Transcript

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the April meeting of the Planning Applications Committee. My name is Tony Belton. I'm a councillor for Battersea Park Ward in Battersea, surprisingly. And I will ask other councillors to introduce themselves when they first speak. I think introducing them all in a rush at the beginning probably not very helpful. So when they first speak. I got one apology. Councillor Coakley, apologies. Councillor Govindia is here, I guess. Okay. Have you seen, Councillor Humphries, can I hear you? I'm calling you Guy. Have you seen the minutes? You happy with the minutes? You happy with the minutes? I'm happy that I signed them as a correct record. Okay. A gentleman made a complaint today related to item four on the agenda. Sorry, five on the agenda, Skeena Hill. Through a mistake made by the town hall, frankly. He didn't get notice of this meeting this evening until this morning. And he is affected as he's the next door neighbour. He knew it. He had known about it before, but he didn't know it was going to be considered this evening. And in fairness, he didn't have the chance to lobby his councillors or whatever he might or might not want to do. And he asked to defer the application. I think, to be fair to our residents, that it's just that we should defer it. So I ask the committee, do they accept that it's deferred to the next committee? Right. So whoever it is, you're free to go and campaign, lobby your local councillor, as much as you wish, in the next month. Now, I'm going to take it in the order on the agenda. Ah, I'm being reminded by my helpful clerk. Actually, I should forget, even more forgetful. I don't ask councillors to introduce themselves right at the beginning, but I do ask the people on the top table to introduce themselves. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. My name is Nick Calder. I'm the Head of Development Management. Good evening. My name is Duncan Moores. I'm the External Legal Advisor. Good evening, everybody. Callum Warren and Democratic Services and Clark to the committee. Who has just reminded me that I also should ask for anyone with declarations of interest in tonight's proceedings. Anyone with particular declarations of interest, financial or otherwise? Councillor White. I'm just trying to think back through the papers, and I don't think it is opposite, but I'll just say that I'm a member of the community of Renewable Energy Wandsworth, and we do have dealings with the council, but I don't draw any financial benefit. I don't think it's on the agenda at all. No, I don't think it is. No, but thank you anyway. Now, I was going on to item one, which is, I imagine, what many people are here for, the application for Glass Millers Building. Can I just introduce it by saying that I don't think, in my experience, I've ever had so many comments and, if you like, criticisms of the consultation procedures. Much of the consultation is done by the applicants, and that's a standard across the country in all sorts of places. And a number of people have made a comment about that. Can I just say, public, that we do not, as committee members, consider the consultation to be a referendum. Thank you, Councillor Gavindia, for giving me that word, a referendum on the applications. We make a judgment on the applications as they stand, and many of us, personally, probably all of us, have been involved in collecting signatures on petitions in our time and considering them. So, be reassured that we will consider the petitions in a true manner and recognise that there are two sides of almost every coin, and that's all there is to it. We will listen to the debate and the discussion and the advice from the officers and take into account the consultation, but only take into account, and decide accordingly. Just thought I wanted to make that remark. Now, Councillor Sir Jules is a ward councillor for the Next Dawn ward. It's my ward as well, so I should have five minutes too, but we'll make up for that in the discussion and debate. So, Councillor Sir Jules and also Councillor Colquely and Councillor Lee have written in a piece that I'm going to ask the clerk to read as well. So, you've got two and a half minutes, half of five, to give us your view, Councillor Sir Jules. Perfect, and thank you for letting me speak tonight. I know it's not normal practice, since I don't actually sit in the ward, but as you know, the glass mill will have a huge impact on residents of St Mary's, which I represent, and beyond. And I've also been asked by residents in Ballasty Park Ward to speak on their behalf tonight. As you'd be all aware, there's been unprecedented public opposition to this scheme. There's been over almost 2,000 people submitted objections on the planning website. Over 5,000 signed a petition organised by a local campaigner, Robert Gibbon. On the latest count, over 600 people signed the petition that I organised. The proposals go against so many of the council's local plan policies, as well as the London plan policy and the NPPF. It would make a total mockery of the council's policies if you vote for this application and go against an officer's recommendation to refuse. Height, scale and massing are clearly big issues with this project, but it goes beyond that. The glass mill is quite simply the wrong building for the wrong site. Battersea's local heritage is at risk. The tower would dominate the skyline. The GLA noted that the proposal would result in harm to heritage assets, including Albert Bridge, Battersea Bridge, Battersea Park, and a number of conversation areas, both in Battersea and Chelsea. There are also concerns about potential structural damage to Battersea Bridge, a grade 2 listed asset as a result of the construction process. Residents have also expressed significant concerns of the loss of daylight and sunlight on neighbouring properties, as well as overshadowing and privacy concerns. I would also argue there's insufficient public realm improvements. The improvements to the Thames Path are minimal and lack ambition. Partly, this is a reflection. It's a very constrained site, and the building fills up most of the available footprint. Given it's a small site with significant and unresolved access constraints, there's likely to be significant disruption to the local community doing building works from construction traffic in an area which is already heavily congested and where there have been fatal road accidents in recent years. The planning application is significantly lacking in its construction management plan, with few details on how the building works will actually be managed on this constrained site. I would assume that, in principle, most of us in this room support the idea of building more affordable housing. I think it should be noted that the housing proposed here for social rent is stated to be subject to viability. There's no guarantee that the level of affordable housing will actually be provided, and there's no indication that a registered provider has actually been identified to purchase it. Residents have also raised concerns about the financial viability of the scheme. I think as taxpayers, it's something we should all care about. I can't have been the only one left scratching my head when it was announced that the initial scheme would be reduced in height by five storeys, whilst the affordable housing share was going up from 35% to 50%. Some residents have done the math and came to the conclusion that the scheme could only be viable if there were significant Mayor of London grants believed to be around $170,000 per affordable unit. I think it's also worth noting that drawings indicate that half of the units for social rent will be single aspect, i.e. having windows only on one side because of the constraints of the site. I will conclude by saying that my biggest challenge when preparing my remarks for tonight's planning committee was trying to condense the vast range of objections raised by residents and other interested parties. I've only been able to cover a few in my remarks, but I know that as members of the PAC, you will all have received ahead of tonight's meeting extensive and well-thought-out communications from various residents groups. I hope you've read those in details and understand that residents' concerns go beyond just height. I urge you to follow the advice of council officers and to recognise the scale of public opposition to this project and refuse consent for this planning application. The glass rule is quite simply the wrong building for the wrong site. Thank you, councillor. As always, I've been very generous all the time, but don't worry about that. I will now ask the clerk to read the objection, well, sorry, the comments from councillor Lee and councillor Coakley. Thank you, Chair. Dear Chair and members of the committee, I want to make sure the concerns of people in St Mary's Ward are clearly heard, particularly those raised by the Friends of Battersea Riverside as well as the Battersea Society, residents of Morgan's Walk and many others from across our community in St Mary's and Battersea Park wards. I fully back residents' views and officers' recommendation to refuse this planning application, but beyond simply turning down this proposal, our residents think it's important to send a loud and clear message to developers, schemes like this that ignore the local character and put profit ahead of improvements to the local area and people's well-being just aren't welcome here in Battersea. This is a very different application to the gas holders application that was recently approved by a committee. The gas holders application was in an abandoned, decontaminated site and had no nearby residential properties, so had no amenity impact on residents. For this application, the officers are right about the building being far too tall and out of scale under policy D9 of the London plan. The truth is, a massive 29-storey tower here would cause real harm, not just locally, but also to the historic views from Battersea Park, the Thames Embankment and Battersea Square Conservation Area. That clearly breaches local plan policy LP3, which is there to protect our neighbourhood's character and heritage. Losing up to 70% daylight for nearby residents isn't just a minor inconvenience, it's devastating for people's quality of life and their health. This clearly breaches our local plan policies LP2, LP15 and LP27. Our community deserves homes that they can live in comfortably, not spaces overshadowed by towering developments. Residents have also made clear their concerns about flooding and climate impacts that the Environment Agency have also raised when it comes to managing flood risk, which is another potential breach of the National Planning Policy Framework and ones with own local plan policy LP12 as well as London plan policy SI12. Finally, it has been noted that many of the letters for support that have recently appeared on the planning portal don't seem to reflect what's been heard from residents in St. Mary's Ward. Many responses appear heavily guided or scripted, repeating phrases like active frontage or building net zero that most residents just wouldn't naturally use. Other comments are also off-topic or unrealistic. I'd strongly urge the committee to approach these letters of support with a healthy dose of scepticism and caution. We urge you tonight to refuse this application decisively. We will always support social housing, but our residents are going to be the ones that live through the impact of this development and its construction. For this to be worth it, the overall good from the application needs to justify the harm and, in this case, it falls well short. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll hear the officers' comments on the application and it's a very large application, so it's... Did they have any questions for Councillor? I beg your pardon. I am doing badly tonight, aren't I? Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for our... You can't hardly ask questions of Councillor Lee and Colkey, but do you have any questions? Councillor Owens. Just a question for Councillor Dillard-Jol, if that's all right. Thank you for your excellent summary of the objections. And obviously we've seen on the portal the extensive number of letters of support, items of support, but I was just wondering what would be an acceptable level of height for your residents? Because last time in committee, it may not be one for Councillor Dillard-Jol, but last time in committee we did discuss it and I wondered if it was something that you'd come across in talking to residents. Well, can we clarify that? Has any residents said... I don't think we can ask Councillor Dillard-Jol to make up a view about what they might think. So has any residents said what might be acceptable? I have been in touch with residents, to the friends of Ballasty Riverside, who have been campaigning heavily against this, and did ask them the question because I noticed the question was asked at the last committee meeting, so I wanted to be prepared if it came up again this time. And the answer I got was, well, if you look at sort of the nearby buildings, they're all around a ten-storey high, and that would be more commensurate with the local area from that perspective. Thank you. Any other questions? No. OK, thank you. Oh, Councillor Humphreys, and Councillor White, was that as well? Yeah, Councillor Humphreys. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Guy Humphreys, opposition speaker on this committee and a councillor for Southfield in Putney. Councillor Dillard-Jol, sure, thank you for your comments. I just wanted to, Councillor Beltsman referred to it earlier, but there's been a lot of discussion, one or another, about the level of consultation, how that consultation's been impacting the decision we're going to make tonight. As Councillor Beltsman said, we're not swayed by numbers, it's not a numbers game, and it's not a referendum. But can you give us an indication from what you've spoken to residents, how they feel somewhat misled by that consultation, how that's impacted on their feelings about the proposal, perhaps? I think a number of people feel like the consultation may not, the documents may not have been presented in the most honest manner, in the clearest manner. I think there's concerns in terms of how the letters of support were actually gathered. I think you all got some, you've got an excellent analysis put together by the Friends of Battersea-Riverside showing some doubt in terms of those letters of support, looked heavily guided, scripted, and don't tally with my experience on the doorstep of speaking to local residents where there's a near objection to that scheme. So yes, I think the answer to your question is there is a feeling that the other side hasn't played fair and square in terms of how they approach to communications with local residents. Councillor White. Yes, thank you very much Councillor Sejour. Sorry. Oh, sorry, my name's, sorry, my name isn't Councillor Sejour. My name's Councillor White and I represent Tuttenbeck Ward. So yeah, I was just wondering that a lot of the positive comments and obviously you've spoken about that some of them might not have been from people, but was there any sense that you got from the people that you spoke to that there was a feeling of, because this is 50% social rent home, so did you get any feeling that people were hostile to the social rent homes? No, I don't think that is the objection that people have to this scheme. And actually someone was telling me, look, if you look at the Sower Lane estate, there's some new social housing going there. Someone was saying, well, that's a nice block. Why do we not put that instead of this massive tower block? I think the vast majority of people I spoke to had no objections with social housing per se at all. And coming back to your earlier comments, my understanding in terms of how those letters of support were received is the question was asked, do you support affordable housing? Was that given the context of the actual scheme? And that's why they got so many letters, because in principle, most people would agree that we need more affordable housing. Thank you. So that was questions. OK, thank you. Now, Mr. Granger, you're going to give us your recommendations. Good evening. Thank you, Chair. My name is Nigel Granger, and I will run you through some slides illustrating the scheme. It's always a bit slow to start, if you just bear with me. I think that's a bit better. I have to move you over there. I can't see that. That looks OK to me. He's trying to get rid of us. Sorry, I'm having a bit of difficulty with moving the... The side panel. ...pages. Yeah. Excuse us while we have a... Do apologize. Check. We haven't got anyone young enough. It's just a slow-ing way move. We haven't got any 10-year-olds to sort it out. Multi-talented, and many, many thanks. Not that you're a 10-year-old, but... Thank you. Again, my name is Nigel Granger. I manage the East Area team, and this is item one, pages 5 to 132. It's the glass mills at Wombatisee Bridge Road. Just a refresher of the actual proposal itself. Excuse me. It's the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a part 10-storey, part 28-storey building with ground floor and basement levels comprising residential use, office use, community use, a restaurant and associated car parking, cycle parking, public realm improvements, landscaping and other associated works. Key components of this proposal, it's not all of the facets of the proposal, but key components are 110 residential units, 56 private cell units within the 29-storey tower, 54 affordable units within the 10-storey shoulder block as social rent, 535 square metres of affordable workspace, that's over the first floor, 274 square metres of community facility, which is free of rental fee and service charge, that's over three levels on the southern aspects of the proposal, and 189 square metres of the restaurant facing the River Thames, Thames path and adjoining public realm improvements, private and communal amenity spaces, gym facilities for both private and social rent tenures, and 63% CO2 saving over the 2021 building regulations. So most of us all know where we are, but it's always important to start off with a site's curtilage plan, a red line plan. This is the glass mill we will be familiar with it, it's part five, part six-storey building, and this is a close-up view of the building itself, and you can see that it tracks along Bass Sea Bridge Road, and this is the access down to the Thames path. Thames, Thames Walk apartments are just there, and Albion Riverside is in the background, and they're obviously features of the local setting. This is just more of a close-up of the very narrow and difficult-to-navigate, rather steep access path with all of its changes in levels and railings and various steps, and then going into access areas to get you back up to Bass Sea Bridge Road. This is more of a contextual slide, showing the existing building, Bass Sea, the Albion Riverside is to the left, and the Wagens Walk states to the right, so over on the, with Bass Sea Bridge Road in the centre of the slide, and an opposite view, looking back to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This is the southern aspect. This is an important slide because it, excuse me, illustrates the fall in land, which is a feature that not only did the existing glass mill building have to actually deal with, but also the proposed building has to deal with as well. And this area here, my cursor is over, this is the area that the committee report refers to as the space that was the applicant tried to obtain in order to be able to expand into that area, but unfortunately that was not achievable. This is an expanded view of that aspect. It's important, this view, because it shows the context of the Royal College of Art Dyson building and Heaster Road. It also shows the L shape as the committee report talks about of 6 Easter Road with the apartments there along with the elevation that continues further into the site, but I'll develop that in terms of aerial footage in a moment. So this is an aerial shot, more of a contextual one to show the Albion Riverside and the application site and the RCA campus over here and Morgan's Wharf to the right. A little bit blurry this one, but I was just trying to illustrate what the overarching