Transcript

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And we have viewing councillors over here on the left and planning officers on the right and public galleries here as well. Now, first issue is to ask everyone if it's okay if I sign the minutes of the last meeting. Councillor Humphries, have you seen them? Is that okay? Sign the minutes. Thank you. Secondly is to ask whether any members have any pecuniary or other personal interests in any of the applications. No interests at all on this occasion. Good. And now, just before we move on to the paper, we have a number of councillors here who are here to give presentations. Can I remind members of the committee in particular, I think once or twice this has slipped a bit recently, that the people giving, representing their constituents are representing their constituents and not planning experts. What you may wish to ask them about what they think of the application, you can do that afterwards in your own time. It's not relevant what they think of the application. They're here to present what their representatives have talked to them about. Let me just make that very clear in the first place. They are here to present their constituents' views, not their own views. I'm not saying they disagree with their constituents, but not their own views of the applications. Now, the first application is, I want to change the order of the agenda very slightly. I take the first item first, which is fair enough, but also take the fifth item, Mayford Road Second, and that's because I think the public gallery are here for one of those two applications. So, first of all, the application at Whitnell Way and ask Ms. Molloy to present it. It's an application for 32 new properties, council development in Putney. Ms. Molloy. Good evening, everyone. Let me just share my screen. The first item, which I'm going to present, is the application at Whitnell Way, the Ashburton Chartfield Estate. Just a quick overview of the proposal. The site is located within Putney. In terms of the estate, we are bounded by Chartfield Avenue, which forms part of the West Putney Conservation Area. The Ashburton South estate is located here, and the Whitnell Way Chartfield Avenue, which is part of the application site, is here where my arrow is. The sites are three sites within the estate. We've got one here, which is known as WT1, WT2, the front of Chartfield Avenue, and then WT3, which is located near the central playground, and that can be seen again here in terms of where the sites are located. Just in terms of context, the estate itself varies between three and five stories in height, so we've got more five-story buildings towards the north of the site, and as we go further south and to the east and west, they become lower, so three and four stories. This just gives an overview, again, of the layout and the footprints of the proposed three sites. And then we move on to WT1, which is located basically on an existing car parking area, and we can again see its location with surrounding properties, Mid-May House, and also Stanhope House and the various other surrounding properties. Here you can see some of the distances, so we've got 28 and a half metres between the properties going down to 17 metres, kind of at an oblique angle. And then again, just to remind ourselves in terms of the proposal and the heights proposed, WT1 is actually the highest point on Whitnell Way, so there is, as you can see from that section, quite a site-level change there, so that's its relationship there. WT2 is again, as I say, at the front of Chartfields Avenue, the conservation area directly butts the site, and again, we can see some of the distances between the existing properties. We've got 14 metres here and then 25 metres, a bit more there, and then 10 and 13 metres to the east. And again, just some images to show the heights there in relation to the existing residents and also Chartfields Avenue there, and some visuals to show the kind of materiality and the kind of scale being proposed. WT3 is located within the centre of the estate and again, is on a kind of car park, hard standing type area. The playground is located and forms quite a central part of the estate. And again, we've got a building here of five storeys and the distances of 16 and a half metres there, going up to 21 metres to Jelly Co House and then Humphrey House at an angle of seven metres. And again, just some visuals, just to note on that one actually, the playground, the existing playground, will be upgraded and slightly increased in size to 25 square metres. And then, as part of the overall estate, there's also additional landscaping proposed across all the estates, so there's additional trees being proposed, some ecological enhancements like bee lawns, seasonal planting, and again, some just further improvements to the existing playground. So just in terms of summary, the application is providing 32 affordable units, all for social rent, with a range of unit sizes. There is a loss of eight trees, including a category A tree and four category B trees, and you'll see in the paper that the arborculturist has raised concern and objection to that, and tree loss is always regrettable on these sites, but we've had to weigh that up against the proposed tree planting across the wider estate and the other benefits which are being put forward. And then in terms of the overall development, it would be sustainable, it would meet the home quality mark, and with good carbon savings, so the officer's recommendation is to approve subject to completion of a legal agreement. Thank you, Ms Molloy. Now, Councillor Austan has written and asked to give a presentation of some of the residents' views. Mr Austan, Councillor Austan. Thank you very much. Sorry, you're away, you have five minutes, aren't you? Yes. Thank you very much, Chairman. You were probably fed up with me coming to talk about planning in West Putney, but I make no apology whatsoever. It is our duty as councillors to represent our residents, but Mr Chairman, I thank you once again for your indulgence. Now we're officially branded as the Listening Council. I'm sure all members, but especially the Labour whip, will want to live up to that billing and allow members to turn down this application. I was elected to serve West Putney and listen to their voices and to fight for what is right, and I can tell you absolute certainty this proposal is not right for our community. What Wandsworth desperately needs is more family homes. 32 new homes being built here, only 27. 27 of them are one and two bedroom apartments. Where are the family homes? We all know that Wandsworth has a severe shortage of larger family homes, yet this development barely provides any. No four bedroom homes, a handful of three bedroom homes, and an overwhelming focus on smaller flats. In short, the mix is wrong. This application threatens to irreversibly damage the character of Whitnell Way. It sacrifices vital green spaces and it negatively impacts the day-to-day lives of residents who have built their homes and families here. They should not be forced into an impossible choice between new housing and the wellbeing of the community. We can and must demand both. The developer here isn't a rapacious, greedy offshore developer. It's far worse than that. It's the council being asked to grant itself permission, and we can and should be held to a higher standard. One of the biggest concerns is the loss of green space and matured trees. This estate was designed with open space in mind, and those green spaces are just not aesthetically pleasing. They are essentially the quality of life. So we are constantly told how important urban greenery is for air quality, biodiversity, mental health, climate resilience. No amount of replacement planting can undo what we lose here. The design of this development is fundamentally flawed. The design review panel itself raised serious concerns about Block WT3, calling it land hungry and destructive. Instead of responding by improving design, the council has made WT2 even taller, further increasing loss of light, privacy and space for existing residents. This is not thoughtful urban planning. It is simply overdevelopment. It prioritises numbers on a spreadsheet over the needs of local people. The parking and transportation situation is another disaster waiting to happen. The estate is already under pressure when it comes to parking, yet this development proposes to remove 35 parking spaces, 10 garages and 35 storage units, replacing them with only 15 new spaces. Their so-called solution is to exclude new residents from obtaining CPZ permits, but we all know what is really going to happen. People will still own cars and will be forced to park elsewhere, putting strain on the surrounding streets. Then there is the impact on existing residents. The developers in their reports tell us that the loss of daylight and privacy is acceptable. But for whom? In Mildmay House some windows will lose up to 46% of daylight. In Jellico House some will see a light reduction of up to 41%. How can we call that acceptable? We are not talking about minor inconveniences. We are talking about fundamental changes to how people live. A bright, comfortable home will become darker and more enclosed, forcing residents to rely more on artificial lighting, increasing their energy costs and affecting their wellbeing. Only three of the 32 units meet the required outdoor space standards. The excuse? The larger balconies would block light to the lower units. Instead of designing smarter, they are cutting corners, leaving future residents without adequate private outdoor space. Families need balconies. Older residents need acceptable places to sit outside. We all know that communal open space does not replace the need for personal outdoor areas. So let's be clear about what this development really offers. Less green space, more parking stress, darker homes, less privacy, a housing mix that does not meet the real needs, and in return we get a handful of new affordable homes, many of which are not suitable for the families that need them the most. This is not a fair deal. Neither I nor the residents here are anti-development. To call them such is a smear rather than to listen. And we should not be forced to choose between more homes and a liveable community where we can have both. I urge the committee to listen to residents who live here, who know the estate better than anyone. I urge them to reject this flawed, poorly designed proposal and demand something better. We deserve housing that meets the real needs, development that respects the character of our estate, and the future that enhances and diminishes our community. This is what I will fight for. You've had your five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Austin, I don't think I've ever said things like this normally. I think most people would say I'm a reasonably fair chair. That just completely ignored what I said before. It was a lot of your personal opinion, highly political. I'm sure very few of the members of the public mentioned to you that the chief was a member of the committee, or mentioned anything about wanting to be a listening council or anything of that kind. That was highly political. You've got one more opportunity, if you want to do a presentation in front of me, of doing it. But only if you keep to what you're asked to do. You don't even go through the process of saying, the residents have asked me to say, it was your personal view, and that limits very much the questions I'm going to allow people to ask. Because it was so much, I don't want to do this, it was really not my style, as I think most members of the opposition will know. But that was so political, I just have to say that. Now, there's an opportunity of members to ask questions of Councillor Austin in the presentation, that relate to the application and residents' view of it. Sorry, Councillor Givindja, I beg your pardon. Thank you, it's Councillor Givindja, Member for East Putney Ward. You mentioned, Councillor Austin, you mentioned the tenure mix, in the sense you mentioned the lack of three and four bedroom house. In your interaction with local residents, how many cases have you come across where people on the estate say they would like to downsize? And how many cases have you come across from the interaction with residents on the estate who want a three and a four, and possibly