Transcript
It is 7 o'clock and so I'm planning to start. The sooner we start, the sooner we get home this evening.
My name is Michael Jabb and I'm chair of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.
individual members of the committee, I'm going to call your names. Please switch on your microphone to confirm that you're here. And once you've done that, can you please remember to switch off your microphone.
So I'll start in alphabetical order. Councillor Ayres.
I'm here, hello.
Councillor Belton.
Good evening.
Have a pleasant one, chair, in the chair.
Councillor Owens.
Good evening, Councillor Owens, Northcote Ward.
Thank you.
Mr. Armstrong, Clapham Society.
Good evening, everyone.
Francis Radcliffe.
Yeah.
From the Friends of Battersea Park.
Andrew Cato, Putney Society.
Good evening, chair.
Edward Potter from the RIBA.
Libby Lawson from Tooting History Society.
I don't see.
Pamela Greenwood, Wandsworth Historical Society.
Good evening, everyone.
And Peter Farrow, the Wandsworth Society.
Good evening.
And we have the following officers, Lauren Way.
Good evening, chair.
And Barry Sellers.
Good evening, chair.
And on my right, I have Callum Wurnham, Democratic Services Officer.
Good evening.
And just to confirm, we've received apologies from Mark Dodgen this evening.
Thank you.
Could you please ensure that your microphones are turned off unless you're speaking?
And just to avoid any further sources of embarrassment, could you do something to your phone to make sure that it doesn't make an unwelcome noise during the meeting?
Declarations of interest, are there any declarations, either registrable or non-registerable?
And if so, can you declare them now?
None.
Thank you.
I think that takes us on to the minutes of the meeting on the 6th of May.
First of all, can I sign them as a correct record?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Matters arising.
I'll do it page by page.
First of all, item two, matters arising from the previous meeting, the 26th of March.
The local listing review, is there anything further to report on that?
Work's still ongoing for reviewing all of the information that we've received.
So we're putting together a list of buildings to be added to the local list, which will then go out to a further public consultation.
So that's one of the main work streams that we were looking into at the moment.
So we'll have further information in a later committee meeting on what the date of that public consultation will be.
So this will be new additions to the list.
And I think Mr Sellers has got an update on another stream of that work programme, which was the historic street signs.
Yes, Chair, I mean, we've been progressing with the engineers, the historic street signs project.
And I've done a survey of all the street signs in the borough.
And they've been put against the list of ones that the engineers want to refurbish and replace.
And we've done the consultations to all the managed societies on both of those two proposals.
And we've heard back from the engineers saying that they're really adamant about retaining all of the heritage street nameplates.
There's quite a typology of street nameplates as well, which we can discuss another time.
But it's good news that they are being refurbished.
Thank you, Mr Sellers.
Can I say from my perspective, that of my colleagues in Battersea, at least,
we're very impressed and pleased with the results of the survey and how comprehensive that has been.
So many thanks to you and your colleagues for that.
I'm expecting, Chair, an update in terms of a press release sometime this week, but I haven't seen that yet.
Thank you.
Also, under former matters arising, Fursdown Lodge, is there any more to report on that front?
I can confirm that there is a current pre-application in with the Council Planning Department, which is ongoing,
which is to deal with the matter of the very special circumstances relating to the bar use, as it's in MOL.
I can't say more than that, obviously, because pre-application is confidential,
but that pre-application is being considered by Planning and Conservation Officers at the moment.
Okay, thank you.
Finally, under the former matters arising, the ongoing, or is it still ongoing, appeal relating to Waterfall House?
So, for Waterfall House, we haven't got an appeal decision yet,
but there is an official start date to the beginning of that appeal, which was the 25th of March.
It's been allocated a planning inspector, so they are progressing it as part of the planning inspectorate deadlines.
We should hear in a matter of weeks, or at least in the next month, based on the timescales that they usually progress.