sort of pattern of development was in terms of heights and the dominance of the Albion Riverside within the locality. This slide is important because it begins to illustrate the relationships with the application site's neighbour. So you can see that Thames Walk Apartments here, there are windows within this rear elevation, all serving bedrooms bar one, which I believe is a study, and you can see that 6 Easter Road has the separation distance in order to create, because this block here doesn't look directly over the development, whereas this area of 6 Easter Road was set back in order to be a good neighbour to the application site with its amenity space there, but all the deck access with stairs is all lined up along that area and forms a significant barrier to natural daylights to those rear-facing windows. This slide shows the opposite side of the view with the Albion Riverside and the importance of the elevation of 6 Easter Road, which is more important, where the living accommodation is a lot of the living kitchen diners, which is completely free of any obstacles, and was obviously a principal elevation that was given much more importance than the elevation facing the application site. Moving on to some plans and sections. This is a true basement term for illustrative purposes, because the basement begins to change from being not a basement to being exposed for want of a better way of describing, but as far as this level is concerned, this is all subterranean. This, and I should have said, the river would be to the left of the slide and inland is to the right of the slide. This area here to the riverside, that again is subterranean, but the change in level allows this part of the service road off Easter Road to be effectively ground level. This side facing Battersea Bridge Road is still at basement level, but I hope to be able to illustrate and make that more clear with a section drawing later on. But the servicing and access to the car parking area and circulation stairwells and office cycle cores, et cetera, that's all on that rear elevation there facing 6 East Road. This elevation now to the north, that becomes a story above lower ground, so it's effectively, if you look at it, it would look like first floor. But on the other side of the building, this is now at grade, so this is where all of the access to the restaurants is. this area is finally above ground, and this is where there are access to stair cores and lobbies, back office areas, and that's for the private sale, and this is the lobby to the social rent, and this is the entrance to the community facility. The community facility is over lower ground, ground and first. The mezzanine floor is just above, but this is the main access to the residential accommodation. And this is a true first floor, so this is where the affordable workspace would be located across this area, and you can see where all the stair cores are located. And the last floor of the community facility with the lift. This is a typical layout of the tower element and the shoulder element combined for the residential component. And this is a slide showing the level that accesses the amenity space for the social rent with an indoor amenity space and a gymnasium located in that level. It's over the 10th storey, so it's accessed from floor 11, and this is a residential unit. And then this is a typical layout of the proposed 29-storey tower. So this section, to try and explain it further, there were those two levels of subterranean plant that I was describing earlier, and then the level changes all the way down to the south side opposite, the RCA there, where the community facility reads as three stories. But the restaurant is effectively at a story higher, but the slope of the land is going down like that. And this, you can see in section, where Battersea Bridge Road is effectively a story or it's at a higher level than the service road off Heaster Road at the back, which is why you get those changes in elevations where one's, you know, completely dead because it's subterranean, and then one's actually, the other side, is showing accesses. And this is, again, the stacking of the community facility. This is the proposed landscaping plan. This remodels the existing very difficult to navigate scenario with much more flowing gradients. And you can see that this area is going to be levelled and graded for sitting out purposes. And these white rectangles here, that is effectively the outline of the building that overseils this particular floor, the ground floor, and there is a sheltered colonnade going along this route here, which tracks Battersea Bridge Road. And this is the landscaping plan for the amenity space above the shoulder building. So moving on to heritage and urban design. The heritage, townscape, and visual impact assessment that's required to be supported to demonstrate the impacts of this proposal on all the assets within the location. The first step is obviously to identify all of these assets. And this is a very, this is casting a very wide net. It includes buildings as far, far out as the Royal Hospital. But a closer examination of heritage assets can begin to identify the Westbridge Road conservation area here, Battersea Park, and the Battersea Park, which are the listed element here in the conservation area, the Thameside conservation area, and Cheney conservation area over here in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Along with, obviously, listed buildings such as the listed Bussey Bridge. The five assessment areas that would experience middle levels of less than substantial harm in officers' view have been identified as the Albert Bridge, which is grade two-star listed, Battersea Bridge, which is grade two listed, Battersea Park, grade two listed, which is a grade two listed, registered park and garden, and the associated Battersea Park conservation area, and there are listed buildings within that area as well. The Westbridge Road conservation area and the grade two listed buildings within that area, and the Thames conservation area in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In terms of tall buildings, policy context, policy LP4, the tall and mid-rise buildings policy, this site, which is this rectangle here, is located in a mid-rise zone, which is recommended not to exceed, or required not to exceed, six stories. The code there, MBB202, that just relates back to the urban design study that informed the policy through the inquiry process, but they are actually appended to the local plan itself. For further context, the tall building zones that have been referred to in the committee report are to the east and to the west, and both of these zones have been identified for appropriate height levels between seven to 12 stories that have excluded the application sites. So we're moving on to the accurate visual representations, the AVRs, with a map that show, or tells us, where these views have actually been taken from, which is important, so we can actually locate these positions without guessing, but we're also in a position to be to try and influence where these particular views are taken from at submission stage. So this is by Cadogan Pier, and Albert Bridge is in the foreground, and this is the existing scenario. And this is the proposed scenario. So this is one of the main heritage assets that have been identified to experience a middle level of harm due to the structural elements of the Albert Bridge, which gives its special architectural and historic interest. This is a view looking straight back towards the application site with a listed Battersea Bridge to the right. Again, it's a heritage asset that's been assessed to experience a middle range of harm. And this is the proposal, which obviously exerts impact on that heritage asset. And this is a view looking back towards the River Thames with the recently completed Royal College of Art building to the right. The heritage, sorry, the conservation area does actually encompass this particular, the immediate location. that doesn't obviously go down all the way to the river base, but the proposal obviously would have an impact on that heritage asset. And this, if our back is directly towards, directly to the West Bridge conservation area, the proposal would be visible from that location. And further afield, this is a view taken from Cremorne Road. Sorry, I had to remember that. And you can see the application sites, well, you can mainly see the Albion Riverside, but the application site is located in that location there where my cursor is. And that is the impact of the proposal. This is mainly the Thames conservation area that tracks all the way along this embankment. And I think this may be one of the final slides further away. I mean, I didn't want to show all just close-up angles, but further away, Battersea Park is obviously to the left, but the proposal would be visible from longer views and in certain areas within Battersea Park itself. So, summary of the heritage balance within Chapter 16. This is a summary. I mean, a lot of this is covered in the committee report, but this is just basically to refresh members and make sure that we all understand what policy footing we're on for deliberation purposes. Within Chapter 16, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environments of the MPPF, Para 212 states, when considering the impacts of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss, or less than substantial harm to its significance. We can clarify those degrees of harm as and when it's required. Para 215 of the MPPF states, where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. And in terms of public benefits, the historic environment category of the PPG, the Planning Policy Guidance, advises in paragraph 020 that public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social, or environmental objectives, as described in the NPPF paragraph 8. Public benefits should flow from the proposed developments. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. And the economic, social, and environmental objectives have been described in full in the Planning Balance Conclusion section of the committee report. So the weight given to the proposed benefits by officers, as stated, but to refresh, we regard the 110 residential self-contained units as a moderate public benefit, the 54 residential self-contained units as affordable housing, 50% overall at social rent levels with wheelchair accessible units as a significant public benefit, the community facility at a peppercorn rent in perpetuity with no service charge as a great benefit, and the affordable office workspace at 80% of prevailing market rates for 30 years are moderate benefits in the public realm, landscaping and remodel Thames Path access as a moderate benefit. So, to conclude all of that in line with what we have to do as officers in terms of balancing the harm as Para 215 states, it's officers' opinion that the public benefits as identified work together suitably to produce a cumulative impact that addresses the lower middle levels of harm identified within the PAC report. The nature of the public benefits which would have produced a mixed-use scheme that would have addressed the three strands of sustainable development as described by the NPPF, notwithstanding the urban design impacts, are considered to sufficiently flow in scope and kind to balance the harm to the identified heritage assets. In this respect, a balanced degree of compliance with the NPPF and policy LP3 of the Wandsworth local plan is considered by officers to have been demonstrated. Moving on to the summary of the urban design and tall buildings impacts. Again, it's very important to stress the policy picture which has recently been updated and changed with more emphasis in the NPPF in December of last year. So within Chapter 11, Making Effective Use of Land of the NPPF, Para 125C states, planning policies and decisions, and this will echo from last month's meeting, should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, proposals for which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land. Given the above planning policy context, in arriving at the recommendation, officers have carefully applied the requirements of the NPPF which seek to achieve sustainable development and have balanced the benefits along with the disbenefits of the proposal against these overarching objectives. To this end, the material weight that the individual components of the proposal are considered to achieve are required to be balanced against the harm identified above. officers have assessed the impacts of the proposal against London and local plan policy objectives and have identified significant harm. The impact of such a tall 29-storey tower on the spatial character of the location, which is predominantly six storeys with the closest somewhat anomalous building being the 11-storey Albion Riverside has not, in officers' opinion, been justified. Officers have concluded a detailed assessment against policy objectives within table two further up within the committee report within the design section and have identified conflict resulting in significant harm against a number of specified objectives. So, in terms of paragraph 125c and significant harm, officers acknowledge that this planning balance has become closer in terms of identifying significant harm to be able to resist any given planning application. Officers have provided a clear and justified assessment based on the considerable degree of weight policy LP4 of the Wandsworth Local Plan possesses as to why there is no justification to engage the weight that paragraph 125c places on the council to approve this proposal that has been demonstrated to cause significant harm. The proposal does not lie within a zone designated for tall buildings with an allocation set as mid-rise at a maximum of six storeys, at a proposed height of 29 storeys, the assessment within the design section and table two of the PAC report indicates to officers that the scope for putting aside the objectives of the London Plan Policy D9 and Local Plan Policies PM9 and LP4 is at a significantly high bar. The harm identified is at such odds with these policy objectives that are contained within a young local plan adopted in 2023. It is within this context that officers cannot regard the material considerations listed above as so significant they enable officers other than any other approach and engaging the primary planning law position of section 38 bracket 6 of the planning I'm sorry, the PCPA in making this decision in accordance with the 2023 local plan. That's the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act I should say, sorry. So, to conclude, as members will be aware, officers have arrived at the conclusion that harm has been identified and the application be refused subject to referral at stage two to the JLA. The proposal, to recap, by reason of an excessive heightened scale with an established local spatial character that is predominantly low-rise whilst also being located within a low-rise policy zone would represent an unacceptable and incongruous transformative change within the location that would significantly harm the spatial character of the same location. The significant harm identified has not been outweighed by material considerations that indicate otherwise. and then we go back to repeating the same policies D9 of the London plan, PM9 and LP4 of Wandsworth's local plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Granger. I want to, I think, perhaps start the discussion by just challenging one thing that occurs to me and I'll certainly open it to everyone else in just a minute but just to get the debate and start it. I think many locals would say regardless of whether the buildings in another place might be attractive or regardless of all those issues, regardless of whether it's ecologically sound, as it is right here, what it would do to the transport and traffic implications are horrendous. I mean, I'm not saying that for myself, I just know that's a view that many would share. Could I ask Mr. Tidley to give a view, Mr. Tidley, who will introduce himself in a moment, give a view about how the road system could handle by either the construction or the actuality of a building being there? Thank you, Chair. David Tidley, the Head of Transport Strategy. I think there are probably two things to deal with here. One would be the transport implications of the development and then the other issue is how development might be constructed. So taking the first one first, clearly the current usage as an office premises generates travel and the assessment that's been made is to compare that with what the proposed development would generate. And that assessment in our view results in an increase in the numbers of trips that would be made but not an increase that would sort of materially impact on the local highway or public transport network. This is a development that is primarily has a low car parking with it. It's principally a residential-led mixed-use development and most of the journeys would be by public transport and by sustainable travel modes. As part of the application as well, the application has been referred to Transport for London who are the Strategic Transport Authority for London of course plus they also have responsibility for the immediate road of Battersea Bridge Road and Battersea Bridge and they've also indicated they have no objections on transport and highway grounds. Also I suppose one other thing that has come up in previous meetings there has been discussions about servicing and deliveries and deliveroos and that sort of more fluid activity that we get now in areas and this development does provide some ground floor circulation and auxiliary space it does provide a degree of parking space that does provide that sort of level of flexibility that would in our view allow the development to proceed in transport and highway terms. I think also having looked at quite a lot of the comments that there are fewer concerns in relative terms anyway fewer concerns about the long term traffic and transport issues of the development and that there is a greater level of concern about the construction methodology and how this development would be built. Just to start with clearly at the moment Battersea Bridge Road is a red route it is intended for the movement of high volume strategic transport and heavy goods vehicles there is currently no restriction on the numbers of vehicles that could drive up and down the road and in fact Battersea Bridge as well carries hundreds of buses a day over it so again on those grounds and following discussions with transport for London we have no particular reason to assume that a development could not be constructed near the highway here or that the highway would provide any particular constraints and in fact there are tall buildings that have been located in quite constrained sites next to roads and rivers and bridges elsewhere. That said there would quite clearly be a need for a condition on the application for a construction management plan that would be required prior to various stages of any development should members approve the application. There were also quite a lot of other regulations that would come into play that are related or outside the planning system so for example the construction design and management regulations highway regulations and highway restrictions and permissions that would be needed everything from parking suspensions to hoarding licenses to cranes abnormal load movements environmental regulations and even things during construction so rules about building at height and things like that all those that really dealt with in another place although again we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't be physically possible to build a construction here and again there would also need to be appropriate structural testing of the river walk and the bridges as might be required by a highway authority or by transport for London at the appropriate time so I think with that I'll finish Councillor Thank you Mr. Tiddley Now members the issues are fairly clearly described I think any particular comments anyone councillor Ayers I'd like to thank Nigel Granger for his Could you just say Sorry I'm Fina Ayers I'm Labour councillor for East Putney and I'm thanking Nigel for his long and carefully worded presentation I think the problem with this