormers in the mansard should be aligned with the windows below them, and slate should be used on the mansard. Can I suggest that what we don't want to get into—I'm thinking of your comment about slate. We've had slate, we've had lead, we've got in the plans copper, perhaps. I don't think we should fall into the trap of getting into too much detail, but we have a real concern about materiality, and that needs to be sorted by the planners in conjunction with the applicant, it seems to me. I think your point about the alignment of the windows in the upper storey—I've not used the word mansard—is a good one, and it does look a bit odd on those elevations at the moment, the way that the windows are offset. I mean, that might be a matter of taste. It's a matter of symmetry, and the rest of the building is symmetrical, and it really is slightly jarring if the mansard windows don't marry up. I think on the subject of making it a complete storey, that's a problem, because later on you'll get an application to build a mansard on top of that, so I think let's leave it as a mansard. Frances, I'm going to take one more comment. Sorry, just the point about whether the windows on the mansard should be aligned. In other words, do we ask for five windows immediately above to keep it symmetrical? Well, I would be in favour of that, I have to say, but it is, as has been said, basically a symmetrical building, so keeping a degree of symmetry is not a bad thing. Can I just briefly contradict that one? There is a strong tradition of having one less dorma in your mansard than the number of windows underneath, as long as they are in balanced alignment, so I think there's a case either way for that one. Okay, have you got enough? Right. Let us move on to a 2022 application, 3954, for the former Gasworks site on Swandon Way. Who's leading on this? Thank you, Chair. So this application originally came to the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee in March 2023, so quite a bit of time has passed since then, and now there is revisions to the application which I'm presenting here. I'm going to go through it fairly quickly in terms of introducing the scheme, because all of the Members do know the site. So as you see, here's the location plan and context, so not far from us here, just to north of where we are situated right now. The former Gasholders site that abuts the and takes part of the River Wondal to the north, quite a constrained site in terms of ownership. You see you have a relatively small site to the north between the Gasholders site and the railways, which is what we class as the delta site. And then to the south, we've got Two Armoury Way, which is subject to another item on the agenda tonight, which I'll go into a bit more detail when I cover that. Outside of a conservation area, here's the designations and how it relates to the site. So outside of the conservation area, but very close to Onesworth Town Conservation Area to the south, and we have Aldrock Road Conservation Area to the east, a number of listed buildings, Wentworth House to the west, and the former stables of the Rand to the south, and locally listed buildings as well. Really quick overview, because I think we all know this site. We've got the former Gasholders. It's a really good context to show the site and the big Gasholders element of the site, which is the biggest constrained element of the site in terms of that space. Existing view is currently housing the backyard cinema. Again, this is the site constraints, as you see, which shows the challenges that the applicants were facing on this site. So going straight into the key changes from the previous scheme. So we've got a hybrid application, part full, part outline application. So three plots, plot A1 and plot B are in full, plot A2 and A3 are in outline. The main changes are to those detailed elements of the scheme. So plot A1, which is within the north-west part of the site, which is the taller building right next to the wandle, that's down from one storey down to 29. A bit more complicated in terms of the sort of rotunda type building that sits in the location of the former Gasholders. That is down by one storey down to 15 on one of those elements, down two storeys to 14 storeys for another element, down three storeys to 13 storeys on another element. But some of these podium levels, which will rise up by one storey, and I'll show you a little bit more when we see some of the visuals. Other changes that are not necessarily applicable to this committee, but just for context, affordable housing at 40%, of which 70% is social rent and 30% intermediate homes, and other highway works to facilitate the new service road south of the site. So in total, 26 homes proposed as part of the scheme with the reduction in height. So proposed layout, ground floor plan, no obvious changes other than that was presented. You've got the wandle trail here as part of the proposals with a green area right next to the wandle. This is an area, play area, right next to the outline block here. External amenities not changed too much from the previous scheme. The main change is obviously the height, and there's some changes to the sort of rotunda style building. So, plot B1. This is showing you, as before, original application and as proposed. So you see the main changes are the height as each level has been brought down by a mix of one to three storeys, and then you've got the podium level here has raised up by a single storey. At this point, there is materiality changes as well. You see that the podium level here has been changed in colour. It's much darker. But also, as you see through the application, they've introduced a materiality that gradually lightens as you go further up to try to reduce the sense of bulk to the development. As you see somewhat in this application, there's also some changes to some of the balconies as well. Again, you see that this gives you an idea of those main changes here in terms of the lighter colour towards the top of the buildings and those lighter colours introduced within the balcony facades and the cladding. There's some changes as well to the cycle storage area, which we've included here for completeness, but obviously not necessarily something for the committee to consider in terms of heritage impacts. So quickly, just going through the change in elevations, you'll see that each element is slightly different in height now, so you've got the stepped arrangement, the three elements. Ground floor plan, again, not much changed with the main entrance there from the gas-holded gardens. Proposed sections to show you those main changes in terms of stepping down with the three blocks. Podium 4 plan, this is just to give an indication of some of those outside spaces and landscaping. We've included this just to give an idea of how each element of the rotunda will work altogether. The main element of the presentation is the visuals, so here you'll see some of the main changes in terms of facade treatments and that gradual change in facade in terms of the lighter cladding. And this is giving you another view just before and after in terms of those main changes to that main entrance into the site with that additional floor. Proposed plot 1A, we've got a storey decrease, but the actual design and materiality of it has not changed. It's literally just a storey decrease and obviously the affordable housing provision has been changed. So these details remain largely as proposed in terms of those wider beneficial works to the River Wandal and the landscaping works. Outline application for A2 no change, A3 no change. So I'll go through these views. These are the same views that we provided in the March 2023 application. Above is what was originally submitted and then below is what's revised. So this is the view from the north bank of the River Thames. Not necessarily a heritage view, but just to give you context in terms of impact on the river and that wider context. However, this is a heritage view in terms of impact on Wandsworth Town Conservation Area and the RAM, so original and proposed. They've used the same CGI images for this one to give us a good indication of the changes. This is a proposed view from Oakhill Road showing as proposed originally submitted on your left and then as revised on your right. Wandsworth Town Station, so looking at this Old York Road Conservation Area as originally submitted. They have provided new CGI, new photography for this view, so you see this slight change. So I apologise, I tried to match up as much as I could, but with the different photography it's slightly difficult. That shows that change largely obscured by the tree outside the