even larger flats? Thank you very much, Councillor. As I think most wards in the borough, especially wards like mine with large amounts of social housing, overcrowding is one of our biggest issues. At the last count, which I have to say was in January that I got this out, not February, there were 178 people in West Putney looking for larger homes and there were 18 people looking on the current downsizing register. So there is a significant disproportion between those wanting to upsize and those wanting to downsize. Any other queries? Okay, questions of the officers about the application? There must be plenty, I would think. Any, Councillor of India again? Thank you. I used to pursue the area of parking, really. So the application reduces the amount of parking. The application report also says that the parking survey suggested that there is not enormous parking pressure. I get that. But what I want to understand is how much of the estate is covered by housing's own parking scheme, and how much of the estate is affected by Council-run CPZ. And so what will the relationship be between residents of the estate, old and new, being able to park on the estate and off the estate? I also note that there is not a condition asking for the new development to be park car-free and people being barred from applying for CPZ permits. Thank you, Councillor Gomindia. I'll pass to Mr Tidley on that. But in terms of securing the permits and the CPZ, the actual, not the housing permits, but the CPZ, that's within the unilateral undertaking, the legal agreement. So that's how that would be secured. Sure. Sorry, I mean, Mr Tidley might want to answer now. Yes, thank you, Chair. David Tidley, the Head of Transport Strategy. So the public highway is, just to give you the names, probably the easiest way to do it. So Chartfield Avenue is public highway. It's part of the control zone. And Westley Avenue is, and the roads that link them, affect the public highway. So Whitnell Way is the estate road managed by the housing colleagues. That's probably the simplest way of putting that. As Ms Malloy has said, the new developments being located in a relative, you know, in a P-4 area would be expected to be car-free in any event. And so the new occupiers of those units would be excluded from parking on the, from CPZ permits, from parking on the public highway. Clearly the management of the estate is the responsibility of the housing colleagues who would, I assume, also seek to exclude them from parking on the estate. The loss, as has been identified, is that the developments themselves result in the removal of 35 parking spaces. So any demand on those spaces could potentially then be displaced onto the street outside. The surveys that were undertaken indicated that that was possible to be accommodated and to be accommodated relatively comfortably. What I normally do in these circumstances is just use my own experience and almost add an even worse case scenario. What if it was double as bad as predicted, if you like? What if the issues were, you know, significantly more problematic than the surveys indicate and the analysis would still suggest it would be perfectly acceptable? And then to use our previous experience that the building on such sites like this in council estates has been, you know, and elsewhere in the borough, has been sort of undertaken quite significantly over the years. That clearly will have a situation where some residents will have rights to park on the estate and in the neighbourhood and some residents will not have the same rights. I recall a similar situation in the development just off Sutherland Grove where this council gave permission and made that development car free or no right to park in CPZ parts of the borough, creating an enormous conflict in the local area. So what is your view about the kind of disparity between some residents' rights and other residents' rights and how easy is it to kind of manage and police at that? It can be problematic as you've implied, Councillor. I think in this case there are a few things that work in the development's favour. One is that the new blocks are clearly identifiable. So it's not a case of, sometimes it's a case of adding flats to, you know, an extra storey, if you like, on an existing flat. And then it's extraordinarily difficult to say flat one can get a permit, flat two can't. But in this case it's more easily to identify the excluded properties. And the second element is it's a council development. So the council has the control over this. And where we've had problems before, they tended to be where private developers have been sort of excluded from the CPZ and then they haven't told the people who have moved in and things like that. So that wouldn't be the case in this particular case. I have a question in another area but I'm happy to come back if people want to pursue parking at the same time. I'll just pursue it very briefly. This is not an original problem in this particular estate and it hasn't happened elsewhere, is it? And the departments have managed it elsewhere perfectly successfully. Yes is the short answer. Councillor Apps. Thank you very much. I know Whitnall Way a little bit so I can picture the blocks within it. I wanted to ask, following consultation with residents, is anybody able to comment on changes that were made to the plans around the playground? And also following feedback from the design review panel, any changes that were made around WT3 block? That is the one that's closest to the playground, isn't it? So that would be good to know. And also in terms of the trees, obviously a lot of trees is always regrettable, deeply regrettable. I'd like some reassurance that where we're looking at planting new trees that we'll be looking at climate resilient and resistant trees to make sure that they endure over the longer term. And then I suppose finally, if I can cover a lot of points rather than coming in lots of times, if that's okay. My other question would be obviously I represent one of the most densely populated wards in the borough, I would say, in Shaftesbury and Queenstown. And we've had quite a lot of new social home developments in Patmore and Gideon Road. So for example in Patmore, how would the scale of development compare to say the scale of development in Patmore in terms of density? Thank you. Thank you. Just in terms of the, this also covers Councillor Austin's point about the changes that have happened over the last few years in terms of the proposal. We've had various pre-apps on this. There's been lots of changes to the scheme following advice from officers but also advice from the design review panel. One of the main blocks that has changed is WT3 which originally was going to totally just basically eradicate the existing playground. And I've got, actually I've got a plan of what it was like at DRP. Just because I know the comment about being land hungry was within the DRP comment but that was the WT3, that's how wide it was originally proposed. So that has really reduced in size and scale and we've now got the retention of the existing playground broadly in its same location and slightly larger. So officers do feel that this particular block has come a long way from the original kind of proposal and view and there's been as I say lots of discussions on that point. In terms of the trees, again we've worked hard with the applicant and also the arbiculturist to see if we can retain as many trees as possible. Unfortunately just where the location of WT3 is there is no other option to retain those trees and I think that's always been something that we've been discussing. So they are looking to, you know, substantial replacement 85 new trees. The other thing to note really is the estate is really green anyway. There's lots of mature trees. So in terms of the impact, again, you know, we understand the concerns but we've had to balance those up with the other benefits of the scheme. In terms of density, the density, to do a calculation, although within the London Plan we don't look at densities anymore but there was the information within the proposal. It's 22 dwellings per hectare and 65 habitable rooms per hectare which is fairly low density and again in comparison to Patmore I have looked at that and it's less than that density on that estate. Molloy you've understated it a little bit I think. You wrote me a letter in the last week I'm sure you can recall, 65 habitable rooms per hectare here. I think it was 500 there or thereabouts in the Patmore but not that I'm in a competition with my colleague here, Councillor Apps, but in Battersea Park there's one rather more dense than that. So Randall Close in Battersea Park, so considerably more dwellings than in this particular case per hectare. I've just found the email, so it's 210 on Patmore, habitable rooms per hectare and 316 habitable rooms on Randall Park. Nonetheless 210 was four times, yes, you're right I got the figures wrong but I've got it at home to prove it. Thank you. Any other? Councillor Colkley. Thank you Chair, Councillor Colkley, St Mary's Ward. Going back to the playground I saw in one of the resident letters of support that they were asking about. Firstly whether the swings in the existing playground are going to be maintained or improved and then also I wanted to ask could we do it so the playground is the first bit that gets developed. So the residents have a notable improvement to their area first before then we start construction on the other parts of it. Would that be at all possible and what could we put a condition in to recommend that? Just on the play space details, I did read that also in the letter from the residents. So condition 8 requires details of the play space so I think we could probably flag that with the applicant about the existing swing and I'm sure they're aware of those comments. In terms of when it can be delivered, I know again we've raised this with the applicant because I know on other sites they are looking to bring forward the play space before. It hasn't been confirmed on this particular site but it's something that we can flag up but in terms of the condition at the moment it's prior to occupation of any of the blocks. Could we maybe put that in as an informative then just to say that it's the will of the Plan and Applications Committee that we'd like to see that happen first to bring some noticeable benefit to the residents? I'm not sure that I approve of your literalness but there's nothing wrong with that I guess. I see Mr Granger laughing a little bit. I'm sure Ms Malloy the first thing she'll do when she gets back to the housing officers will be to say try and make sure you get the play space up as soon as possible. But we can put it in writing as well, no problem. I suppose the difficulty with this site is it's right beside WT3 so in terms of whether there's a health and safety issue there, opening a playground when construction work is going on. So that's why it might not be possible in this case. Thank you. Councillor Galindy again. Oh and sorry, can we take Councillor Humphries first as we go yet? Thank you Chair, don't mind, whichever order you like. Councillor Guy Humphries, Councillor for Southfields in Putney and opposition speaker on this committee. We talked about it a little bit Ms Malloy, there's been changes to WT3 but I was getting slightly mixed up but perhaps you could work it out for me. So in those changes, yes WT3 got shorter but one of the blocks got taller didn't it? Was that WT3, was that WT2 that got taller? So we lost a bit on one but we stuck it back on another one so it was kind of the same really. Yeah we had quite a lot of discussion on the block to Chartfield Avenue which is WT2 and again following design review panel they felt that there could be, because it was at design review panel stage it was about three stories but they felt that given the existing blocks and also that it's on a frontage that it could take a bit more height and then if there was units being lost on WT3 that they could be put into that there without too much of an impact. Yeah thank you that reminded me of what we said. It's ironic isn't it with the DRP that say oh yes you can stick more on there when they don't have to live there themselves but that's a different point. It is true, nobody's actually said that yet but it is contrary to our own local plan LP4 isn't it with two out of the three blocks here at five storeys