is that it's not just too big it's not just too tall it's so enormous it's almost a joke this I can hardly believe it's a serious application when you showed those very clever photographs it was the narrow view you showed always of the tower in fact it's quite a big footprint I mean it's if you look at it from the other angle it would be even more imposing on those photographs be even more dominant and I'm particularly concerned that the shoulder building which is a sort of architectural game where you step down from a tall building to a lower building this so-called lower building is not ten stories high it's nearer to twelve from the south end with the level falling like that and that shoulder is presumably where all the local the social rent goes and on level four there are six flats with only single aspect and only four with dual aspects and presumably that's the case of all of those ten floors which is really not acceptable use of a form of housing I'm also concerned that the public housing promised is as pointed out by Councillor de la Chazelle that it's not definite that we'd get it all if any because it's subject to viability is there anything in the conditions which limit the occupation of the market flats compared with the finishing of the council flats as we discussed in the previous submission here but really I'm also concerned that there's so little public realm left if you look at the size of the footprint on the size of the site it's really just tiny little borders that are left there's no expansive space on the river that is quite tight that space once you consider the changes of levels on that space between the building and the river it's tight it's all ramps and steps and not generous at all so I am totally against this building and there's no minor changes that could be made to it to make it acceptable to me thank you councillor govindia thank you councillor govindia east butney ward councillor mr granger a couple of questions about what you've just presented and thank you very much for that on the construction management plan and there's very little about it in the paper given the conclusions of your report but did the applicant offer the use of river for construction works and if not would it be something that you and your team would bear in mind when subsequent applications for this site comes because given the building the site is right at the head of the bridge creates a real challenge of how that construction is serviced and managed and extensive use of the river might be the right way of trying to get over that problem so that's one point the other is about the community space which I notice on three levels which is quite for a community organization sometimes managing three level spaces is quite difficult so I don't know whether they had an occupier in mind and whether that occupier was content with the way that internal space could be managed because it did seem to me that they're doing it because they have to do it and they're doing it in the most grudging of ways and providing something that ticks the box but doesn't necessarily make it a wholesome workable community space and third probably a confirmation as far as I'm aware six Hester Road is social housing managed by Peabody if I'm right and is that the case because I thought that was the block which was probably most grossly impacted in terms of loss of outlook and sunlight daylight to answer your last question first yes it was the affordable block for the Albion Riverside the community space the report is a little bit cumbersome I'm afraid but there were three expressions I'm going to have to thumb through this but I do know at the same time that there were three expressions of interest obtained by the applicant in terms of potential occupiers for the community space one of which was the Catherine Lowe settlement and two others escaped me for the time being because they're written down in this committee report that I'm flicking through but there were two it's in a paragraph here somewhere I'll arrive at that area too but it's not so much the expressions of interest from the community groups it wasn't necessarily focused as constant activity base it was actually in order to it could be construed as a dropping point to enable community but also enable administrative functions in order to deliver that community facility as well so that's why the three levels could work in that regard so obviously the lower levels are way more user friendly face to face and then you could have other functional administrative functions further up but still the fact is that it's all accessible so yeah we see the future success of that a feature of this had it been acceptable in other regards which is continually through the report could have succeeded the river usage I've seen in sustainability documents and the whole life common and circular economy statements I have seen references to the river I can't guarantee that that was actually negotiated to a point where it was actually going to be secured but I have seen references to it and obviously based on that we can take that forward and develop it if needed Can I suggest on the river that sounds to me very attractive however there's low tide much of the time the wharves required I think the viability issues talking about viability I'd also like to go back for a moment on the point Councillor Ayres made about the affordable housing there's one very famous occasion in recent history where an application on Battersea power station caused some ruction when less affordable units were delivered than had been expected because they argued on viability so Councillor Ayres was saying what's the guarantee about the affordable element sorry hello yes hi Debbie Turner here I'm the principal development viability officer for the council and in terms of viability obviously as they have proposed 50% affordable housing they haven't been required to submit a full viability assessment as part of the application process so that means that we haven't got that line in the sand to consider going forwards obviously if they had provided that we could have a bit of an understanding if they were taking it forwards on a deficit position for example in the background we have done a little bit of our own high level viability assessment which uses fairly standard assumptions and that is showing that there is a bit of surplus in the scheme but obviously there is the potential that they could argue that the toss on that and certainly would be difficult for us if they were going to justify high costs which we would expect on a complex site like this especially with a building of this height obviously with height comes a much higher build cost as I'm sure you'd all be aware but yes I would certainly be concerned that they may come back in the future and reconsider the affordable housing especially if it is 100% social rent I wouldn't be surprised if that would almost be where they would start to consider these things but certainly from the high level viability assessment we've done it is showing that it is viable at this point in time so to put that in very lay terms which means that Mr. Moore is here will shoot me down after words but to put it in very lay terms because the governance of this country hasn't asked for viability at this level we're taking the gamble that it becomes that level and it works and it's up to our decision tonight whether we believe it to a certain extent exactly yes yeah we just haven't got that point at the moment that we can say there is a definite surplus or deficit on the basis of this specific application was Mr. Calder desperate to say something there only to say that the application in front of you is to supply 50% affordable housing 100% of which is social rent so if they were to come back and change it that would need a further application so the one you're considering this evening is with 50% affordable housing and 100% social rent that's the form of shooting me only it's not Mr. Moores other comments Councillor Justin God I'm going you know who I mean Councillor Justin 9L thank you I just wanted to ask the officers in considering this application did they consider the proximity of this development to Battersea Heliport I mean I'm aware that single engine craft must follow the river but there is a precedent for a stand alone tower like at the Vauxhall end commonly known as the lipstick building which was involved with a collision with a pilot of 25 years experience showing what can happen in fog and I'm thinking that this building here could in its proximity to the heliport whether it was ever considered as one of the reasons you know of the impact to have that there because nothing's been said about it Mr Granger thank you chair I think you'll find a heliport consultation with a response that there wasn't any comment from the heliport but having lived the experience of the Lombard Wharf next to Tower next to Cremorne Bridge Rail Bridge I do actually know that the landing patterns for the use of helicopters landing at the heliport is to track from west to east the River Thames turn around by Cremorne Bridge and taxi and land into Cremorne Bridge and that was obviously debated a few years ago with leading council providing various opinions on whether Lombard Wharf would have an impact on that pattern of aviation and it is not an accepted practice or an approach that the helicopters landing or using London heliport use they don't go far as as the site location so yes we've considered it and I also have experience of knowing how they land it does seem unless someone's going to jump up and shoot me down at this point as though actually the members heart in this not in discussion about these kind of things because they all agreed it would be quite a nice building in the right spot etc etc it's just the spot and the scale and height of it in the spot can we get on to so I'm asking really can we get on to essentially what the officer's recommendation is about the location of it and whether we think it's appropriate or whether we agree completely with the officer's recommendation comments Councillor White Councillor Govindia Councillor White first Councillor Humphrey is third yes thank you I mean given