town. The station. Rylinet Boulevard looking through the RAM quarter, so towards the listed stable block with the building towards the rear. Obviously the outline application is set out in a Y line with the detailed application at the detail element of the tall building in the background. It doesn't show two armoury way, but obviously the revisions came in and we had two armoury way that's to the south of site come in subsequently, so that hasn't been included in those proposals. Now I think these next two images are probably the two images where you can see the real changes to the scheme. So this is obviously just outside where we are at Fairfield Street looking in terms of impact on quite a few heritage assets, conservation area, listed building and then a further listed building with the grapes. And you see here the main change, they've again changed the image, so they've taken a new image here. You see that it's more of a winter image, but you can see the change here quite clearly in terms of the height change. And then this one being the one that was sort of most talked about in the previous committee meeting, this image taken with the grapes in the foreground and the development in the background to show the main change in terms of those heights, but also the materiality. So I've included this image again, it's just the same view, but with the gas holders there in the kind of orange red outline and showing its relationship with that new development. Obviously the big difference with the gas holders is it went up and down, so there would have been periods where it was you only saw the metal frame of the gas holders as opposed to the form that you'll see in this. And I've just included some other views we didn't include in the previous, just to give an idea of those impacts in terms of those wider conservation areas. So this is Bramford Road, which is Old York Road conservation area. And then the junction with Wandsworth High Street and Buckhold Road, we've got the impact there in terms of the outline and the full applications of the two plots there. And then again, the landscape master plans last year has changed, but it has been updated to include the wider site. Some of these applications haven't come forward, but obviously we now have two armoury way come forward since then, but nothing from Mr Clutch site to the south. So a bit of change there, but obviously the main element of it is the height change in what the committee considers of those main revisions to the application. I'll leave it on that one because I think that's probably a quite helpful one to start. Okay, thank you. And as you've said, I think most of us remember this application coming to us a couple of years ago. First of all, questions as to fact or interpretation? Are there any? If I might, Chair. The question still remains, one of the points that obviously, as you say, this has been through before the Puntney Society commented on the original application some time ago. And what we notice is that the tallest building, A, whatever it is, remains apparently without any vehicle access, which considering we're talking about a building, if God forbid the fire brigade ever had to get there, it's a bigger building than the Grenfell Tower. It's got no fire brigade access. It's going to be occupied by hundreds of people. There is no delivery access. There's nowhere to park an Ocado van or a scooter or the taxi that's waiting for you or your removal van. Or indeed, has anybody talked about how the rubbish comes out of this lot? It just looks to me like what you need, please, is the whole plot designed and then subtract out the parts, but the individual landowners obviously don't want to hear that. I suspect that's not strictly a conservation issue, but do we have any comments from the planning department? I can answer that one, because the actual layout and the way the access and roads work in relationship to the proposals is quite complicated, but basically it's a one-way anti-clockwise, so the refuse truck comes in from the right-hand corner and there's a lift, it stops by the top end of the block B and the lifts go up and down. There's probably two or three lifts before they get all the bins back into the lorry. Also, the lorry goes round anti-clockwise and out, but for the other blocks, the block A1, there's a parking bay in front of A2 where it parks into there and then they roll the bins down from the building into that part. Likewise, with A3, they come down and reverse into Wonder Walk, I think it's called, or proposed to be called, and then they collect the bins there and then go out anti-clockwise, so everything's anti-clockwise. The road to the south, which is reused also by the joining development, which we'll come onto in a minute, there is a tabletop where there's a pedestrian crossing north-south route and also a tabletop where you go into the building on the right-hand corner. Although, I should point out that the car lift comes up from the basement and they have to turn right where the bin lorries come in, they turn right going clockwise around and they meet up with the vehicles coming round the other way at the point where they enter Swanden Way. So, there's a complication there and you've also got to think about the future pedestrian movements as well, which is going to be quite complicated. I think Mr Farrow had a question. Probably not a conservation matter either, but just quickly. The site shows land to the west of the Wandel and to the east of the causeway. Have they acquired that bit of land, do you know? Yeah, there's quite a number of different ownerships. To the north of where the old gas holder was, you've got the Delta site, which is quite a substantial site. They haven't acquired that one. To the south east, you've got the Mr Clutch site, which is a very awkward shaped site as we'll see in a minute on the Armoury Way application. There's also a head house which remains outside both applications, which has been put in some time ago because that's all to do with the underground pipe work. There's also, you'll find out in the next application, there's a slither of a triangular site onto Armoury Way, which has nobody's acquired that one yet. So, there's a lot of issues about ownership, I think. Oh, it sounds like fun. But in particular, there's a landscaped area that falls within the red line to the east of the causeway in the top left-hand corner and the Wandel, as it were, runs through the site. I thought that was in council ownership and it was just slightly odd that they've included it within their site boundary, presumably claiming it's part of the open space to justify the density of the development. But no doubt that will be cleared up. I believe the island itself, causeway island, is actually in council ownership and I don't know what agreements have been made over that. I think the question before us is essentially whether the changes that have been made allay our concerns about the impact of these buildings on the neighbouring conservation area. I think that's the essential question that's in front of us, unless anyone disagrees with that. Does anyone disagree with that? They don't anywhere near come close to addressing the concerns that the Wands of Society had about the development. It is, in essence, in terms of its height, albeit it might be slightly lower, but the bulk of the building, its appearance and of the other buildings are so similar to what was previously seen. It's so similar to what was previously suggested that we can't see any reason to withdraw our application. Our principal concern was with the height of the building A1. I think it is just significantly too tall and it's in a prominent position and I think it will have an adverse effect on the river and on adjoining conservation areas and on, I've forgotten the name of it now, the building on Dormay Street. For those reasons, we will object to it and I hope that this committee will object to it. I mean, leave for effort for lightening the building as it gets higher, but I don't think that can be considered to have had an ameliorating effect on its bulk. Or am I seeing agreement? Any contrary view? Okay, we sustain our original objection. We repeat what we said last time. One might well ask about what I've attempted to say. I think we could say that we think the changes to the visual access to the inside of the rotunda, with the additional story and the dark colour, in some ways, worsens the impact of the building. Is that acceptable? I think the additional story, actually, is the darkness of it. Can I just put that in context, because it seems to be lurking at the bottom of the picture, but let us not forget that that