because it's designated as not a mid-rise zone. So it is a fact indisputably that that's contrary to our own policy already as Councillor Austen is referring to the fact that it's bigger and taller. I think what the residents are mostly concerned about from what I hear from him and what I've heard from myself is the bulk and mass of what they're getting and the imposement on the existing residents are already there so that is unfortunate. You mentioned it briefly in your presentation thank you for that about the level changes and land changes as well and I noticed in one of the slides you put up again I struggle to see the logic in one of the five storey blocks is on the taller part of the estate which makes it even more imposing for the residents in the next block of the existing one there. Do you know what the rationale for that is of putting it on a five storey on the tallest part rather than putting it on the lower part where it might not be so obvious? Just in terms of the existing estate there is already five storey blocks there so as I said there is a level change so that I think is about one and a half metres so it will be higher than the existing. But again going through the design process and the various kind of amendments and variations to the angles and locations of these blocks it was felt that given the distances between those existing blocks and the new proposal and the angle that five storeys could be accommodated there. It will be higher and I don't think within the officer report we shy away from that I think we have said that there will be an impact here. Thank you yes that is helpful and it is true again as Councillor Boston again said every storey you put on top of course has an increasing impact on the loss of daylight and sunlight for the existing residents. That is the reason why I am concerned about the extra height it seems like it is just another storey but that again has a knock on effect relatively pro rata the one storey up you go it does increase the losses to those existing residents again and I am concerned that we are putting new blocks in it always seems to be the expense of existing residents. Councillor Humphries you are not going to ask me to go to the effort of going through all the recordings of the last seven years of this and four of which you were in the chair when you said about heights they were merely guidelines and every application had to be decided in its own merits. In this case one storey I think on many occasions you said that to me when we were in reverse positions it was a lot more than one storey and judges cases had to be judged on their merits I ask you to judge them on their merits. You shall more than have to do that but as you yourself were comparing this to the Patmore and the numbers of density and one and the other it is kind of a quid pro quo isn't it? Okay fair to you. Councillor White and then Councillor Covington. Thank you Councillor White from Tooting Beck Ward. I wanted to ask two questions and the first one is what is the local plan policy LP 24 identified on page 34 4.1 that shows the preferred ten year mix of one and two bedroom homes should be 70 to 80% of a development. What is that based on? I've got another question as well. Sorry could you repeat the paragraph? It's page 34 and 4.1 and it's local planning policy LP 24. Sorry I just couldn't see the reference to 80%. Just in terms of that that would be so we've got the the local plan and as part of that there is a you know a local needs housing assessment that forms part of that and that's also forming an updated versions forming the new local plan review. So that that is there is background to that and data that that assists on that. What I would say in terms of the the housing mix and the tenure this is a mixed tenure estate so there is a range of property sizes across the existing estate. There's five family units proposed here out of the 32 and just for a kind of comparison to curse field which isn't the curse field estate which isn't too far from from here which are now being occupied. That was 41 social rent units and we understand that 16 of those units were people that downsized within the borough and actually not not within the ward but the adjoining ward. So in terms of even if there's not a need for downsizing within the estate itself there is the opportunity for other people to downsize and free up family units kind of more borough wide. That's brilliant yeah sorry that 70 to 80% was based on those two figures being added together so sorry about that. Is it okay if I go on? Second question why did the council need to build council homes? All of the homes on this estate would once have been available to the council to allocate to our homeless and to our waiting lists and the population of London has changed considerably since the estate was built. So I suppose these type of factors would have impacted on the need to build on these estates which you know have large sort of brownfield sorry brownfield in grey areas to build on. Yeah I think just in terms of again going back to council Austin's view on kind of a loss of open space and and things like that the three sites mainly are hard standing in car parking spaces so that's something just to kind of bear in mind. And again the estate is made up pretty much 50 50 by council owned properties and also freeholders so by including sorry leaseholders leaseholders so by increasing that I think the kind of it doesn't tip the balance in terms of you know kind of leaseholders to kind of social. I think it only goes up to 57% from 52% in terms of leaseholders. And once it would have been 100% of social rent. We're getting a bit to council Govindia. Thank you Chairman and this question perhaps Miss Millard or somebody else the petitioners against this development mentioned the issue of Covenant. Now I recognize that land covenants are not a planning matter but the report itself is completely silent on the issue of Covenant. And I wonder whether the report should have at least addressed the point even if it was to dismiss the point because clearly the residents of a part of that estate are very concerned that there will be losing a right which was written into their their leases. So I just wonder whether the report is inadequate in that sense on if somebody knows what the answer is to the Covenant point residents have raised. Mr Moore whether the part of the estate is covered by the Covenant is wholly owned by some foreigner we have never heard of or anything else does not stop the council having the right and ability to put in the planning application is that right? That is correct and council Govindia is obviously correct in saying that it is not a planning consideration. So my view is that the report is not deficient in not ruling out everything that's not a planning consideration. So I didn't pick up on the Covenant issue when I read the report but it's quite often the case that covenants can be cited by objectors to a scheme and summarized in the representations part of the report. But there's not normally much more commentary on that unless it's something that's brought to members attention at the actual committee and then obviously the advice then follows that it's not a matter that members ought to consider when looking at a planning application. My understanding is that the Covenant in this case relates to the previous ownership which when the council acquired the land the land came with the Covenant from the previous owner of the land and the current lease holders are the beneficiaries of that Covenant. I think that's the situation. It was just the fact that that was not addressed in the report which concerned me that residents, 140 odd residents were sufficiently concerned about it to raise it with the council. This is a council's own application, it's a council's own development and the paper does not address it. Well if that's the case then it sounds something that the local councillors, Councillor Austen, Sutter, Ambash should take up with the council in a completely different context. Ask the legal opinion of the relevant officer in the council but it doesn't affect this planning committee one way or another. I did in fact say my contribution. Yeah that's fine, in that case we're in agreement aren't we? I just wondered whether the paper was inadequate in that respect. Councillor Anderson. Thank you, quite a different topic I'm afraid. So I noticed that there was a look at the air source heat pumps that were going to be used for this development and I was interested to know whether or not ground source heat pumps had been considered and ruled out. They can be extremely efficient in open environments like this so I was keen to know whether or not that was one of the options that was looked at. Ms Malloy, any idea? I'll have to look at the sustainability report which normally goes through the options in terms of renewables but I'm assuming they did. But I haven't seen ground source heat pumps on any developments recently actually so air source heat pumps do seem to be the preferred option but I can check. I have personal experience of ground source heat pumps and they can be incredibly effective so they normally wouldn't be possible in a borough like Wandsworth but just on a site such as this they might be so perhaps we've overlooked them. But I'd be interested if we could explore it when possible. Perhaps you should raise it with the Chair of the Housing Committee. I just have actually. I haven't heard anyone move anything against acceptance of this recommendation so I'll count the zones. Thank you. I just want to hear a little bit more if possible about the size of WT3 and its relationship to the block in front because obviously there's been a lot written about and heard quite a bit about the loss of daylight and privacy. But we know that in for example a wild May house some windows would lose up to 46 percent of their daylight and some will see daylight reductions of up to 41 percent Angelico house. So just wanted to hear a bit more about that because we're not talking minor inconveniences we're talking quite fundamental changes. Thank you. Anyone else on the same point? No. Ms Malloy again. Thank you. I'll just share it might be worth sharing the daylight and sunlight just so we can see where the the areas of concern are. So in terms of T3 WT3 we're over here. So in terms of where the the kind of main impacts of upon daylight it's going to be here Angelico house kind of at the ground and first floor of these windows and their bedrooms living rooms in terms of the according to the daylight sunlight. And then in terms of Halford house there's also a row of windows that that go along that flat wall and they are they are bedroom windows. So the daylight sunlight report as I set out in the committee paper has concluded that whilst these would result in some non compliances they still retain an acceptable level for a location such as this. So in terms of the the number of windows I think it's 11 Angelico house and then the the row windows on the flat wall which are most affected. But again we've we've set that out in the officer report based on the daylight and sunlight assessment which has been carried out. And again we have weighed that up against the the the other kind of merits of the scheme. Did did Councillor Justin did you were you putting your hand up. No we weren't. But Councillor still coming back. Yes. Sorry I forgot to say that I'm Councillor Owens but the Northcote ward and just on those models that don't seem to be balconies on. Is that correct. On those buildings just in terms of the existing or the the new buildings have balconies sticking out. I think that's just the angle. So I can. Right. OK. Orientation which shows the balconies which will make it worse in terms of privacy et cetera. But thank you. Just just in terms of the privacy again we've set out the report the distances and again they were found acceptable and not you know not uncommon within locations such as this. Council. Quite recently. It doesn't explain this. I'm sorry. Were there any more any more comments. Right. In that case any no move against. So the recommendations accepted is it. Those in favour. It's one two three four five six. Those against. For. Thank you. Move on. Thank you Mr. Malloy. Move on to. I said before to. Number five which is a potential development of three units on a garage site in Mayford Rose Balam Mayford