that the local and London plan states that we shouldn't be having high buildings in this area this would represent a Trojan horse really for the area such that this could be referenced then by other developers to build that height that they would require but it is ironic I think that this is the Batsy Riverfront is well known for developing or delivering mass housing which is not affordable only 16% of that is affordable so if this was built it would stand out like a sore thumb given that it would have 50% affordable housing and I wonder whether there was any consideration of actually getting rid of the sore thumb and leaving the shoulder which is only 12 storeys and having that at 50% well I think in the words that Mr Calder will supply for me we're here to decide on this application not some mythical other application which would I'm not suggesting that was that considered was the question was it considered okay fair enough was it well I've been around for a bit of time as far as I it's always been considered as a very but Mr Granger you know absolutely yeah it started off much taller it's always been taller so it wasn't considered who did I say Councillor Covindia thank you chair I probably am coming to my conclusion on this application I've read through this and I read through a lot of the letters of support and objection and I think the overwhelming message I get from that and the report is that this is just too tall a building in the wrong location and the impact on and a whole range of heritage assets both sides of the river is just so enormous that any of the benefits that they might promise which sound a bit like a pig in the poke at the moment given the viability still being in abeyance as it were makes me come to the conclusion that officers are right in their recommendation I just in passing would say that there is certainly an issue here that the applicant having paid an enormous sum of money for the site is then recovering that expenditure or investment by jacking up the building and I think it's right that the applicant shouldn't get the message that it is not for us and the local community to bear the negative side of their bad economic decisions we shouldn't have to put up with the pain of a tall building just because they pay too much applicants have known because in fact this site has been one of the sites that I have been aware of when I was leader of the council and it's always been known by previous owners and others that the site was not appropriate for a very tall building and if they're paid big money knowing that history then it's their lookout not for us to bail them out I think my final point would be that I contrast this application and this report with the gas work holder site which we discussed last month and it is unfortunate that that 29 storey building this 29 storey building got entirely different treatment whilst both of them failed to meet the planning policy requirements and yet both promised to deliver 50% affordable housing so we have to be very clear in our message to the development industry as to what do we mean and why do we want what we want but as far as Mr Calder's each application on its merit and without comparing it with another one I just say this that it's important for us to give a right message not only to local residents but also to those who wish to develop in this borough that they will get a fair crack of the whip but they need to also play fair with us I don't think there is anything I can say that anyone can say that would change my mind that this is a grossly unacceptable application Councillor Humphreys thank you chair I don't want to repeat a lot of what's been said already but I too was going to draw a little bit of a parallel with what happened last month at the gas holder site in the light that I was somewhat nervous coming into tonight's meeting because the comments from some colleagues last month was that we don't like this building I'm paraphrasing obviously but it's 50% affordable so we'll say yes anyway and again it's that message that it sends out to developers I know every site is on its own merits but here we've given a lot more weight in the report to our local plan and the significance of that and it's a different context admittedly but I think we have to be consistent in our approach and that message should go out just as strongly to the developers as it does to residents that we have local plans a relatively new local plan 2023 and it's there for a reason we should uphold the standards that we've set out that we think are appropriate for the borough otherwise it isn't altogether surprising when developers come up with a proposal like this which is so extraordinary out of context because they think our local plan doesn't evidently mean much Mr. Crane has done a very good job of explaining thank you for that how we have to balance all these different aspects in the summing up and the decision that we make and the public just wanted to make a quick comment about the public benefits as well for the developer side and it's been alluded to a little bit by colleagues tonight that it strikes me as being a little bit tick box exercise so we need this hype but we need a bit of public realm tick we've done a bit of that as Councillor said I think the efforts on a very constrained site it's hard but they could have done better if it wasn't such a greedy footprint on the site the over-sailing of the building the shadowing of the public realm a lot of that public realm still not being very accessible with the change of use and stuff like that and it's difficult I'm not saying it's easy to do that but it's not a it's like yes we've done a bit of public realm we've heard there's constraints with the community space a big open community space would be much more accessible to the whole community rather than little bits fine as Mr Granger says they can use it for admin we'd like to see the public using it rather than it being for admin purposes and things like that so I think yes I'd like the developers to be a little bit more conscious that we want those public benefits if they really want to get successful in an application to be much more significant and much more easily readable by the community as genuine public benefits rather than just we've done this we've done that we've ticked the box we need more than ticking the box we want good high quality facilities that the community can use in conjunction with the affordable and decent housing for everybody in the borough so yes I won't be supporting the application and it's very out of context but I think we can go away and do better Councillor Apps yes briefly just to say I associate myself with the comments from other members of the committee that they are not happy with this proposal I just wanted to because it come up I just wanted to comment on the Gasworks site that a colleague commented to me that the context couldn't be more different now this development is right next to as opposed to the Gasworks development right next to existing buildings directly affecting residents and whilst we welcome a good attempt at providing more affordable housing the benefits just aren't enough to outweigh the significant height of the tower and I'd absolutely think that's right I actually went and spoke to many of the would-be neighbours of the site a couple of weeks ago and there was very very strong opposition to the to the block which I heard from them and I understand their concerns I was particularly shocked with the view from Battersea Bridge which I think is overwhelming thank you Can I Councillor White Sorry yeah I just wanted to make a comment as well about the difference between the two sites the Gasholders site the developer could reference lots of different buildings that are really really high in that area we are talking here about an area where that is not the case at all in fact you have to go a long way along the river to get built buildings of this size and I don't know one of the buildings that fill the skyline is St Mary's Church and I think it's a very very different area in comparison to the Gasholders so let's not get mixed up by that I was going to say I will say it anyway having sat on this committee one way or another for quite a long time the comparison between this that's just been made between this and the Gasworks site given the Gasworks site area was developed very largely when you know who was in control and was planning applications chair and to make that a comparison with an area which for a mile or so on both sides the Chelsea riverfront and the Battersea riverfront is actually relatively unchanged seems wild and particularly given that I in my ward have a site that has been boarded up for 20 years where a 23 storey block was given permission on Battersea Park Road and I didn't fancy that either so I really think we've been trying to be very non-party and I just think that was a little over the top frankly but having said that I hear no one supporting this application whichever position so in fact I think it's all summed up very well indeed in the officers report around paragraph 20 43 to about 47 and if any members of the public don't want to read 150 pages of report and I will understand that if they look on the website tonight at page 129 they'll see the basis of what the recommendation is so the recommendation is that we turn this down on the grounds that are given in the paper that is excessive height and scale within an established local spatial character that are predominantly low rise while also being located and with due respect to Mr Grange I won't carry on reading it because I think people get the genuine drift of what they're saying is that approved agreed thank you thank you that I should say I should say of course that there are several options we have turned this down but there are several options that are now open to the developer they have six months to appeal if they wish to and it's possible the mayor and the GLA will call the application as well so this is not necessarily the end of the process so thank you and we'll have a couple of minutes break while the gallery leaves if they want to just have a bit back live on okay call people to order please now we move