But there is a bit of a backlog with planning inspectorate appeals at the moment, so we've got quite a few waiting to be heard.
But the good news is it has got a start date, so the process has started to take place from the end of March,
so we should be hearing soon.
Thank you, and I think the delays in the planning inspectorate have been well reported in the press.
Are there any other matters arising from the minutes?
Item three, the terms of reference.
Item four, the applications.
Item five, decisions.
and future meeting dates.
I think that takes us through the minutes of the last meeting,
which then takes us on to the applications paper, 25267,
and the first one is Heliport House, application 2025,
50907.
Who's going to lead on this?
I shall be leading on that one, Chair.
Thank you.
This is an interesting building insofar as that it's the site of an interesting five-storey office and work building,
just next to the Heliport.
And it's a very confined site because you've got the Heliport industrial estate just wrapped around the outside of the building.
In fact, there's been quite a change since the pre-application on that building insofar as they've acquired a further unit in order to put the forward.
Well, because the way it came up at pre-app is that there was no affordable accommodation.
And now they've acquired another unit in order to make the building slightly fatter, still the same height, but 34 storeys, to include affordable accommodation.
So that's quite important from that point of view.
It's a building which sits in an emerging area, I think, if you might call it that.
I mean, we've got, I think, a slide that may come up that shows the context of the building.
Certainly, you see the conservation areas there on the plan to the north.
It's quite removed from the conservation areas per se, but that's not without its issues, which we'll come to later.
And this shows the other designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the building, listed buildings and locally listed buildings,
including across the water, which is, there's only one locally listed building on the other side of the water.
There's also the Sands End conservation area, and the other conservation areas we had nearby,
and Bessie Square, Three Sisters, and Bessie Park Road conservation areas.
That just shows you the Sands End conservation area, which really wraps along the frontage to River Thames, basically.
The reason for its designation is to retain that sort of outlook in terms of its industrial nature, effectively.
This is the building.
Nothing of any great shakes, I'm afraid.
It's a five-storey building, which has a permission, I should point out,
way back when for a 15-storey building above the existing five-storey building.
That was by Will Orsop, and that building has been consented and implemented, effectively.
So that's, although the implementation of that, you won't see much on the ground, effectively, but it has been implemented.
And the proposal now is to go an additional 14 storeys above that consent.
Now, the building is located in a tall building zone within the local plan,
and the parameter height of the local plan is 10 storeys, so it's even the consented building is above that.
So they're going up to 34 storeys, so it's quite a departure from the local plan provisions.
This shows you the tall building and mid-rise zones, which is very useful.
The purple one being the tall building zone, and the light yellow being the mid-rise zone,
and it's right in the middle there of the screen site.
This, as I say, shows the emerging developments.
This is a View City extract.
The building showing there in blue, right in the middle,
is the actually consented 20-storey building, not the proposal,
because this just shows the consented sites in blue,
and I think the under-construction sites in yellow, if I remember rightly.
So it's surrounded by quite a lot of new development,
which is all part of the emerging local plan provisions.
You've got the blue is primarily the Winstrandley Estate,
where you've got buildings up to 32 storeys in height, the leisure centre,
and the buildings to the right, you've got the RAD, which is up to 24 storeys.
On the left, you've also got 25 storeys,
and just immediately on the right, you've got the former Prices Candles site,
which is coming up out of the ground now, 25 storeys.
So its context is that you've got quite a number of tall buildings coming up around it,
and I should say, on the far left, you've also got the Lombard Wharf Tower,
which is 28 storeys as well.
Just going through the floor plans, there's three tiers of basements.
I don't know whether I've included all of them,
but basically there's a car lift that takes down for blue badge holders
to the lower and then cycles as well,
and then go up to the basement, FERT number one,
and then merging up to the ground.
Ground floor, because of the affordable, you've got two independent accesses
that's always required for any registered provider for taking on board the affordable.
They need to have a separate access for that.