entry section on Stilts is still a building as tall and nearly as wide as this town hall. Let us move on, I think. Let's move on, not very far, as it were, to 2024. This is a new application, 3497, very contiguous, and it highlights the issue of the problems of land ownership and land assembly, it seems to me, on the wider side as a whole, but on this particular site. Over to Ms Way. Thank you, Chair. Barry very kindly gave a bit of an idea of what the challenges are with this red line, because it's rather landlocked in this site. Again, really the same sort of heritage designations being impacted here. So here you see the red line with those listed buildings and conservation areas in its surroundings. As you say, you've got an awkward landlocking which does restrict them somewhat in their site, so if you see here, this is giving you a bit more of an indication of that red line and the awkward. So this is the awkward triangle here, at this point here that isn't owned by two Armory Way applicants, which Barry mentioned, just at the bottom of the site. Not much you can do about it. There's not likely to be anything coming forward for this site, as Barry's mentioned, that has already had permission for a headhouse building there that is very much associated with a cable tunnel that leads from Wimbledon to Kensal Green, and then you have what we're classing as the Mr Clutch site, which is this really awkward site just on this corner, which then comes down to a point with two Armory Way. So with that in mind, that does restrict them somewhat in what they can achieve on site. So existing context here just to show that, and you've got emerging development coming through, showing in hatched. So the proposals coming forward for this site are two buildings up to 10 storeys above the basement. It's comprising student accommodation and light industrial floor space, so different from the Gasworks site to the north. It steps up all the way from two storeys up to 10 storeys in the centre of the site with landscaping surrounding it, including the entrance here and then a sort of small square in the centre between the two buildings. So this shows you the site-wide elevation with that building, which steps up to that middle point, and there's a two-storey element just here, because obviously that's the location, and it's closest to that relationship with Wandsworth Town Conservation Area and Wandsworth House, which is listed. Just the side elevations again showing that stepping up towards the middle of the site with the two-storey element towards the west part of the site. I've included this in because this actually is including the Gasholders site towards the rear as an outline, so it can give you a bit of a context in terms of what's coming forward with the previous application that we've looked at, albeit it is in outline form. Unfortunately as well, the visuals are not showing as cumulative with the Gasholders development coming forward, which is unfortunate. Just the other side in terms of the site-wide west elevations and some site sections we usually include for you just for completeness. Down to the CGI's, you see here one of the sites which runs up to that ten-storey element. This gives you an idea of some of the external wall material and the cladding that they're proposing, so it's quite a variation, but very much a grid-like pattern that you see in quite a few of the developments within this part of Wandsworth, with some variations in terms of the materiality to break up the bulk. Views assessment, I'll go straight through to this because this is the elements that I think committee need to look at in more detail. Similar sort of, pretty much the same sort of view, albeit slightly further along from line and boulevard with the listed stables in the foreground and the development coming forward in the background. And obviously taking account of the previous application that we were looking at and the cumulative impact that it would have with Gasworks in towards the rear as well. It's just unfortunate they didn't include that in the actual reviews assessment. Views from Ram Street towards Armoury Way with the two buildings in the foreground. The proposed view from Fairfield Street is a slightly different view to what we had from Gasworks, which is just showing as a wire line largely obscured by the Town Hall building. Proposed view from Wandsworth High Street at the junction of Ram Street, again as a wire line, showing it largely obscured by the Ram Public House and the Ram development. But obviously this view from Armoury Way at the junction of Wandsworth Plains, same view as what we had for Gasworks, which shows that development and sort of the reasoning why they've started that stepped arrangement and its relationship with the site adjacent and the conservation area. Now this is obviously views from Swandon Way that very much take account of the fact that we'll have the Gasworks development immediately in front of this. So in reality, subject to what comes forward on that site, it will be largely obscured by the Gasholders development that will be coming forward, which is where the visuals are a little bit frustrating in terms of not having that, at least as a wire line. But for this view from Old York Road, you'll see it without, subject to what comes forward on the Mr Clutch site, obviously this impact will largely not be changed from the Gasworks development coming forward, so you see the relationship and the visual impact from Old York Road conservation area looking towards the site. Again, landscaping, soft landscaping, they are constrained by what they can do on this site, but large areas of landscaping surrounding the site and similar to what Barry's mentioned, this access road which is included in the Gasworks site, which will be shared with this site in terms of access arrangements towards, I'm assuming for refuse. But largely it's taken up by the majority of the two 10-storey towers. I think that's the last image. Thank you. Thank you. Any factual questions to start with? If not, then can we move to comments? I'm sorry. I was just intrigued by the amount of trees. Can they actually grow because I've worked on contaminated sites and the one I worked on, there was only about a foot of topsoil before you hit the ceiling layer, so it just had jolly little bushes around the buildings actually and not real trees. And real trees make it look much better. So that was my question is, have they done something underneath to make it good for trees to actually flourish? If I can just answer that question, the site is contaminated, it will need to be decontaminated and clearly changes of soil will help with the trees, but there again under that area there where you said in the central north south route, we did start off with an avenue of trees, but because of the proximity of underground services, it's just one single line of trees, but obviously we do need something substantial there. To marry in with the height of the buildings. I think back in the fall of 1980, once the Historical Society looked into what might be there and it was a fairly nice cocktail of things underneath from a gasworks site, so I was assuming that they'd have to move some of the layers to be able to actually plant anything much. Just to add colour, if you like, I was actually working with GLC under Ken Livingstone, it was 82 to 86 and I managed to get hold of a GLC scientific paper about the state of the site and it was pretty bad. That was 82 to 86. I've got a feeling that we might be talking about a gasworks site for a few years yet, but go on. Yes, I'd like to ask officers and councillors whether this surely is a case where the council might look to see if it's got any powers to deal with the funny little triangle and the odd bit of parking space drifting right down along the Armoury Way frontage where at the moment the people occupying the Mr Clutch building seem to park the damaged car. As far as they're going to get round to working on next month, the whole thing's an eyesore because much of the frontage, by the looks of it, isn't going to be changed and that is impacting already right now the heritage settings on this side of Armoury Way. If I can just add a comment to that, it is clear from the proposed changes to the MPPF that land assembly, the council's roles in land assembly, could well be changed as a result of legislation to be forthcoming. We don't know exactly what those changes will be yet, but I suspect what Mr Cato and others might be suggesting is that this is a very clear case where some work on helping on land assembly might be very useful. But that's for the future, I suspect. If I could answer that