Road Balam. Who is it. Is it on introducing that or. Yes good evening. I'm Wendy Miller principal. Sorry. Good evening. I'm Wendy Milab principal planner for the East team. I'm trying to share the screen. So this site is garages to the west of 79 Mayford. So it is the site that you can see highlighted in red on the left picture. It is located on off Mayford Road through Mayford Mayford place to the south. It is surrounded by residential properties to the south are the two story terrace properties on Calborne Road to the east the three story properties on. Callum you're disturbing people here. Fairly ladies got a quiet voice. For those in the public gallery who perhaps can't see the few people from the part of the public gallery downstairs who are obviously here for the last item and cause a little bit of noise down here. Not not much. No complaints but just a little bit. Thank you. Thank you Miss Miller. Could you start again. Of course. So this is the garages to the west of 79 Mayford Road. So on the pictures to the left you can see the site highlighted in red. It comprises garages and a food court car park at the front. It is surrounded by residential properties two story story terrace properties to the north on a road three story properties on the east on Mayford Road and two story terrace properties to the south on Calborne Road. It is accessed of via Mayfair Place which also comprises a car park and of Mayford Road. You can see different pictures of the site on view one to four. The application is for the demolition of the garages and the erection of a part one part two story building to provide free new houses. So there is planning history on the site with a previous refusal in 2008 and subsequent appeal dismissed. So this is the proposed ground floor plan of the previous refusal just to have an idea what was there what was proposed and refused before. It was refused because of the impacts on the character and appearance of the area impacts on neighbouring amenities especially loss of outlook and loss of street parking. As part of the current proposal the original proposal was version one which is at the top of the screen and version two which is the revised proposal that is subject to debate tonight. So in terms of difference between the two there is a setback of the ground floor element to the north that is set back from the dotted red line boundary with number 33 and 35 Airdale Road. This is the refused proposed first floor where you can see that the first floor element was extending almost across the entire site. This is current proposal version one and version two where you can see the difference in terms of size of the two proposal with a significant reduction for version two in terms of depth and width and gap between the two first floor elements. So this is the proposed south elevation of the refusal you may be able to see a white block projecting above the boundary walls which represents how deep the first floor was supposed to be in 2008. And as part of the current proposal version one included a pitch-proof form that was very well considered too high by officers in terms of neighbouring impacts. So we are presenting the amended version tonight with version two which now consists of two pop-up first floor extensions that are significantly reduced in size. It's a proposed north elevation of the previous refusal as well with once again the white block that represents the first floor element and the current proposal with the difference in massing that you can see from version one to version two. So there's some aerial view now to the top left with the existing sites and the CGI of what is proposed tonight and at the bottom you have the proposed massing of version one with the dual pitched roof form and the revised version with the two flat roof version of the proposal. So this is an interesting one well view as well proposed south elevation sorry so you can see the two pop-up first floor elements in timber cladding. But you can also see in dotted green line which is the refused scheme and on blue the blue dotted line was the original proposal as part of the application just to illustrate the decrease in mass compared well along the history of the site or the planning history of the site. The planning application is recommended for approval subject to condition. Thank you. Thank you. We have all three ward councils said they wanted to present on this but two of them happened to be away and wrote in and I in a week moment I confess it now just for future reference and a week moment accepted the written but also it could be read out. I have absolutely no reason why I thought that it could be read out by Councillor Humphreys because other people put things in the papers and no reason why there should be an exception mate but I said you could do it so I will stick to my word but I'm not doing it again. Okay. Just so that Councillor for the public's benefit as well as my benefit and his Councillor Humphreys is wearing two hats one representing talking for the ward Councillors so I'm asking him to move place and actually talk for and then he can come back as a member of the committee and talk about the application but he's not talking about the application now he's just talking about as I said before what the public is doing. What the public locally think about it so then after he there will be Councillor Rigby. Thank you chair and on behalf of the ward Councillors other ward Councillors that are able to be here tonight I'm very grateful for the opportunity. I know you just wanted another chance to hear my dull sit tones but if you could all cast your minds back and imagine I've got a cardboard cut out of Councillor Hedges on my face it might make a little bit more sense but this is on behalf of Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton who can't be here tonight. Thank you for the time being given to represent residents of Calborne Road at L Road and Mayford Road who are against planning application number so and so so and so which relates to garages west of 79 Mayfield Road. Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Hedges represent those residents in our capacity as sitting Councillors not withstanding the distress this application has caused those residents of Calborne at L and Mayford who are situated either adjacent or close to garages earmarked for demolition and dwellings erected. Here are a number of points we would like to highlight on the residents behalf. Chair and members of the planning committee we believe the application should be refused on the following grounds.

1. Policy LP 34 of the Wandsworth local plan our own local plan the applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of adequate evidence that there's no reasonable prospect of the site being used for industrial and related uses.
2. Policy LP 2 of the Wandsworth local plan again our own the proposed development will result in an undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity spaces of numbers 60 to 62 Calborne and 52 Calborne and by reason of the proposed buildings height scale massing and sizing would have an overbearing effect impact on the neighbours.
3. Policy LP C2 the proposed development will result in unacceptable levels of overlooking between the first floor windows of house 1 and house 3 due to inadequate separation distances.
4. Policy LP 56 of the local plan the proposed development does not provide adequate justification for the removal of the on-site protected trees.
5. Deliverability of the scheme reference to the site location plan the red line application boundary includes land within it that is in the ownership of 35 Airdale Road. While Certificate B ownership certificates were completed for the planning application records with notice was not served on 35 Airdale Road and therefore the application is considered to be invalid. It appears that the scheme was proposed is not currently deliverable in that it relies on land outside of its ownership to deliver it. As per the judgment within the Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne and Secretary of State for leveling up the deliverability of a scheme can be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application irrelevant to planning merit to the proposal. As such the likely undeliverability of the scheme further indicates as to why the application should be refused. For the above reasons we are asking the committee to refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hedges. Lindsay. Over to Councillor Rigby. I do not need anyone pretending to be me because I have shown up. So thank the committee tonight for reading the numerous objections to this development. Councillor Govindia. Shush I am speaking. Councillor Rigby. Can you leave this to me? Councillor Govindia please refrain. I appreciate that but it is gratuitous to insult councillors who are not present. That is all I was reminding the councillor. You can keep that to yourself or afterwards. Do not interrupt in that way please. Councillor Rigby you can start again. I am going to start again. So thank the committee for reading the numerous objections to this development. I am not going to read out all these objections because we have just heard it and you have read them. What I will say is that this is a very valuable piece of land. Its value can be calculated in terms of the desired profit from development and there has been an attempt before to extract that profit from the land. But for several hundred people it holds a non-monetary value in its role in their environment and what they call home. And your job as members of this committee is to decide if this particular development is the one that should be built on this land. We have heard from a lot of the people who already live here but I actually want to focus on the people that would potentially be living there. Because they are not here right now, they cannot object to it but I think we need to understand what it would be like living in these homes. The plans look okay, they will look okay when they are built and the three families who buy presumably off plan will be pretty happy until they move in. And they realise what exactly they have bought because they are going to experience what it feels like to have spent upwards of a million pound and then be feeling overlooked. To have taller buildings around them with people always looking down on them. And the problem with this development, it is designed to maximise profit. There is nothing in this plan that works for the existing community and we know that schemes built on the premise of pure profit at all costs do not deliver homes that work for the people who end up living in them. The people making this profit will not be here to deal with the aftermath. And what is that? Well I invite you to consider it from the viewpoint of the new community. They will feel overlooked, they will feel squeezed into too small a space and without adequate outside space of their own. This plan is claustrophobic in design, it is claustrophobic for those who are already living here and for those who will live in them. So I say to this committee that this scheme needs to go back to rebalance the need of the owner to profit from their land, the existing community and the future community. This plan has a real problem and this fails to consider the community in any real depth. It has been forced upon the community and it has failed to consider how that community will adapt to living with it but mainly those people in the middle. It just reminds me of an encampment whenever I look at the plan that you are just in tents surrounded by homes. So I ask you to refuse this application on the grounds that it at the moment only benefits the developers while reducing the homes of our long standing residents and providing squeezed housing for future residents. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Rigby. To be absolutely fair to both sides I do think that you, if I may say so, indulge a little bit in being a planning expert yourself which you may be but that is not what you are here for. You are here to represent the residents' views and I doubt whether too many of the residents said some of that. I have to say this just in terms of future presentations from other Councillors as well. They have got to stick to what they are meant to be sticking to nonetheless. Thank you. Any questions of the President? Councillor Boswell. Thank you very much Chair. Councillor Sheila Boswell. Thank you Councillor Rigby for your very passionate presentation and laying out all the problems that you could see there and that might be for future residents and residents that are already living there. I did pop down there this morning to have a look at the site so that I would have a really good idea of what we would be talking about here. So you talked about future residents but could you give me, if you picked one issue that your residents are telling you why this application will impact on them in a negative way, what would it be? Just one. Yeah, so the main one is that this is a small piece of land and it's too small to have three homes pushed into it and it doesn't matter how, the different ways it's being cut up, it's just because you can squeeze three homes in doesn't mean that you should. And it's just not, you can't tell from the plan how close this is going to feel but it's going to feel super close for everybody. Thank you very much. Councillor Ayers and then Councillor White and I think at the moment that's it. I'm Finn Ayers from East Patney Ward. I'm normally in the position of making criticisms on detailed levels and then in the end supporting the scheme for overall reasons. This time it's completely reversed. I will not support this, I will reject this but I think it's incredibly impressive how the planners and the designers have managed to squeeze a pint, a gallon into a pint pot. It looks more like the design for boats, the way you've got very restricted space. It's a very clever scheme but not for this site, it is greedy. I'm very interested that Councillor Wrigley has brought up the point of future residents because that's entirely true. It's the sort of thing that you'd long for push the walls away from you. So although I'm impressed with the work that's been done by the designers and the planners, I will not support this scheme. Thank you. Councillor White. Councillor White. Thank you, I'm presuming the applause wasn't for me to start speaking. You never know. Yes, thanks very much Councillor Rigby and thanks for showing up tonight to support your residents. I was quite interested because, like Councillor Ayers, I think the design is absolutely fantastic for this house. That's not suggesting I'm going to support it, I don't know what I'm going to do yet. But could you tell me what is there currently? Did any residents say that aesthetically, visually, this is a lovely setting that's there now? No, that wouldn't be genuine to say that. It's old garages that wouldn't fit modern cars in. I don't think it's what they're looking at, it's the space. You don't really notice what's there until the space has been filled. I think that's a perfectly valid piece of local knowledge, but don't stray onto getting planning advice from Councillor Rigby. She's not there to give the planning advice. Councillor, give India. Thanks, Chairman. I've got a couple of questions perhaps of officers. Because reading through both the report and a lot of the correspondence, the residents have a bit of a beef with the department. Excuse me for interrupting, Councillor. Are you now genuinely, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be, on to the questioning of the officers, essentially? In which case, any other questions specifically for Councillor Rigby about her presentation? If not, thank you, Councillor Rigby. Thanks for representing your residents. Sorry, Councillor, give India to start again. Thank you. Reading through the correspondence from the local residents, it's very clear that a lot of them are very concerned and have a bit of a bone to pick with the department. That there was no site visit to their homes to have a look at what they see and how their views would be hemmed in by this development. They who feel that they are already in a very tight place know that their place is going to get tighter and they feel let down that the department didn't send anyone to have a look from the rear of their property. So I just want to understand why that was the case. The second thing is that, and that's alluded in Councillor Hedge's comment, that whilst these garages are inadequate for the modern car parking use, that doesn't necessarily make these garages utterly useless for other uses. And in fact, one resident, not immediate neighbour, but who uses those garages has written saying he uses those garages because he doesn't use them for car parking, but he uses for storage. That's exactly what happens with a lot of garages. So has an adequate case been made that these buildings which have a new purpose, because they can't park a car because cars are bigger, has acquired a new purpose and it's a valid new purpose. And that whether there was any engagement with the residents about how their views and a revised purpose for this land could be negotiated to the benefit of all, whether any of that has happened and whether the department knows if any attempt has been made by the applicant to do that. I have one further question on it later on. If I may just muse on that myself, I'm happy for the officers to reply, but in a sense, as you know perfectly well, you've been a member of this committee for so long, the fact that something's being used doesn't stop someone putting in a planning application. Even if it were to be approved, they've got to buy the properties, have the properties and decide how to use it, as I think you know very well. The council didn't actually originally build them for the benefit of storage. Perhaps they should have done, perhaps there wasn't enough storage built at the time. They were built as garages and they're no use as garages. We can't just protect them in any sense, I wouldn't have thought. But have the officers got any comment on the question? Mr Grainger. My name is Nigel Grainger, I'm the East Area Team Manager. Are we responding on the point of the garages first? Well, as Councillor Givin is and originally, yes. Fine. I have them written down. The garages would have to materially change their use and it would be an unauthorised change of use. So there would have to be a situation where there would be a demonstration of ten years continuous use for storage purposes for it to actually turn into a lawful B8 storage unit. These are garages associated with residential properties and the use of residential properties around there. If anything, they, by association, have a Class C3 use which is residential. Or if you wanted to really trawl through the Planning Encyclopedia, you could look at examples of them being a nil use, in fact. So there is no policy premise on their existing use in order to protect them for either industrial or employment purposes, as has been asserted for the Council to assess it under policy LP34. That's just simply not accurate. But the way that the garages have fallen out of use is just yet another indication of the fact that this is a brownfield site. And brownfield sites and the opportunities to redevelop brownfield sites is supported by the London Plan which has a specific policy for small sites in LP7. And our, well, their own D something or other, but which our local plan mirrors in LP7. And obviously the very strong support for the effective use of land within the revised NPPF. So we can go into that later, but certainly there's no case to consider refusing this proposal on the loss of garages in that regard. On the issue or the point about visiting neighbours, myself and my colleague earlier, we totted up roughly about how many properties are surrounding the site. There are a lot. This is a classic backland site. They exist everywhere in any urban borough and there's in excess of over 25 properties. Now that doesn't preclude the fact that offices could go to some of those sites, but the urban grain in that location and the actual conditions are quite similar for the properties fronting the rear and the front and rear of the site. Case officers have been to the site and it's a common principle that if you can make an assessment of the application from the site, then there can be, you know, a scenario where there's no need to visit potentially 25 individual properties. If an adequate assessment can be made, then that's how we make these assessments. It seems to me that 25 is probably an exaggeration. There are six properties on Calborne which have the most egregious impact. The impact on them is the most egregious and there are sort of 62 to 52, I think. It's not 25 you are to visit. Just two would have done. Even one would have done to get the impact. But my question now actually is slightly different. Ms. Miele, in saying that the previous refusal and upheld on appeal was about the impact of the second floor of the then proposed development on the views of properties in Calborne Road. The new plan here then seems to me as I see it, smack in that area where the impact is the greatest. So it is the Calborne Road property. I think if I'm right in my reading of the plan is that the 62 to 60 Calborne Road will have a bit of the pop-up behind their window. And similarly, it will be 52 Calborne will have the second pop-up. So in a sense, the four properties have a great impact of this pop-up obstructing their view and making them feel hemmed in. Has that been considered in coming to the approval recommendation? Yes, in detail in the Amenity section and the distances and separation distances in terms of outlook have been gone into and those distances have been calculated for both Airdale and Calborne. And we have arrived at the conclusion that as officers that those separation distances are adequate. Sorry Chairman, I mean it wasn't adequate last time which is why it was refused. Now it is adequate because less properties are impacted than last time. Is that really the reason? This proposal is incomparable to the refuse scheme. The refuse scheme had mass that stretched through the entire linear area of the site at first floor level. This occupies in a clever way the ground floor to have no impact at ground floor level with two very distinct and very separate elements of pop-up. And that is just vastly, vastly different from the refuse scheme by the council which was upheld, dismissed at appeal. Clearly it is a judgement of yours rather than that of the residents that you are defending here. Well, it is a planning judgement based on planning rules. Certainly some residents will be affected by almost any application or any development. Some residents will be affected more than others and we can understand residents' reactivity. Well, I think Mr Green just clearly made the point which is right in fact. The last time the pop-up was across the whole site and so affected lots of properties. Now the pop-up is in two places and affects less fewer properties and because it affects fewer properties it is now okay. I don't think that is true at all. I think wherever you are, even if it, I understand what you are saying obviously, but if the site is more open in a general way even those most affected will get some benefit from the change. There is no question. Whether it is sufficient is a matter of our collective judgement. Councillor Kelkley. Thank you chair. I would say that I agree with Gamsahat of India on this point about visiting the residents because while I don't doubt that the officer's judgement is still sound without visiting the properties, I think it is good for giving a reassurance to the residents regardless of whether they have managed to come to that conclusion in a way that I am sure is just as accurate. I think it would be good if that is also considered in the form of like we are still seeing their concerns and listening to them even though we could have found the judgement another way. That is just a comment to reflect on. Secondly, I did see some resident claims about how the landlord was not allowing residents to access the garages. And you said earlier about how getting rid of the use of the garages is not a valid planning consideration. So I was wondering if you could have a comment on that and whether if the landlord hasn't adequately proven that the garages aren't all in use and still needed, is it still valid for the application? And then finally, a reflection on Councillor Rigby's point about how it seems like the main resident was trying to cram in the three units in that very tight space. And was there attempts in the engagement stage with the applicant, were there any