So the yellow indications there is to the affordable,
and the private tenure is on the left-hand side.
You've also got a substation right in the middle of the front as well.
On the top part of the site there, which is the left-hand,
well, on the north side effectively,
is access to a live-work space with a small cafe there,
and that's part of the re-provided space that's being lost
in terms of the commercial space,
but it's also on the first floor.
There's also a first and second floor.
There's a mezzanine floor as well.
The workspace floor there,
and then on the right-hand side you've got the play space as well
for younger children.
There are some issues with that, I think,
in terms of how that's going to be used.
But you've got the twin staircases going up
and the lifts as well.
So it's quite condensed.
Here you've got the mezzanine floor, I believe it is,
with the workspace.
Again, it doesn't re-provide the full amount of workspace
that's on site at the moment.
When you combine the industrial and the offices,
so that is not within the local plan provisions.
It's under-providing the amount of office space.
We can perhaps move on.
This is a typical residential floor.
As you see, they're quite angular in terms of the floors.
The idea being that each flat actually has its own balcony
and floor space for, external floor space for balconies.
So it's quite intriguing from that point of view.
But it does give it a lot of character
in terms of the visual side of it
when you see it in three dimensions.
Then we're moving up to the roof space.
The roof space, we've got two floors on the roof space,
level one and level two.
And that's to enable the residents
to have views from the top of that space.
And around that space is provided with a planting
and safety measures as well around it.
The idea also is to illuminate the top as well.
They're giving it to the idea of having a beacon at the top.
That does fulfill one or two issues as well.
All on this floor, again, further amenity space
coupled with PVs and air source heat pumps
on the top of the building.
That's just a roof plan
showing at the top of the PVs on that floor level.
Just all four elevations.
They've actually improved the elevations slightly
by having the additional unit taken on board.
So it's a slightly fatter building,
but at the same time, there's more window space
to each of the floors compared to previously.
I think sculpturally, it's quite well-mannered
in that sense in terms of the alternating tiers of floors
giving variation in the actual elevational appearance
of the building.
Some are double height, some are single height,
and it wraps around the building.
And you'll see the top of the building has this...
It's a glazed top, about two, three...
For me to think, it's the glazing around it
with the uplighters and the poles and that as well,
vertical poles, steel poles around the top,
which I think does need some further consideration
to some extent.
This is a nighttime view, certainly,
and it has a slight illumination on top.
One of the rationales for their location
effectively was to be close to Clapham Junction Station.
It's only a 15-minute walk from that location.
And the beacon and the tower would act as a way-marking device,
not only from the station, but also along the Thames.
They're talking about the beacons of the landmarks along the river
to justify their case for a tall building.
Again, a further context, given the proximity of the heliport,
of course, there are a number of issues which that does raise,
of course, being in such close proximity,
not only the heliport itself, but also the residential, of course,
in terms of the noise and so on, the dust and turbulence.
Just a quick slide about materiality.
Here you have the...
They went through a few iterations.
This one is probably the one that's preferred,
which was the steel, the dark steel girders,
alternating on each floor with a recycled brick,
vertical brick, then the grey brick there,
and then the glazing.
And I think it's either double or triple glazed,
I can't remember offhand.
And then the wooden soffits,
which are quite...
Soffits are going to be quite visible onto these balconies
because when you look up, they'll be certainly very visible.
The site itself is right next to the Thames Path.
And one of the key drivers from the developers' point of view
is they want to try and enhance the walk itself.
There's a cycling walking route which runs by...
Which is part of the whole length of the River Thames,
but it cuts in to circle around the heliport.
And it doesn't look very attractive at the moment.
And the idea would be to,
as part of a public realm scheme,
which would be outside the Red Line,
to enhance the character and appearance of Bridges,
Bridges Court Road,
and the joining footpaths with plants
and a shared service for cycling as well,
cycling pedestrians.