question, certainly, if you look at the site allocation in the emergency local plan, it does say under site allocation WT4 that the council should be thinking about using its powers in order to bring forward relevant parts of the site. And that's something that I put in my own comments to the case officer, because it also affects the block B set far back than it would otherwise normally be, because it would be close to the back of the footway. I mean, if that were developed in isolation, what could they do with that triangle bit of land? Not a lot, really. And as to the other triangle, well, we've encouraged the downing owners to negotiate with them, because we were a bit frightened that an advert application might come on to that triangle piece of land, and we wouldn't want to see that, would we? OK, so can we put into our comments that we would urge the council to look at the issues to do with the configuration of this site and the possibility of playing a more active role in land assembly? I'm not drafting, but something to that effect, isn't that? OK, beyond that, what do we want to say about this application? Is it acceptable? Well, I think, again, these are massive blocks, and they appear at various viewpoints from the conservation area. The contaminated nature of the site tends to mean that in order to develop the site to make it viable, presumably they're having to put on a vast amount of accommodation. But I don't know how that works, because their figures are their figures, and I don't know about the contamination either, or how much remediation has already been done, or what the cost of it is likely to be. Just going back on the land issue, can I help Calum, perhaps, in that if these comments are usually sent to the Planning Applications Committee, as the Planning Applications Chair, there's nothing I could do about that. I think that particular comment you need to send to the Member in charge of Planning Policy, in other words, Councillor Hogg. Thank you. I mean, is what we are saying that, as currently presented with all the problems about the site, this application is unacceptable on the grounds of bulk and height? Is that what we're saying, or not, when Mr Cato shakes his head? I think the answer is we have to take this application, certainly with the revised roadway and discussions that are clearly there, why we were just looking at the gasworks all over again. I think we have to say that this application is effectively being read to be built as part and parcel of the works behind, in which case, sadly, at 10 storeys it's probably not too bad compared to the background that's going to happen, although we would very much hope the background doesn't happen. But there's a clear missed opportunity to enhance in any way the heritage that sits on the other side of the one-way system, because nobody's doing anything about the little wedges of land, the blank bits of concrete, the bare walls, all the rest of it, and indeed about, as far as I can see, any kind of measure to help the many hundreds of residents who will be living there get anywhere, like crossing the road. And just to add, that is not in accordance with the master plan for the Wandall Delta, that issue of access across Armoury Way. To say that the number of people living in this accommodation, plus those living in the accommodation beyond Wandsworth Turn Station, there'll be a massive social problem. There's already a social problem. Petty crime. In looking at this application, that what is being proposed at the gas works is going to go ahead or not go ahead, seems to me we have to look at it on its own merits, because of the uncertainty as to what will be going on around it. I do think, having said that, that the accessibility of the site, particularly for student accommodation, is a major problem. The students will all be wanting to get onto local buses, or probably to Wandsworth Town Station, if they can then actually get onto a train at Wandsworth Town Station in the Russia. Access across those busy roads is a major, major, major problem, which neither of these applications seeks to address in any way. But I think the key point is that we have to look at this application forgetting, essentially, what may or may not happen on the gas works site, because we can't know that that is going to happen. It does seem sensible to take that view that it's an application and it stands and falls on its own merits. I think it is possible, and maybe officers can help, that an application can be approved, subject to development on alternative sites, proceeding or not proceeding, but I'm not sure about that. Because if the application on the gas works site goes ahead, then to a degree it doesn't really matter what's built on this site, because the gas works site will dominate it. As to the application as it stands, again, within the context, we have the Swanden Way development further to the west, isn't it? Yes. I'm sorry, yes, anyway, you know what I mean, the B&Q and the home-based sites. East. And this is just more of the same, so I find myself conflicted, because partly, I think, well, the whole damn thing is damned anyway by what's already been built, and talking about this appears to be sort of relatively inconsequential, considering the harm that's already been inflicted on the area. Nonetheless, I think that, as it is, my view is that the site is too large and will have an adverse effect on the causeway, which I think is a significant local asset, and on adjoining heritage assets. As I say, you sort of approach it with some gloom, with the approvals that have already been granted and with the buildings that have already been built. I take that point, but I do think that this application is significantly different from what is happening further east, because what we're really considering here is the impact on the conservation area. That's the key issue. I think it has an adverse effect on the conservation area. Is that the general view that this application will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation area? Sorry, we're going round a bit in circles here. I suppose we might add the rider that there are issues to consider about the configuration of the site and the possibilities for land to make a more buildable site out of what is within the red line on the application at the moment. Can I just add a small one on that? I think when we're talking about impacts on conservation areas, we need to be aware that the stuff nearer the railway is visible in large quantity, should it get built, from the back of the Ram site and ones with town conservation area. As we saw in one of those CGI's, especially if you take the leaves off the relevant trees, this building, or at least the one on the right in the image we're now looking at, the red one, will have a considerable impact on Old York Road as well. So this is something that the others, horrible though they may be, don't actually do. But this is sitting right on the end of that street, which has finally made itself pleasant again after all the years. Do we have enough? Can I just clarify, just to get a full understanding of what that impact might be, is it the height, or is it a number of factors, just so that we can be clear in terms of what the committee are objecting to in terms of the impact? In one word, bulk. In that picture, taken from what is a street, with three and a half storey buildings maximum, two and a half mostly. Yes, the tree is masking some of it, and it will look a lot bigger than that come the wintertime. Let us move on to our final application, 2024-1322. Again, this is an application that we have seen before and expressed a view again. There have been some significant changes to that original application, so the question to remind us all before we start is, have the changes been enough to change our view? Over to you, Ms Way. Thank you, Chair. So, this is our final item of 2024, because this is our final committee of 2024, so we'll go out with a bang. So, as you see here, the description of the development has changed, as well as just to give an indication. So, erection of a part 10 storey building, part 28 storey building. Those are the key changes, but I'll run through these, and I'll try to get through these quickly so that we can focus on the visuals. So, again, site outline we've got here. It's not within a conservation area, but right adjacent to Battersea Bridge, which is listed. We have the Westbridge Conservation Area to the south, with a number of listed and locally listed buildings. Battersea Park towards the east, which is also a registered park and garden, with several listed buildings within the park and within the conservation