conversations about could you possibly reduce it to two units or just try and reduce slightly the sort of overlooking and the massing. So that is one statement and two sort of questions. I am trying to get a very clear distinction. Can we delete Councillor Rigby's comment from that because actually Councillor Ayres made the same point. So you can say what Councillor Ayres said rather than a view from a representative who is not strictly able to give his planning advice. Can I just make that clear at a very pedantic level, but I am trying to distinguish between these two features. And also there is a lot of talk here about ownership. Are we talking about one single ownership and one single ownership, full stop? Yeah, from what I understand, from the developer in the planning application form serving only one certificate B on an occupier not in the London Borough of Wandsworth, then the developer is essentially has fee simple the entire title on the site for the purposes of development. So there is no issue in that regard. Back to the point about the garages, I mean it is obvious that the dilapidated state of the garages over decades has from certainly since the last attempt to obtain permission in 2008. And the condition that hasn't been synthesized over the years, but it's a developer, it's a brownfield site, it's an opportunity to provide homes of which the central government sets targets for. We don't actually have a policy to improve garages for private cars. We are all about private car restraint. So the fact that they are going and providing homes of which there is a government target for surely in planning terms it's a very logical step. The provision of the three units, this has been gone through at pre-application stage and you can see that officers gave advice at the time in terms of ensuring that the first floor element should have the least impact on the surrounding occupiers as possible. As submitted officers reviewed that and were of the view that even as submitted after the pre-app advice that the developer, the applicant hadn't listened to how strong officers view on keeping those impacts to the minimum as possible. Therefore officers sought to have the first floor element amended and a significant 17.9 meter gap in between these two pop-up elements. These are pop-up elements. The refuse scheme from 2008 had a first floor. That was just a first floor. There was no pop-up about it. These two individual elements do just insert themselves above the ground floor. So in that regard that reduced the number of bedrooms for I believe two of the units and we are where we are with the proposal, the description of development and that's before the committee tonight. Just before I take Councillor Humphries followed by Councillor Boswell and I saw on the other hand somewhere, just before I do, can I point out that if we get to a vote, and I can see that we might well do so, I'll need some reasons put down that we're voting on for refusal if that's what people want to vote for. Councillor Humphries. Chair, there's always one step slightly ahead of me on that. I was going to say I think there's a degree of discontent with the committee with what's before us, despite Mr Granger's admirable attempt to justify this scheme, which although it is undoubtedly much better than the previous incarnation, I still think personally that the impact on those particular residents, where the pop-ups are, which if you look at the map on page 109, the plan, ironically where the pop-ups are is where those gardens are the shortest. So the impact on them is even worse perhaps than, and I think whether it's imposing on ten residents or one resident, it's too much in my opinion on this particular development and I think I would like to move that we refuse this scheme and I think the two strongest grounds are the ones I said before in Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton's summary, which is on items two and three, which is the proposed development will result in undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity spaces of numbers 60 to 62 and number 52. The proposed development will result in an unacceptable level of overlooking between the first four windows of house one and house three due to inadequate separation distances, but I think the fact of the undue sense of overbearing on those specific houses is enough to make this not acceptable to the committee, so I'd like to move that please. You said that very quickly and I doubt whether the committee clerk had time, so if you can write it down and pass it or something whilst we carry on the discussion. So just in terms of your first point, the amenity impact on, we can look at that in more detail and maybe that will come out a little bit more on the discussions. I think in terms of the second, the impact on the development itself within, can we just clarify the distance between those and whether we would normally allow that sort of level? Is that something, Mr. Granger? Yes, so this is between two clear glazed windows, there is a separation distance of 17.9 metres. Now, between existing and development and new developments, there is a rule of thumb of 18 metres that has historically evolved or yards I would imagine back in the day. But that is for a relationship between an existing occupier and a new proposal. This is a distance between two new occupiers at 17.9 metres, 100 millimetres away from meeting a rule of thumb that is for an existing relationship. We have approved blocks in redevelopment sites that have been 14, 15 metres away in new scenarios that don't meet 18 metres. So I strongly urge members not to use potentially reason three that the future occupiers might overlook each other. Thank you, Mr. Granger, that's helpful. If we're talking about specific details, on page 123, a specific difference between the refused scheme and the proposed scheme. On the refused scheme, the distance from Airedale Road is 1.9 metres on the refused scheme. On the current proposed scheme, it's 2.1 metres distance, which is 20 centimetres. So if we're talking about minor details, the difference between one scheme and the other one, I think 20 centimetres, which in my old money is 8 inches, is not making a significant difference between the refused scheme and the existing scheme. I'm getting a little bit lost in that, frankly, but 17.9 metres to my amateur rating is not far off the distance between me and the public gallery in that kind of order. We all know lots of people who live much closer than that. So I think you ought to at least consider what the officers are saying about the strength of the second part of your two reasons. So do you need it? Because it might weaken it. I don't need you to think about that, and there are other people I had down to speak. I did move something though, Chair. I know you did. I know you did. I will ask for a seconder. I'm sure there will be a seconder, so I was going to go on anyway. Councillor Givens has seconded it. Councillor Boswell, there's other people seconded it as well. Am I asking a question or are we now moving? Sorry to interrupt, but the reason I came back to Councillor Humphries at this point was to see whether it was going to be second on both those reasons or just the first one, which I think is the stronger one. Sorry, then Councillor Boswell. So now I can ask my question. Thank you very much, Councillor Boswell, Tooting Beck Ward. I think I've said that. And again, I went down and had a good look around this site this afternoon, and I note that our report here to committee is littered with the word constrained, that it's a constrained site, that this is a constrained position. And what really concerned me was looking at the property furthest along, how would you evacuate if there was an explosion or a fire at that end? There is no exit. There's no way to get out other than through the adjoining properties or where the fire or an obstruction could be. I do note that on page 130 it has met the fire safety regulation, but I would like to hear a little bit more about that. Any comments on that? As part of the London plan policy, the applicant has to submit a fire statement to support the application. And this is done by professionals. And yeah, the muster points and the way that fire tenders could potentially enter the site and the opportunities to gain water within the site have all been considered. And we as officers find that arrangement for now to be acceptable. That would be subject to additional scrutiny by building control officers or under the building regulations regime, I should say, whether it would be our own colleagues or whether it would be an approved inspector. But certainly in the first instance, a strategy to deal with emergencies and first responders has been put into place that appears acceptable. But there's a far more complex additional layer in the building regulations to go through if this were to be approved. Thank you very much, Mr. Grainger. I know I think there was something in the objections from the residents that the actual fire hoses wouldn't be able to reach to that farthest along property. So I was concerned, but thank you. Councillor Apps. Yeah, firstly, I think it's really important as it happens, I've got quite a settled view, but it's really important that we have a chance to after what I've heard so far. But it's really important we have a chance to ask our questions and see if we can support it. So my question is really around 2.13, where the officers said that it's a contribution to the council's small site target, 414 homes, which I accept. But it does seem like a small contribution in balance with the impact of the actual proposal. I mean, I was looking at some of the distances. So from the ground floor, it says it moves from 2.1 metres from the previous plan, as I understand it, and I want to check I understood this properly, to 0.9 metres or 3.8 metres to the south, which is those homes that are particularly 52 to 62, some of those homes would be affected by that. I think it's the middle section that would be particularly close. I do think that the garages are not a great, you know, local amenity, I accept that. But there is a possibility of having a smaller scale development, which would be, given that this is a back garden style, sort of backyard style development, it does seem very impactful rather than an on-street development where perhaps you could deal with that level of density with less impact on neighbours and their privacy and the sense of overlooking. So I think that's my chief area of concern. So anything the officers could say to reassure me on those points would be useful. But I did hear Councillor Humphries thinking through some possible objections that I'm interested to support. I'm not sure the officers could say, well, you could just have one house at the end and that would reduce the number and it would also reduce the number of housing units gained. But I'm not sure you've got anything more substantial. You may be able to say that more elegantly than me, but can you say anything more substantial than that? Well, I'd start with the trotting out the standard line that we're here to assess and to resolve to make a resolution on the scheme in front of us tonight and not redesign it. That's the first point to start from. But the proposal, I mean, we've been asked through a planning process to make, as officers, to make an assessment on a set of proposals. As originally submitted, we thought that the first law element was too wide. It was extended in a linear manner for too long into the site and replicated the impacts of the first refusal too much. And the amendments that have been sought have greatly reduced all of that. It's improved the scheme to such a point where, as officers, we feel that it's in a position where we can recommend it for approval. I would ask a few members on the committee to cast their mind back to give an illustration of another backland site at Crossland Place. And if you recall, it's off Lavender Hill. And that was for nine units and identical issues, constrained. And it was initially refused. That was done under delegated authority. But that came back to the committee and the same challenges were repeated and examined. And that eventually was refused. These backland sites, they do exist. It's not uncommon in a location like this. That scheme actually won a 20 in 2023 in our IBA national award, just as a buy. But