A quick sort of elevation at night,
which shows the ground floor,
and you've got the cafe,
and alfresco seating for people sitting outside.
And then you've got the floors above there.
We move on to local views.
The consultants undertook an evaluation of the views
over quite a wide area of the borough
and also the joining boroughs.
They had a zone of theoretical visibility.
That was required to make sure
that they do look at each particular view
and also the effects on all the listed buildings
and conservation areas.
So that's quite a widespread area
across, say, the borough and adjoining boroughs.
This particular one is taken
from Westbridge Road Conservation Area,
and it's a cumulative impact
when you look at the various buildings.
The one in green, I think it is,
is the tower coming forward.
And, again, we would regard that
as having less substantial harm
in terms of the impact
on Westbridge Road Conservation Area setting.
Again, it's quite prominent in this view,
which is looking down westwards
along Battersea Park Road.
You've got the dovetail cottages
on the right-hand side there,
which is great to be listed.
It's the western extremity
of the conservation area,
so it's a setting of the conservation area
which we feel is impacted.
by the building
in terms of its visibility.
So, again,
less substantial harm
would be identified
as part of that analysis.
This one, again,
looking from the north of the River Cross
towards Cremorne Bridge.
Of course, Cremorne Bridge
is a grade two-star listed building.
And you can see the tower
right in the middle
of that particular bridge there.
It's CGI.
But you also see it next to
the Lombard Wall,
which is 28 stories,
on the western part of the bridge.
And also the emerging building
on Lombard Road,
which is 20 stories,
which is maybe not under construction.
It's certainly consented,
but maybe not constructed yet.
So you can see the context
of that,
but, again,
we would say
less substantial harm
because one of the significance
of the bridge itself
is the fact
it connects across the river
and it sort of impacts
on that visibility
and the connection
between the two sides
of the river.
Again, looking from
the other side of the river,
the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham,
this is the Sand's End
conservation area,
although it's a park,
quite modern buildings.
But as I said,
the conservation was designated
in order to protect the area
in terms of its industrial heritage
and so on.
But the view out, of course,
has quite changed
in terms of the emerging buildings
on this side of the river.
With the CGI of the tower,
which is centrally there,
so it does, again,
less substantial harm
to that setting.
Again, one of the additional views
we asked for
was one from Orville Street
in terms of the
Fish Distance Conservation Area.
And, again,
you can see the building
popping up in yellow there
against the Lombard Wharf Tower
on the right-hand side.
So, although there's already
some harm to that view,
I mean, we still say
there's additional harm
caused by the proposed building.
Again, taken from
the other side of the river,
the Lindrop Street,
again, gives a strong view.
Right down the center of the road,
you'll see the tall building emerging.
Again, it's outside the conservation area,
but it's close to the conservation area
on the other side of the river.
So, that really sums up
the evaluation, really, effectively.
Any questions at all?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sellers.
Are there, first of all,
any questions
about
either the application itself
or
the presentation
that Mr. Sellers has made?
Factual questions?
No?
Oh, sorry.
Councillor Belton.
I'm not sure whether
Mr. Sellers will know,
and it may not be fair to ask.
I'm not sure the impact
in conservation terms,
but
I sent a photograph
fairly recently.
It may have got to you.
Certainly sent it to Mr. Calder
about
digging for
the palace
just there.
I'm not quite sure
exactly where that is.
Sorry,
this is a palace
of Archbishop of York
in
whatever period,
and there's been
some digging going on
around it now.
I'm not quite sure
where it is,
and
I don't,
I've just done a note
to myself
to chase it up
to see if we can get
any architectural remains.
But is it anywhere near here?
Yes,
this,
Councillor,
it's actually just
the south of the site,
and we've been to the site,
and
there is not
part of the
palace at all,
which is just
a later development
that was footings,
so
there's no
need to actually
protect
those footings at all
because it's not part
of the regional palace.
comments.
And if no one
wants to start,
Mr.