area, and a number of locally listed buildings between. This is just on the Wandsworth side. We expand further into the north of the site. We've got a large number of conservation areas within Kensington and Chelsea area, including Royal Hospital and Cheney Conservation Area directly north of the site. So, the existing building on the site was built in the 1980s. It is as it is described, glass mills, largely glass building of five storeys, right at that entrance to the borough from Battersea Bridge. You have the foster building next to it. Here you see it's not particularly good public well immediately surrounding it in terms of that Thames path. Existing context, this is showing you some of the taller buildings within the wider vicinity of the site, which is being used by the applicants as part of the justification for the height on the site. So, main changes from the previous application. So, the building's now been dropped from 33 plus ground floor with that shoulder element been removed, so you now have a single height to the taller element, what they're classing as the top of the building. A simple crown form to the very top of the building as opposed to previously. Ground plus 28 now, bear in mind that the floor to ceiling heights are still as proposed in the previous application, so I calculated it this morning. If you're considering it against the floor to ceiling heights that are within our local plan, it would be considered a 34 storey building in terms of height AOD to the tallest element of the building. Other changes to it, the podium level has been added by one storey, so it's now 10 storeys, and affordable housing provision has now been increased from 35% to 50%, of which 100% of that is social rents. It's 70-30 split in favour of social rent. 3D views before and after the revision. So, here you can see that main change in terms of the podium level being added up by one storey, and then obviously the main change is the top part of the building being reduced slightly in height and having one single top. Unfortunately, there's no changes elsewhere, so the proposed ground floor has not been changed. It's still the same arrangement as proposed with the restaurant towards the 10 side. Two residential lobbies in the community space towards the rear with a small entrance lobby for the office. Opposed west elevation showing that crown and that very distinct change in the crown area, and obviously there's what they're considering, base, middle and top, with the top being the main tall building. There, as you can see, the AOD heights are 103 metres AOD for the main part of the building, which is where we calculated that it would be equivalent of about 34 storeys, give or take. A section through the building, no change. Another illustrated image just to show it slightly in its context in terms of that immediate surrounding area from Battersea Bridge Road and then the Thames to the north. 3D view again showing that no changes in terms of the podium level that will be utilised for outside space, same as before in terms of provision. No changes to the landscape master plan in terms of some of those beneficial enhancements to the Thames path. And unfortunately no changes in terms of the Thames frontage. This is the CGI showing some of those main enhancement works in terms of public realm. And again, no change to community amenity space up the level 10 looking west, so this is just up by one level. Illustrated view, so again indicative of what it will look like in its wider context. You see here at the bottom, you've got a much wider context with those taller elements of buildings in the wider context showing the main premise. Obviously, we're aware of this from the previous CHAC meeting, but the main premise of this is to do a metropole and scale marker building that marks the entrance to the borough and its relationship with Battersea Bridge. And there's a lot of information in their design and access statement that talks about other types of buildings which have these marker buildings next to them, including that within the borough. Views from Battersea Bridge Road and then ZTV, which is a zone of theoretical visibility that shows basically the site and how visible it is from the wider context, not just within the borough but to the north at Kensington and Chelsea. So these are the same views that we showed you in the previous presentation. So what I've done is I've put, as was originally proposed, above and then what the revisions are below. So this is from the setting of the Royal Hospital, not within the borough, but obviously something we have to consider as it's within our borough boundary. This is Grade 1 listed Royal Hospital and Registered Park and Garden. Another view from Royal Hospital, again showing the changes in height and what that impact might have on that view. Albert Bridge showing, as before, so still an impact in terms of your appreciation of Albert Bridge from the north side of the river. Again, not within the borough but within the neighbouring borough, Cheney Conservation Area, this junction at Beaufort Street at the junction with Kings Road showing that change. I've tried to put them next to each other with the same images to see if there's a possibility of seeing the differences in, see that difference in height. It's obviously for the committee to decide whether that change has been sufficient, that concerns have been raised by officers that this change is not showing sufficient level of change to reduce the impact on heritage assets. Again, a view from the north bank of the river, looking at the building with Bathurstie Bridge in its context. From the embankment, again with Bathurstie Bridge in its context and the wider surroundings of the building, slightly reduced in height, but that's the only real change. From Chelsea Bridge, you see here, you can see ever so slight change in height but still see it rising up above with Bathurstie Park in the foreground there. This wasn't included in the previous presentation but included just for completeness here from Bathurstie Park. This is a winter view, so largely obscured by the trees, but there's other views within Bathurstie Park where you do see the building rising up above the tree line, even at winter level. So this is showing it from within the park towards the site, slight reduction in height but still rising above the tree line. One of the key views looking towards the site from Bathurstie Church Road, which was in Bathurstie Square Conservation Area, which shows the change. I think when you start going a bit closer, you can start to see those slight changes, which is similar to what we had in the previous presentations that we went through for Gasworks. The Church of St Mary in Bathurstie Square Conservation Area, so previously it rose up quite a distance above, but it's slightly lower now but still rising above. And then an immediate surrounding, I think this is one which is the most pertinent, is within the Westbridge Conservation Area with several locally listed buildings within the immediate context, and the Duke of Bathurstie is locally listed. And the building rising above in the background. So you can see the changes here in terms of the very slight difference in height. I think that's the main image. So I'm going to leave it there for people to discuss whether they think those changes are sufficient to overcome concerns by the committee. Okay, thank you. Questions to start with, factual questions. Mr Farrow. Thank you. The CGI comparisons that you showed, especially the ones in the latter part of the presentation, were they all generated by the applicants? Yes, they were. They're all from the visual impact assessments. I've usually been very convinced by CGIs and relied upon their accuracy. What I found terribly confusing looking at what you've just shown us is when you see these two images of the photorealistic ones, the difference in the height of the building seems negligible. Well, it is negligible, but on the wireframes that you showed just now, the differences seem significant. There was one from Bathurstie Park with the bandstand or something, and this one here. Now, on that one, the difference seems quite dramatic, and it just confuses me. It's the same, because I usually assume them to be fairly reliable, but here, the photorealistic ones, which show damn all difference, and these, which suggest that there's quite a significant difference. Let's return to the photorealistic ones. They clearly show a building that, although it might have been changed, has not been changed anywhere near enough, I suggest, to change the committee's view about the unacceptability of the development and its