on to application number two the lodge tooting back road and slightly unusually we have Mr. Raybould here in a different role but Mr. Raybould do you want to present it in any sense I can do if you'd like chair Mr. Raybould with a planning hat on this evening the site is the lodge building at 100 tooting back road this is a grade two listed building and it's been vacant for a number of years as you can see from the photos in the report it's in a pretty poor condition and is on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register The proposal seek to bring the building back into beneficial use as a funeral director's office to facilitate this it's proposed to demolish and replace the existing rear extension erect an L-shaped building along the internal boundaries of the site to provide parking and a small cafe fronting Toottenbeck road and there are stating them into a plinth no changes are proposed to the plan form of the building and in general terms the application is similar to a similar scheme that was granted consent in 2012 with an extension and outbuilding of a similar size and arrangement On balance officers are happy with the scheme and are recommending the applications for approval Any comments any Councillor Humphries Councillor Boswell Thank you very much Chair I'm Councillor Sheila Boswell Toottenbeck ward Yes I have looked carefully at this application It is in Toottenbeck ward in my ward and whilst this site has actually been not in use for 17 years now and it is welcome that something will be happening there There are some grave concerns The first one I've got is around heritage and I've noticed that the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee unanimously have objected to this development for all sorts of reasons the tarmac hard standing totally inappropriate but my greatest concern is that we've had three enforcement notices on this and the last one last September is really quite recent where work has been started when it's out of planning consent and that this historically this site isn't safe because the last one that had to be stopped which Mr. will recall Mr. Apper dealt with they had already started work on the heritage site and once you've done that and demolished even a wall or a railing you can't get it back so I am very concerned about the historical safety of this application going forward in the hands that it's in because of that history three enforcement notices served and then my further point is the residents in Romberg Road obviously are very concerned and they're worried about the hearses the funeral directors will be parking up in there six hearses in six out these are big vehicles it's a residential road and I would like to ask about the hours of business that they will be able to operate you know it's like going to be two o'clock in the morning that the hearses will be going in and out and also they're very concerned about what will actually be at the site obviously it's very delicate to mention but would cadavers or bodies be there they are worried about that people lying you know if it's lying in rest and if there are regulations around that so yeah I will vote against this and cite LP3 for the historical reasons thank you Mr Grable are you happy to take on a number of questions at the same time so I move on Councillor White did you want to yeah the fact that this is laid derelict for such a long time there's obviously going to be problems with the building as my ward colleague has laid out I have also concerns about the size of the hearses moving in and out of the site and whether I'd like to ask whether there is enough room for that I mean will it cause problems on the street is the Romburg road really wide enough that it will be able to comfortably allow such turning also I'm quite disappointed we don't have any sustainability details because I think that because the historic nature of this building I think that's going to be quite difficult so I would have liked for us to have been able to examine a sustainability report that too to be going on with I haven't forgotten you Councillor Humphries and Councillor Owens but and Councillor Govindia but I've got at least maybe there's one I missed here but the actual traffic implications in terms of the hearses and the impact on the road there the hours of operation the historic building which I think was generally covered but none less to repeat at least those three Mr Abel thank you chair in response to Councillor Boswell's questions it is important to emphasize that there are no changes proposed to the plan form of the lodge building itself in these applications and we have recommended an informative be put on any decision to grant consent highlighting to the owner that consent may be required depending on the scope and scale of any proposed works internally to the lodge building in terms of the impact of the extension I think that's dealt with in the report it wouldn't have any kind of physical impact on the lodge itself beyond what already exists with the current extension in terms of the hearses we haven't had any details to say how many hearses there would be so I'm not sure there would be six in total there are six parking spaces proposed and I understand from the intended use statement and that would be a mix of hearses vans and staff parking so I would imagine there would be significantly less than six hearses hours of operation hours of operation are currently proposed in the application as being between 8 and 5 pm no indication that would be that there would be any use taking place at night in terms of some of the practicalities I guess of this sort of use it's not going to be a mortuary there's going to be no embalming or activities of that nature it's a funeral director's office for customers to attend discuss and make funeral arrangements there would be viewings of the deceased in a viewing room but they wouldn't be stored there long term so they would be brought in for the viewing and removed in a van essentially and the arrangement of the site kind of allows for that to be done quite discreetly you know you wouldn't want that to take place on street or anything like that so the site is enclosed to allow that to take place discreetly in terms of Councillor White's questions the size of hearses and if they would require any specific operational arrangements to get on and off the highway I'm not sure that they do Mr. Tiddley no thank you and sustainability that's something officers are aware of and we've applied two conditions one for a post-occupation pre-assessment for BREEAM outstanding and then a further condition within three months of completion for a post-completion certificate to demonstrate they've achieved that compliance in the finished buildings go on go on sorry quick quickly I presume a company has been identified to occupy the place they have yes Evershed I believe okay Councillor Humphreys then Councillor Covindia then Councillor Owens thank you chair just a comment generally to start with as we've heard of it and it says in the report a lot about the chequered history who's been going on for so many years on this site I'm pleased to see a positive proposal to do something with the site and bring it back into active use because although there are compromises with that I think an empty site having sat there for this long with the building deteriorating isn't doing anybody any favours and if the applicant can make a viable business there which at the same time will help sustain the building in its future going forward in a sensible condition and that's got to be a positive whatever the use is so there's a lot to be said for that my only specific query is about the hard standing area and I didn't know in the details of the report I appreciate that for practical reasons with the vehicle movements have to be hard but is it can we specify it's permeable because with the rain runoff and stuff like that it's quite a big area and if there's a condition or something in that that will cover that to make sure that it's a permeable surface yeah thank you councillor the application details propose sandstone paving around the lodge building itself be more sympathetic to the historic asset in the rear courtyard permeable tarmac I've got to be honest I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a permeable tarmac and I've googled and done a bit of research just to check they're not pulling the wool over our eyes on that nevertheless we have recommended a condition for materials and landscaping just to ensure those details are looked at in a bit more scrutiny Councillor Govindia thank you chair there's some comment about signage and I don't think the application includes anything about signage and presumably if there is to be signage in future date there will have to be a separate application I guess the other question just a confirmation which is that the proposed use is not something for us to determine because that's already allowed for in the user class and I read all this stuff about it but frankly I have to be blunt where there is life there is death I mean frankly the idea that a funeral parlour cannot be where people live seems to be absolutely bizarre I really cannot understand that but anyway it's just a confirmation about the use and the signage please I must just chip in here I mean before Councillor Owens ruins my whole point the vice chair and I both agreed that this was very sensible and practical use of the building and was quite nice and polite and demure and so on and the only bit that we were unhappy about really was the not terribly inspiring cafe and no one has mentioned the cafe and ah, Councillor Owens was going to ruin my Councillor Owens Thank you Councillor Belton I spoke earlier I'm Councillor Owens Northcote Ward yes this has come up the cafe obviously particularly in conservation and heritage which Councillor Belton and I both sit on I was going to ask specifically in relation to the cafe about the pitched roof because obviously it's as has been pointed out to us everything is in line with the previous building in this particular case the greenhouse but obviously it's quite obvious and has there been consideration because we've discussed this in conservation