yes, the built envelope as we see it is acceptable. Sorry, I didn't actually catch it. But if you said slightly off the point, I would understand that comment. So, I mean, thank you, Mr. Granger, for that interesting departure. I was going to say something. I'll say my bit in a minute. Councillor White. Thanks. Can I ask a question first and then go on to a point? Would that be okay? Go on. Yeah. Okay. So the question would be on page 110, where they've got a picture of the new design, if we can think that the old design is still there. We've got a picture there of the back space of the houses on Airedale Road, I think. Is that a coal room? Yeah. So opposite there is Airedale. Then it's not in picture. And I presume the windows there, you're able to peer into the windows opposite. If you're standing in a window on Airedale, you can look into the window of Calvin. At which level? Ground or first? First. First. You couldn't because all of those windows would be obscure glazed. So anything at first floor level apart from the windows that look back at each other, they're clear glazed. Everything else would be obscure glazed and fixed shut to 1.7 metres above finished floor level. Okay. So what windows then would be able to look into the new development? There wouldn't be. Okay. That's interesting. Can I ask – can I make – oh, sorry, yes. Yeah, sorry. So I think that's one point. The second point is, I mean, we need houses in urban areas having to squeeze homes into where we can. And if we're going to do that, then let's put in things that are aesthetically pleasing. And I think this has been achieved. I've been to this planning committee for a while and I've seen some, right, diabolical things sort of squeezed into areas, but this isn't. I think the design is excellent to look at and it's very inventive and it's bending into the area. And it's a big improvement on the garages, that's for sure, that have outlived their purposes. I think the environmental impacts of the new houses, I mean, achieving passive house accreditation, green roofs, solar panels, heat pumps and fabric first has a lot to commend it. I think they've gone a long way to use this space in probably the best way possible. And I think if we reject this, I think what are we going to – okay, I don't understand. Well, funnily enough, Councillor White, I was going to say something not dissimilar. You would have said it better, you should have told me. Sorry? You would have said it better, you should have told me. No, not at all. Not at all. I was going to say that the people objecting to it as the be careful what you wish for, as follows as a consequence is what I'm going to say. But, you know, who knows what that would be anyway. Was there anyone else who – and we've had a pretty good whack at this, I think everyone knows where they stand. Is anyone – right, Councillor Humphries, do you want to come back with your amended – what is it saying now? Thank you, Chair. It's pretty much the wording that we've got in point two of Councillor Hedges' and Councillor Hamilton's statement, which is the proposed development will result in an undue sense of enclosure onto the private amenity spaces of numbers 60 to 62 Calborne and 52 Calborne. Just for information, that's where the pop-ups are. And by reason of the proposed buildings' height, scale, massing and siting would have an overbearing impact on the neighbours. Okay. I mean, I wasn't with it, but – Well, it's quite specific about the pop-up bits being the problem. It was a single story. Mr Calder's helpfully given me these late paper that perhaps you've all got. It's essentially the same as on the late paper, page four. Ballinwood, Councillor Hedges and Hamilton, it's essentially their comment in number two. That's it, isn't it, essentially? Yeah. Okay. Right. And that was seconded by several people of whom, Councillor Cavinda – now we've honed it down to that point. We're ready to take a vote. Right. Those in favour of the refusal on the grounds as moved by Councillor Humphries. Those in favour of that refusal. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Those against. Three. So, it's refused on the basis I've read out and everyone's heard it before. And thank you for that and I'm sure the public gallery know what's happened, clearly. We're moving on to other things now, so please leave as quietly as possible. Do you want to have a break for five minutes while they go? Actually, perhaps we should have a quick break, a couple of minutes. Five minutes, I hope this has been suggested. Okay, five minutes it is. Okay, are we ready for the off? I think we've dealt with the most contentious, I think, so someone surprise me and spend a long time on item number two, 45 Lyford Road, which is a small development of the back of a terrace, back of Lyford Road, one unit. Anyone got anything to say about it? It's agreed, agreed. Chair, Chair, please. Oh, Councillor White, go on. Please, we've got until half past ten, haven't we? Not on this committee, Councillor White. This committee, we've got until whenever we like. Great. Okay. Yeah, just a few points I wanted to make about it. One, I don't understand why a new development would have metal windows, metal windows. Two, I know this is high up, so flooding probably isn't a problem up there, but, you know, with another basement, I mean, would it be causing problems further down the road? Because I live further down the road, you see, so a little bit of self-interest there. And not sure what is proposed for sustainability in the heating and electricity, that's not mentioned, and is what is gained, you know, sort of worth demolition and the loss of carbon thereof. And then, yeah, not too happy that this just about escapes before our SPD goes through the affordable homes precepts, but that's something obviously we can't do much about. Thank you. I'm Ellen Richards. I'm the team leader for the west area. I think your first question was about the lack of windows. Is that what you said? The metal windows, I mean, they're putting in metal windows. Metal windows. Well, it's a modern design, contemporary design building, and there's no objection to that being the case, just because it's not a pastiche of any of the existing surrounding buildings. So, overall, the design is considered acceptable. It's in a flood zone, one area, so there is no flooding issues here. Even though there is a basement, there is sufficient green garden space remaining around it. There really wouldn't be any implications as far as flooding or surface flooding in this location. And I think the conditions are recommended in terms of the water usage and the carbon reduction for the new dwelling, and that's the policy requirement for development of this nature. Okay. Billy, don't have to specify what the heating and electricity is. Okay. Councillor Owens. Councillor Owens. Sorry. Just picking up on the metal windows point, I live not far from this property as well. Obviously, there are several buildings, Routh Road and those houses on Routh Road back onto the common. And, obviously, Routh Road is an extension, is a road that crosses Trinity Road, and obviously those houses there back onto the common, sort of facing the bridge over the common. And, interestingly, quite a few of them in very recent times have had their windows replaced with metal windows, and they face directly onto the main section of ones with common, which you can see as you walk over the bridge, which occasionally residents complain in the Northcott Ward about as their visitor. But just on the metal windows, it's not uncommon to see them in that section of ones with common. Okay. Agreed? Yes. Agreed. For the next item, 157 Forbes Brook Road, which people will have seen the images in the paper. Everyone happy with that? Any comments? Councillor Colle. This is probably a very dated argument about viability, but I don't see how losing six affordable units is only worth £950,000 if they were actually building a unit. Each of those units would probably be worth at least £350,000 to £400,000 each. So, again, it just seems like a big loss, and we're not really getting compensated for it, and I don't like the idea of encouraging this. And, yeah, just sort of more of a statement that officers are free to come in on that and sort of say why that is an acceptable calculated amount. It just seems like quite a big gap. You said it was a comment. I'd say it's a comment, too. I very much regret the fact we sold off so much land to developers, and we could have done, this not being one of them, I don't think, we could have developed on, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it in this particular instance, is there? Planning Officer's got any comment? Mr Granger always has a comment. Mr Granger, I'm told you always have a comment. Well, thank you. I think it's nice to inform the elected members. It's in the paper. The applicant calculated the payment in lieu initially is £552,000, and through Officer's work over a significant period of time have got that up to £950,000, so there was, you know, almost a doubling of the payment in lieu, but these shared ownership units, they do hold a value, but the applicant has a chartered surveyor acting for them in viability matters, and we also have chartered surveyors. We have two sets of chartered surveyors available to us now. We use our external viability consultants, BPS Stalking, who are chartered viability surveyors, and we have Royal Institute Chartered RIC surveyors in-house as well now to actually work with them and push BPS Stalking as and when necessary to challenge their inputs and their various modelling of how they do the viability, and there has to be a consensus agreed at some point, and the maximum reasonable value in monetary terms that's been arrived at is £950,000, and that's basically been agreed between three groups of surveyors, so it's had a significant degree of scrutiny. Councillor Wright. And I guess if we wanted to take those, the Council wants to take those six homes and offer them as social rent homes, there would be, again, a financial issue around that. I mean, was that examined at all? It's the first thing I did, so as part of this process, it's very much staged. The first thing to do is explore whether the Council wants to take on the units. They are shared ownership, so for a start, to convert them into social rent would be at additional cost. They are pepper potted, the six units, as approved around the development of 29 units, so they're not in a logical own foyer location within the units. Some are on the ground at first, they're duplexed. Some are on the second floor. They're all over the place. That raises just ineffective financial viability management arrangements in terms of just the service charges, so we declined to show any interest in obtaining these units. Then we go through the process of making the developer come up with enough documentary evidence that's convincing, that demonstrates the case that they've gone out to registered providers and explained to them what the proposal is, where they are, and do they want to take them up, our nine preferred providers that we use, and then other providers. That took a year, and we've got all of our information, and then we go on to the last part, which effectively is getting into the nuts and bolts of how much money that translates to, so sequence. That's great, fantastic explanation. Okay, thank you. Is that agreed then? 193197 Upper Tooting Road, fourth item on the agenda. People have seen the images of that, and this is the one I was referring to last. I can muddle the two up. I'm sorry about that. This one, any objection to this application? Agreed, agreed. We've dealt with the next one. That's the garages at Mayford Road. On to the next, which is 18 Holly's Way, or even Temperley Road, perhaps, depending how you look at it. Small extension, any objections, any comments? Sorry? Oh, you have indeed. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. I beg your pardon. Go on. No. You have to go outside to do this one. Right. Speaking on behalf of? Councillor Hedges and Councillor Hamilton. I've got the right one. Notwithstanding the distress this application has caused residents of Holly's Way who are situated either adjacent or close to 18 Holly's Way, here are a number of points we'd like to highlight on residents' behalf. One, access to light. The proposal would completely block the outlook from windows of number 14 and number 16 Holly's Way, and one window 18 partially. Because the blank wall is east facing, it will appear dark and looming, with the sun behind it for the majority of the day. The overhang of the first floor extension to the south increases the loss of outlook further. Two, differing aspects and uses of rooms. The application for 18 Holly's Way is completely different to one Holly's Way extension, which is the one at the other end of the wing. The equivalent to windows of 13 Holly's Way are for home offices, which are used all day and are west by southwest facing, enjoying plenty of direct sunshine from midday onwards. The 18 Holly's Way extension would be a major loss of light issue, replicating the number one Holly's Way design dating back from 10 years ago and from a differently orientated site. It is not a reasonable design solution which would degrade the Holly's Way development. Number three, inaccuracies in the assessment and material information missed. The report misuses the fact that a similar extension was approved in 2014 at number one Holly's Way to justify the new application at number 18 Holly's Way, which aims to replicate number one. Whilst the new 18 Holly's Way application may look similar, it has very different impacts on neighbouring flats and it is made in a different policy context. It should be considered independently without being influenced by the 2014 approval. It would block the outlook of primary habitable rooms, home offices and living spaces in neighbouring flats. The 2014 application was approved because it impacted secondary rooms in the nearby flats, where light and outlook is less important in bathrooms and bedrooms. Since the 2014 approval, the new local plan has been adopted, which specifically references outlook as a residential amenity consideration. The application's daylight and sunlight assessment is inaccurate and fails to capture the amount of harm the extension will cause. The test for sunlight impact claims that flat 13 will retain 100% of its annual and winter sunlight hours. However, residents confirmed the proposed extension would block at least 90 minutes of direct sunlight each day. In addition, the daylight distribution test covers only two rooms, where the affected windows are sources of daylight for a much larger area of the flat. For these reasons, we're asking the committee to refuse this application. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hedges and Dan Walton. Right. Councillor White. I just wanted to ask the chair, is that the last time you're going to allow someone to speak? I meant that this last time, yes. Right. Officers, any comment about what's been said so far? All of those questions have been answered within the, all of our officers' responses are for you, starting on page three of the late items, continuing to pages four and five. If you want to hear my voice, I can read it. I think I can say that I haven't had the time to take in those details. Okay, let me, since I've got the mic on, shall I just run you through the, those five, four, five. Well, what I was going to say is have other members. Are other members okay about it? Sorry, I didn't hear. I wouldn't mind if he runs through the thing because it was in the late items rather than the bulk of the report. Well, these are specific responses to those questions that are actually in the report. I will continue. I am confused and that's not a good thing from my point of view. Do you want responses from the officers? The officers say they've been covered in these late items. Do you want to talk about the late, let's just assume for a moment we haven't taken them all in. Could you just talk about them briefly? Certainly. So the outlook impacts point one. They've been assessed within paragraph 2.4 to 2.6 of the report. The separation distance, so this is the application site. It's an existing single story part. You can call it, it is a bungalow. But it's got a flat roof. It doesn't have a pitched roof. It's a flat roofed single story bungalow. And the proposal, as you well illustrated with the images in the committee report, is to have one far side of this bungalow with an additional story. And the separation distance of that is 7.2 metres opposite the main four story bulk of the estate of Holly's Way. And we regard, it mirrors a similar relationship that was approved at number one Holly's Way. However, well within that context I must point out that it's been asserted that the 2023 local plan has just introduced outlook as a new consideration within the local plan. That's just not true. Outlook, the three main principles of amenity tests in terms of privacy, outlook and reduction of through a sense of enclosure and daylight sunlight is a thread through plans for decades and decades. So it's certainly not a new issue. And those issues were tested back when number one was approved. But officers regard that this separation distance given the context of it being one additional story and the openness of the rest of the estate with no other obstacles due to the grounds is an acceptable arrangement. The proposed, the assessment of the proposal in point two hasn't differed in the manner in which that the impacts, I should say, hasn't differed with Holly's Way for the reasons I explained earlier. There's been some issue raised about how the existing occupiers of the blocks use their rooms, whether they're office, home offices or bedrooms or living rooms. The fact remains is that the assessment for the previous approval and this assessment, we've regarded as as all the windows, especially facing this new proposal as habitable. So they get they've they get the highest degree of protection in terms of amenity, unlike windows to stairwells or WCs and share rooms. And we've assessed it in those terms. On point three, it's been asserted that we officers have automatically said, well, one Holly's Way has been approved, therefore this is OK. It's far from that simplistic. It's a fundamental planning principle that each application from which permission is judged on its own merits. We've applied that principle on this occasion and we've assessed it on its own merits in in a degree of isolation. But what we can't do is be completely ignorant of the fact that there is a physical building that mirrors this proposal that exists and has an impact. We've taken that as a material consideration. We've been we haven't used that as an overwhelming consideration, but we've used that overall in the planning balance and achieve the balance based on the merits of this proposal. In the context of the approved proposal that this would be acceptable. And finally, the assertion by the residents that 19 minutes of direct sunlight would be lost each day. This hasn't been corroborated by a daylight sunlight study using guidance and their methodologies and formulas. Whereas the study produced by the applicant has used guidance, methodology and formulas. And therefore, we have to rely on the data provided by the actual report. Thank you. It seems OK to me. Does anyone want to give reasons to object? Councillor Apps doesn't want to do that, but she wants to say something anyway. I want to ask a question and it might be a bit of a daft question, so I hope not. But I was very interested that the applicants basically questioned the validity of the BRE assessment. Have there been cases where the BRE assessment has been incorrectly administered? It's a very good question, but the way that BRE guidance and the way daylight sunlight assessments are done, professional practitioners use the same formula. It's mathematical. It's more physics, mathsy kind of stuff, if you will. And the whole concept of these strange phrases like vertical sky component, which is where light hits on any vertical plane and then this daylight distribution, it's all done to the same formula. So technically, if they're all using the same formula, then they should all arrive at the same conclusions, which is why if you've sat on the committee for as many years as some other members have, you won't see another daylight sunlight engineer challenging a value of a report. They'll challenge the methodology, but not the value. So, no. It's unlike viability, where one surveyor can go, that house is worth a million quid and another surveyor says, no, it's 800,000. So it differs from that. Okay. Right. I take it it's accepted. Move on to the last application, Aldebrook Road. And this is a change from an application agreed by inspectors and not us, I think. Agreed? Councillor White. Yeah, I think it may be a little bit too late as well, because this is just an alteration to an original planning that has been accepted. But I notice that we're talking about gas boilers in the context of renewable energy in the last comment on page 164. And it just seems remarkable that we're allowing through a gas boiler. And while earlier in the evening we've rejected a property with excellent sustainable energy credentials, is it too late to stop these gas boilers being acceptable energy providers at the property? In short, it's very too late. This is a government inspector has imposed that condition. It's the final assessment of the process. So we have no opportunity to change that, to do so with the ultra-virus. So is it agreed? I agreed. Now, thank you, those officers involved in the applications. We move on to the enforcement papers and introduce our friend here to talk about Mr Raybould, to talk about the enforcements, beginning with the one at 54 Clapham Common Northside. I'm not saying necessarily that you need to talk about any of these. Has anyone got any problems with agreeing the enforcement action on 54 Clapham Common? Councillor Humphries. It's not a good question, if I may, because I'm assuming a big part of the objective is because it's solid wood cladding. We see a lot of those kind of developments where it's so plate glass and that would be fine. I'm just wondering if that's the key difference on this one. Yeah, absolutely correct, Councillor. And there's actually, we have approved a glazed terrace a bit from the dam that was set back. It reduces its visual impact. This one is built of cedar wood, built on the roof, kind of not very sympathetic to the building or the conservation area. OK, so the enforcement agreed. Number two, difficulty turning over the page, number two was Tooting High Street. Is that the exciting one? Yes, we're all really excited about that one. Have you been personally and visited it, Mr Raybould? I have, it was very exciting indeed, I must say. Have there actually been objections from many neighbours? Yes, actually the noise team received 13 complaints about the venue operating late in the evening. And as you can see, it's an extension of the large openable roof next to adjoining residential properties. So it hasn't been able to be resolved by the noise team and then it's facilitated by this development. So we're recommending service of an enforcement notice. I'm confident that would be agreed. Agreed? Agreed. And that one is agreed and then there's Sisters Avenue. Is that one equally agreed? Did you say shocking? Some of those, yes. Oh, right, OK, that's interesting that it... It's working all the same. OK, OK, agreed. Thank you, Mr Raybould, you've had a long evening for that. Sorry I couldn't test you further than that. We move on to the... Oh, what have we got next? Decisions paper. Ah, I think Councillor White had a question on that, didn't you? Yeah, I did. I find it really, really surprising that on page 209, number 7, the Brockford Bank Health Centre comes up on this. It's something obviously... Sorry, I got the wrong... It's the next paper, isn't it? Then that's the next paper, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, that's right. The decisions paper is accepted for information, is it? Yep. Moving on to the investigation files, back to Councillor White. I find it very... No. OK, so number 7, Brockford Bank Health Centre appears on here and is in breach of planning permission. And I've... That's correct, isn't it? So, there's alleging a breach of planning control? There was. Does an officer respond to this? Sorry, say again? Yep, I believe it's in the resolved list, so it was a breach and it's been resolved by officers. Oh, it's been resolved. OK, fine. Right, OK. So, otherwise, is that paper noted? And closed appeals noted. Thank you very much and good evening. Thank you.