effect on heritage assets, both in our borough and in the borough to the north. I think this building is unacceptable by virtue of its height and its dominance on surrounding assets. Sorry. I'd better stop before I get bit. Before we move on to any further comments, can I ask if there are any further questions for Ms Whay? Can I take sort of Chairman's privilege as the local civic society? I mean, our view is that setting aside all the issues about changes in number of units, changes in affordable social rent housing and so on, that the changes are negligible. So, in that instance, I agree with Mr Farrow that the fundamental flaw with this application remains what they claim as the core reason for going ahead with this application, that it optimises the capacity and the potential of a very small site. You might as well say that I could sell my little house near Clapham Junction and optimise its capacity by building a 20-storey tower instead of my two-storey house. The claim makes no sense at all because it doesn't take account of the context in which the proposal is set. The site is too small, it is too prominent and there is no need to maximise its potential in this way. Or, if you do want to maximise its potential, you have to take account of the local context in which it is built. And similar arguments that they make about the need for a metropolitan marker building and the nonsense that they claim about every bridge in London has marker buildings on both sides of the river and East Amway is utter nonsense. Most London bridges do not have marker buildings, London Bridge being a classic example. The only marker building at the foot of London Bridge is Southwark Cathedral, dammit. It's a complete nonsense and the 28-storey claim is unrelated to height, as Ms Way has explained. It's well over 30 storeys in terms of height. It is utterly unacceptable in my view, but I'm prepared to hear contrary views if there are any. I was just going to add a comment. This is part of this sort of turning the Thames into a tunnel of tall buildings and when you stand on the foreshore by Putney Bridge, you can't really see that it's a river anymore. It looks more like a lake with tall buildings around it. By letting these things in, we're ruining the vista and the glory of that scene plus the heritage assets along it. It's a complete change and if you let any more of these through, it's just going to make it a road between skyscrapers. I could say more about the inadequacies of the current London plan in that regard, but I won't go into that issue other than to say that the policies actually in the London plan are not compatible, or this building is not compatible not only with our local plan but with policies in the London plan. Thank you for reminding me about the view from Putney, one of the very few protected views that the borough allowed to sneak through because you didn't think anybody would be building in the way of it. Well, here it comes. This one and also the two other applications we've been discussing tonight. The 30-storey tower on the Gasworks site will be even more prominent from Putney Bridge, but all of these are dominating. And yes, there's no need for landmark buildings, as somebody said. In the past, the landmark heritage buildings were the great public edifices, not the private blocks of housing. As church spires, one thing, usually pretty skinny and pointing to God, but this is not pointing to God. This is pointing out where Mammon has taken over. Thank you. Any other comments on this? I'm very open to contrary views. I'm not hearing any. Councillor Belton? You certainly won't hear a contrary view from me. I, as you know, keep saying rather boringly. I have to try and keep shy of that kind of comment, at least at this stage. However, I think that it's consistent with one element of the London Plan, or at least one element of the building in charge of the London Plan, and that is allowing for a higher proportion of affordable and particularly socially rented housing. And I'm not at all sure that your comments on several of these applications, this one included, don't need to be sharpened a little bit by actually pointing out that there may be a conflict, but on some issues the kind of position you're putting has to take priority. Otherwise, you don't leave people in the committees in a very strong position in terms of arguing your case as against the need for affordable housing. Does that make sense, what I'm saying? I do accept what you have just said, and indeed there will be, if there isn't already, increasing pressure on the council, like all other councils across London, if the government goes ahead with an 80,000 a year housing target. So that means I'm trying to argue that, obviously you take the point, but you're trying to say, as people always do in planning applications, talk about treating particular applications on their own merit, and then you're trying to introduce a London-wide context about the river, for instance, right down, and I don't think that strengthening the hands of those people in the planning applications is a good opportunity, who might wish to support your arguments if you don't somehow or other say something about there are some areas where there may be conflicts, but this is so important that the affordable housing side argument should be put to one side, or something. I don't know how you say that exactly, and I shouldn't be advising you on it, but that's what I think. I think there are a number of things that I will say briefly, because I think other people want to make comments about that, but clearly there are opportunities across the borough as there are across London for building on brownfield sites, on some possibly currently industrial sites, making them into mixed-use sites, and so on, and there is scope for densification. Horrid word, but around my area of Battersea, Clapham Junction, there is clearly scope for densification of sites that have large car parks and largely single-storey buildings. It's all a matter, it seems to me, of the right building in the right place. I know that is a cliché, but it's a cliché because it has a lot of truth in it. What we have been discussing tonight, I think we have supported one very minor bit of densification on the corner of Northcote Road and Battersea Rise, not housing of course, but a significant addition to the building landscape as it were, but there are opportunities and we should support opportunities for densification and innovative forms of development where they are appropriate, and there are sites within this borough, and I have identified one very local to where I live. My point, you don't have to tell me this, I've been arguing for as long as I've been on the planning. What I'm saying is other members on the Applications Committee need your support in being able to point, because they're going to be taking your words and translating it into some kind of objection, and I'm encouraging you to put some words to that effect in. That's all I'm doing, because I agree with you entirely, and I shouldn't say that, but yes. I'll take two comments initially, Mr Cato and then Mr Farron. Thank you. My answer to Councillor Belton is to remind all those dealing with these applications that the NPPF wants us to optimise the use of land, not maximise, and I think that does provide the opportunity to say this is too much. Thank you. A good point about the National Planning Policy Framework. I hope that if we give a clear and unequivocal objection to this development on the grounds that it will cause significant harm, actually I'm sensitive to the fact that that is also defined in the planning policy framework, considerable harm to heritage assets, both near and far by virtue of its height and dominance on those assets. It will strengthen members of the Planning Applications Committee in their hopeful objection to the scheme and outweigh the benefits, which I think the applicant is made either because he has to, or more likely because he has to, to increase the amount of affordable housing within the development. Are you asking that we identify the sites where harm is caused and list them in order to strengthen the arguments that we are putting forward? Because if so, I think that might have to be as an addendum to this committee's present objection if we can go through it at a later date. But I think we're unanimous in finding the scheme objectionable because of its size, and we find the arguments put forward about it being a landmark, a gateway to the borough are meaningless in terms of justifying its height. I don't know what more we can do, to be honest, apart from dealing with it in detail, which I think