about perhaps being more aligned to something that's less obvious and flatter thank you Thank you councillors to take Councillor Govindia's points first the advertisement signage there is, the plans show a single advertisement board on the corner of Romburg Road and Tootingbeck Road they haven't provided any further details there are some advertisements of that nature that can be displayed with deemed consent that wouldn't need our permission any advertisements on the lodge building itself would require advertisement consent and also listed building consent and you're absolutely correct in terms of the use class a funeral director's office is class E which falls in the lawful use of the site so it's not something we could consider as part of these application in response to Councillor Owen's question the pitch roof and the impact of that of the cafe the impact of that on the site and the street has been considered there was a former greenhouse building in that location of the site that also had a pitched roof absolutely it was smaller in scale and this is larger and officers did seek revisions to the application to have the frontage of the cafe set back just to lessen its impact a little bit on the lodge so the lodge still kind of reads and stands out as the key focal point of the site given what was said by Councillor Boswell what does what do we say in conditions or anything else can we about traffic implications access well we've partly covered it I guess by you saying that the hours of operation were eight to five was that it in terms of traffic I think Mr Tiddly is going to say unlikely to cause any serious traffic problems in a road like that I suspect that's correct I think that although we wouldn't want to condition or make a particular thing about it it would be helpful if the vehicles accessed from the main road into the short section of the side road and then in rather than came in from the other direction but that wouldn't be something that I would particularly want to condition or would be a requirement now respectful what Councillor Boswell has said but Pete is the application are there any other comments I don't think there are is the application accepted do you want to record a vote against I would like to record a vote against any others against no so that's that's for both the application and the listed building thank you yes as pointed out it's both the application itself and the listed building consent yes agreed okay thank you we move on to do do Elsinom sorry Upper Richmond Road Upper Richmond Road whoops papers falling about and we move to Miss Richards I think tell us of why we're knocking down a perfectly usable building and why this is alright turn so on so forth thank you councillor I'm Ellen Richards I'm the team leader for the west area the application is for the demolition of the building to replace it with another office building plus two residential units of the upper floors there was a planning permission granted in 2017 for a similar scheme of a similar scale some of you might recall regulations and policy have changed since then so the proposal has altered insofar as they are now introducing a second stair core in line with building regs and fire regs changes offices offices have worked quite hard with the applicants to better improve really the accessibility of the site the frontage and the public realm because initially there was a lot of stuff at the front and pushing out into the main pavement so thankfully that's been revised a little so the main upper Richmond road street frontage is kept quite free I think there's quite a heavy footfall along there and I think over time we're emphasizing the importance of the public realm along there and if as we anticipate more of the buildings might come forward for refurb that area will be improved bit by bit so and that's why the recommendation is to approve any comments any questions Councillor White then Councillor Govindia I was when I saw this first of all knowing bits of upper Richmond road I thought we were demolishing some Victorian building and you know I was but I'm pleased well more pleased to see that this is a bit of a faceless block at the moment so but I mean how easy would it be to reuse the building and convert it to housing with the carbon savings that would entail and there's another couple of questions as well 41% reduction on site seems quite low for carbon emissions and there's and there's no flood risk assessment and given the extensive basement works here as well again it's a little bit a little bit alarming given that's right very very close to the river the hill down Buckney hill down Buckney high street must be 15-20 feet above we've got an expert not an expert but in terms of the carbon savings the policy requires 35% and so what they've indicated in their initial assessment is that they can exceed that policy requirement and indicating 41% increase which is compliant with the policy exceeds the policy so it's acceptable in that regard the flood aspect it's not in a flood zone I don't think there is any issue of flooding around there so it's not a consideration it's not an aspect that we've needed to assess heavily so what about conversion how easy would have been to confirm sorry the applicants submitted because of the policy change since our new adopted plan there is now a requirement under our climate policy to demonstrate and justify why a building is demolished and our conservation team as well were very particular about that they always want to look to see what the retrofit could achieve initially essentially as set out in the report really under section three they submitted a statement and they've set out that if they were to retrofit and in order to comply with regulations they'd lose quite a lot of floor space which is again something that we're trying to protect in terms of office accommodation the new stair cores require a lot of structural work if you like to meet with those regulations the basement level is being rebuilt if you like because they want to introduce more of the basement under the pavement at the front to increase the office accommodation because at the minute it's just used for plant and so on so it's a dead space so really there's a lot of issues associated with it that would make it unviable and so in this case it's not in a conservation area and so given all of the information that they presented to us we considered that to be an acceptable case in this case to demolish Councillor Govindia Thank you Chair more a point about the construction management plan that you will you're yet to agree it's just a plea that given this is a major road given that the footfall along the pavement is quite extensive very heavily used that there is minimal disruption to both traffic and pedestrian flows when construction is carried out particularly the digging out of the basement which inevitably will create a kind of gantry structure to excavate and so on so I'm just a plea to be very mindful of those requirements Thank you Councillor just to say we're on a TFL road here that's one of the restrictions in terms of how far they could dig out into the front so they'd have to consult with TFL anyway as well and with our team so okay so anyone else no is the application accepted agreed agreed unanimously I think move on to Elstom Street on page 185 185 is that 185 and I gotta remind myself 185 is that Mr Richards again do introduce it please the application is for a roof extension a mansard at the back with an extension on the back extension on the outrigger planning permission was granted for a scheme of this design pretty much identical in 2020 but that has lapsed and the application has come back with the same scheme but now with a little terrace at the back on the flat roof element this has generated a lot of objection from residents I do understand why that is because there isn't a huge propelation of terraces of this design and form in this group and in this stretch of the road there are a couple of examples which have been cited in the report the houses the application site and its pair if you like are slightly different to others in the street so this kind of terrace would be the only design that could be accommodated on this roof form other buildings within the group's terrace the terraces are inset so they're set in with a railing at the front so they do exist but they're a slightly different form to this one I think it's on balance really that we accept this it is a little bit more prominent it's introducing a different form of terrace but the screening around it should protect from any overlooking i.e. the houses so I'm sure Councillor Humphreys knows it well Councillor Humphreys thank you chair yes don't want to overly prolong it but yes thank you that's right I think one point to note is that in this particular which is quite unusual again in this street in the area is that it's converted into flats it's two flats which we wouldn't allow nowadays under policy generally but in way back when it was converted we had a positive policy of converting those houses into flats so it does give that upper floor a private amenity space which they wouldn't otherwise have that's in its benefit although it's not that far from the park but just to reassure any residents that may be listening and we all know this from hindsight there's always a degree of concern understandably about introducing a new disturbance because they're so small to not generate that kind of activities it's more just like a bit of reassurance that could confirm to residents that they tend to not generate just because of the scale of what it is and as you say it wouldn't necessarily be giving a carte blanche to other every other house and street to do the same kind of thing because every case on its own merits again as Agreed Agreed Thank you We've dealt with or yes we've deferred Skeena Hill move on to the next item which is tree preservation orders you've all seen the pictures and acknowledge them Are they agreed Agreed The decisions paper noted closure of investigation files noted People can ask questions on any of these if they want I'm just suggesting and the closed appeals noted Thank you and good night or good evening