we're unable to do this evening. I'm sorry, I wish we could. Francis Radcliffe. I would have thought that it was significant by definition that on the North Bank and the South Bank there are so many listed buildings. And to put a 28 storey or a 34 storey or even a 20 storey building at the end of Battersea Bridge is inappropriate in terms of the destruction that is caused to the low-level landscape on the banks of the Thames between Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge, which is just full of special buildings. Surely the number of listed buildings, the Royal Hospital, the Park, the Thomas More Church, etc. count for something, and the phraseology to encompass them is sufficient for the Planning Applications Committee. I'm sorry, I'm just totally failing to get my, think of it from the point of view of the members of the committee for a moment. They will be under a lot of pressure about other elements of London Plan and Local Plan pressures, and if I ask you to speculate what would happen if this application were to be rejected, I think most of you would say they'll come back with another one, still unacceptable but a bit lower and a bit this and a bit that, and we'll just carry on with this. What I'm trying to say is that the message has to be, and as you're making very clear to me, but I see your comments come through to the Planning Applications Committee, it's got to be very, very clear indeed, and say we recognise that affordable housing is really important, but they've got to be elsewhere. I'm telling you to strengthen, not weaken, strengthen what you're saying, and I'm going, as some of you will know, I'm going far over the top of where I should be going. I don't think there's anyone round this table who is not aware of the awful, awful pressures on housing in Wandsworth and in London more widely. I think it probably, if you think it would be helpful, I'd be very prepared for us to say we recognise the demand for additional housing in London, and particularly for housing for social rent, but... Absolutely, that's exactly what I'm saying. Well, I'm very happy to say that in relation to both of the Wandsworth applications and the glass mill applications. I'm very happy to say that. I mean, with the second of the, with the Armoury Way one, to recognise the huge demand for student housing and special housing for special needs and so on. We recognise those, but in these three cases, the harm outweighs the benefits, and we believe that there are other sites in the borough which can meet the demands. And to be very specific, and I'm not suggesting this goes in what we say, the Morgans Walk development, right next to the glass mill, is a low-rise development, arguably too low-rise, and could be increased. I mean, I'm not suggesting we say that, but I think there is an argument on Morgans Walk, actually, that it could be added to. That's a personal view. I'm not suggesting that's a committee view. Right next door, in my view, to the site, there's somewhere else where you could have added housing. And I personally wouldn't object to it, subject to all kinds of... Can I just respond on that point? It's worth bearing in mind that things, the pressures that Councillor Belton feels he's under at the moment are complete reverse of how things were 40 years ago when the likes of Morgans Walk were built. When, in fact, all the relevant planning plans specified a maximum density which was lower than the average density of Victorian housing in London. But that's how it was. I know it is not now, but you do have, surely, we have a local plan which specifies acceptable heights and all of the rest of it in order to give the Planning and Applications Committee and officers a benchmark for saying, Yes, there's pressure for more social housing, but that does not justify going above certain levels in all of these areas. Otherwise, we might as well have 50, 60, 70 stories anywhere in the borough you feel like building, because that's the argument you're giving us at the moment. I'm sorry, this is really... Please don't lecture me. Please. I was on the council when Morgans Walk was built, and I was the party that wanted it CPO'd for much denser council housing. And also, there was a plan for an enormously high office block that Morgans wanted to pursue. I know all that stuff, and I agree. I've said it about 10 times. I actually agree. I'm saying, I've seen your comments often enough, and I think it would help you, not me, it would help you to make your arguments that you're putting to me, I don't want to know them, I know them, to put your comments as strongly as possible in what you're saying to the Planning and Applications Committee. So it registers with the council the strength of your feeling. I can't say it more obviously, can I? Please don't lecture me on it. It's in my ward. What do you think it's going to be like for me politically with what the neighbours think about it? I mean, come on. I mean, can I say it more clearly? I think we have in outline a form of words which says that we recognise the pressures, and not only we recognise the pressures, we actually support the development of additional housing. At scale, where it is appropriate, including additional social housing, speaking personally, that's the highest priority, it seems to me, across the borough and across Wandsworth. Much more than, you know, tall towers with penthouses and so on, which are lived in for a few weeks or months in the year. It's social housing which we want above all, and family-sized social housing. In these three cases, we are accepting the desirability, indeed the need for more housing and particularly more social rent housing. But we're adding a big but to that in these three instances. That's very helpful, Michael. Can you also summarise the form of words for the arguments against the proposal at Glassmill? I think we said it all in the minutes of our previous meeting. If I can sum up—and it's from memory, I haven't got the minute in front of me—that the building would have an unacceptable impact on both conservation areas in Wandsworth and north of the river in Kensington and Chelsea, and on listed buildings in those areas, and on the riverscape of the major blue asset that we have in London, the River Thames. And that impact is so serious in scale that, in terms of the Glassmill, that it is the current proposal in height, in particular, and in losing in some industrial space, I might add, a significant amount of employment space, rather than not industrial employment space, and there is no benefit in terms of enhancement of the public realm. Okay, so a damaging effect—I recall, I think, the comments last time around, having seen them before—a damaging effect not just locally, but over a wide area, et cetera, et cetera, and that the changes that have been made to the proposal, as it's come before the committee tonight, are negligible in the face of that. No. I think it's been a useful discussion and a useful thing to hear that we focus on conservation issues in this forum. That is our job, but we have to be aware of the wider context in which the planning officers, dammit, and the Planning Applications Committee at the top of the hierarchy, if you like, have to take account of. I think that's a salutary reminder for us, and I accept that. Okay, we've given quite a job to our clerk. Ms Way. I just wanted just a point of clarity for a democratic services officer, because you mentioned about the impact being so serious. Just for the purposes of the MPPF, when you're talking about levels of harm, can I just get clarity from committee what level of harm you're considering? I appreciate that there's a number of heritage assets, but overall level of harm to heritage assets, when you're looking at your summary comments, you've got less than substantial or substantial, as we're always required to give a range within the list of substantial if it's less than substantial, because I think that would help clarify for the Planning Committee as well. I think we would say substantial, very substantial. Yes. And Sebastian Bridge as well, because it's going to create a wind-edding effect as well. I'm not requesting that this be minuted, but I would have to say from my perspective the argument is the strongest case is the glass mill. I would be very unhappy if the Gasworks site were to go ahead in the way that it was presented to us, but I wouldn't be as unhappy as I would with the glass mill. Sorry, and I'd say that, obviously we would be doing quite a lot of petitioning on this as well, and certainly that would be the case from a resident's perspective as well, I would say. I think most of us are aware of that. Yes. No, I'm not saying you shouldn't have zedded. Is there anything else that we can add to this discussion? I'll obviously discuss with Democratic Services Officer the wording of our minutes in these three cases. Right. In that case, can I move on to... Now I've lost my place in my papers. The paper 24319, the decisions paper, which I think is a paper to be welcomed. Sorry, I think I need to take the decisions paper first and then I'll come back. So, this is paper 24319. Well, that's what we've been dealing with. Yes, 319. Which is a welcome paper in that decisions have all been in line with the recommendations of this committee. That's the Pean House, Mount Clare campus and Emmanuel School. Can I then move on? Sorry, before we move on from that one, since Mount Clare is there. It's probably not within the normal agenda remit of this committee, but the partner societies had discussions both with the University of Roehampton and with the current, since it seems to be changing hands quite a lot, the current freehold owner of Mount Clare, and they're all at a loss what to do with the place. So, if anybody's got any bright ideas, there's a lot of empty housing sitting there, but it's got a listed building. In fact, it's got two listed buildings to support, which makes it quite a difficult one to deal with, but neither... The university don't need it for student housing, they're clear about that. There is no demand for it at that end of Roehampton. So, anybody's got any ideas, all of you, for replacement or enhancement or enlargement or reuse of the student blocks, which will somehow fund looking after two listed buildings, the second of which the temple has no chance of regenerating an income of its own, they would be very much welcomed. Thank you for letting me intervene on that, Michael. Okay. I know there are at least a couple of items of any other business. I know Councillor Osborne wants to raise one. I do, Michael, but I think it would come better after the other matter of any other business on listings. I'm sorry, I thought you were going to join them together. I am, but I want the officers to go first. Okay. Can you give us an update on local listing, the local listing exercise? Thank you, Chair. So, the local listing public consultation is now live. It's running until the end of February 2025. There was a press release that went out a few weeks ago. There should be something within Brightside as well, and there should have been emails out on Nextdoor. I know that there was a few issues that some members raised in terms of the information on the map. The map's now been updated so that when you hover over the existing locally listed buildings or sites, you have a description of the site with an address. Another point just to pick up, because I know that someone from Bathys Society raised the concern. So, the purpose of the exercise is to follow on from the original exercise that took part in 2017. So, I'm very conscious of the fact that a lot of information was provided to us in 2017. At that time, there were challenges in terms of how we could actually show that information visually on the website. We're looking into that, and that's what forms part of this public consultation. We're utilising the information we got from 2017 and on a borough-wide basis from this public consultation to draw it all together to provide a much more interactive visual representation of locally listed buildings, which will be in a similar way to what we have as a public consultation with Commonplace. So, map-based, where you can hover over the building, you can see images, and there will be updated descriptions of where we are able to gain the information from the public consultation. So, it does form part of a wider exercise that wraps up some of the information that we did get from 2017 that we've not been able to show visually on the council website. Thank you. That's very welcome. I know you've had some correspondence with one of Battersea Society members, and indeed Councillor Osborne has. Can I add to that matter of any other business? A bit of information. So, there is a plan to look at the street signage, both traffic signage and street names in the borough, and to see if we can find enough funding to overhaul both of those during the course, hopefully, of the next year. The funding has to be identified as yet, but we are hopeful that we'll be able to do that. We are conscious that there may well be street signs that need to be repainted or rebuilt or refurbed or something like that in the sort of run-of-the-mill way, street name signs as well as traffic signs and so on, but we are conscious that there may well be a heritage element or a conservation element to the process as well. We don't know quite how many cases that will generate. We're estimating something around maybe 100 instances, maybe a touch more, maybe a touch less, but we could be way out. We know that the listing process is already honed in a little bit on such signs in Battersea, but that's not the case borough-wide, and we'd like the process to be borough-wide. We are hopeful that we will get assistance on focusing on the heritage and conservation aspect of street name signs, for example, from the amenity societies, as you all represent, and so we want to fold into the request for suggestions on the listing process, a request for suggestions on street name signs that the amenity societies may feel are of heritage or conservation significance, so they can be added to the process of the listing, but we can then possibly fold that into the overhaul of street signage and street name signage during the course of next year, so that we've at least got a list to know what it is we need to focus on, and so it's an announcement, but it's also a request to you all as amenity societies to help us out on that, and I will be doing some work with the officer conservation team to make sure that the opportunity on street name signs is promoted at the same time as the request for help on listing in the run-up to next February. Thank you, Councillor Osborne. That's very helpful. Is there going to be some kind of public announcement about this? If the funding can be identified, which I'm very hopeful that it can be, then yes, there will be a public announcement, and in any case, we're going to need that list, whether or not there's money about it or not, just so that we've got the potential to do something, if necessary. So there will have to be some sort of announcement and some sort of publicity in the run-down to February. Thank you. Give me for being a little dull, but are you asking for us to suggest places where a street name sign, which is presently, if you'll forgive me, a kind of a pedestrian standard one, might be better if it was a more distinguished form? No. As I say, most of them are run-of-the-mill, but we think that there will be some which will be of heritage or conservation interest. They might, for example, refer to the old Battersea borough, for example, and we might need to say, well, that one's a bit special. We might want to make sure that that one is definitely painted or that will come into the programme or whatever it is we need to do. Or it might be that they are on special wrought iron legs or something like that that we want to try and take into account. I mean, we've got an open mind on what might make a street name sign special in some way on the heritage or conservation front. We're open to all sorts of suggestions, but I think it's a fair question because it's difficult to know quite how to put it into words what it is we're looking for. But we are adding to the process of simply repainting and redoing the run-of-the-mill street name signs. We're saying that some of them are going to be special in a heritage and conservation way. And we need a bit of help and a bit of advice and some suggested sites that you think we ought to go and have a look at and make sure we better look after. Yes, I was just going to ask that. Obviously, there are a lot of signs that have the Battersea borough on them. And my question was going to be, obviously, we're planning to retain that from a heritage perspective, I would have thought. But certainly, in my own ward in Northcote, we do have a lot of the borough of Battersea. I'm sure they're all over the place. Probably several hundred. I'll just. Mr Cato, you had a bit of an AOB, I think. Oh, right, right, OK. Are there any other AOBs? In which case, I simply have to ask you to note that we meet next on the 28th of January and then 26 March and 6 May. So put those dates in your diaries if they're not already there. And I declare the meeting closed. Thank you. Thank you for your forbearance.