Mr. Cato.
Good evening.
Yes,
my comments
are not actually
on the design
or conservation
elements of this,
but to wonder
why the council
is even beginning
to consider
an application
that quite clearly
cannot be built
compliant
with the building
regulations on fire.
I have been
looking at the
building
in that sense.
I've raised
questions in my
comments,
particularly in terms
of the glass
balustrades.
As you probably
know,
something came out
not so long ago
saying that glass
balustrades
weren't really
appropriate for
buildings.
And they say
that they've done
all the
the tests
on the glass
balustrades
that makes it
sound.
But it wasn't
in the fire report,
which you probably
look at on the
website,
that the fire report
hasn't flagged
that up as being
a particular issue
at all,
which surprised me.
So,
and I've also,
the fire report
says that in terms
of evacuation,
everything looks
okay from that
particular point
of view.
so again,
I just think
a further
analysis is
required on that
perhaps rather
than just taking
it for granted.
I mean,
I think,
you know,
some testing,
I think,
further is required
in order to make
sure that is the
case.
Because obviously
evacuation from
a 34-storey
building is a
serious case of
the fire,
if it happens,
you know.
are there
other points
you want to make
about building
regs,
buildability?
Can I just
probably need
to elaborate?
The building
proposed,
if you look at
any of the
floor plans,
it occupies
the whole of
its site,
pretty much.
if you look at
the
ground floor
plan,
for example,
there's a
play area,
so-called,
which has
one window
that faces
directly onto
the blank
party wall,
what will be
left after
demolition,
of the next
unit in the
industrial estate
at a distance
approximately,
slightly shorter
than that between
myself and
Mr. Armstrong
here.
If you were
to build
an identical
building next
door to this
one,
equally close
to its
boundary,
all of the
windows,
34 stories
of them,
would be
this close.
Building
regulations
say that
walls that
are that
close to
boundaries
have to be
unopenable
and fire
resisting,
and yet
there are
bedrooms,
balconies,
and so on.
The buildings
next door
are the
industrial estate
buildings,
single-storey
buildings in
the industrial
estate,
and one of
them is
certainly the
play space.
We look at
the ground
floor of the
play space
is very close
to the
next-door
buildings.
There are
issues with
that space
because,
ideally,
children should
be having
some external
space to
access,
and that's
not possible
at the present
time.
I think the
GLA have
raised that
as well as
part of
their
consultation,
but in
terms of
what happens
in the
future,
I mean,
they've done,
as part of
the DAS,
or you've
seen it,
they did
show a
master plan
which suggests,
it's a very
informative
master plan,
but there
again,
you just don't
know what's
going to come
forward in
terms of
how it's
going to be
acquired,
because I
think all
those units
are quite
likely to be
individually
owned by
companies
rather than
corporately,
because I
know the
current side
had to
negotiate
to acquire
two of the
units,
so how
that's going
to come
forward in
the future
as a scheme,
but they
have shown
it with a
taller building
on the
south side
of the
next,
on the
York Road
frontage,
and then
it's much
lower
development
elsewhere,
although,
I mean,
without seeing
something coming
forward,
you can't
evaluate that,
of course,
it's just
an idea at
the moment
in terms of
a master
plan,
we've got,
there's no
planning aspect
to that
master plan
at all,
but yeah,
it's an issue,
proximity is
going to be an
issue,
certainly.
Thank you.
Could I,
from a
local
Battersea
Society
perspective,
make a
few comments
about this?
Firstly,
I think
it is,
as Mr.
Sellers has
outlined,
quite an
interesting
design,
but as
Mr.
Cato has
pointed out,
it does
cover the
whole of
the site.
There is
no space
around this
building at
all,
other than
the public
realm of
the Thames
Path.
So there
is an
issue about
the scale
of the
development
on the
site itself
with,
as Mr.
Sellers
has pointed
out,
the
remaining
single-story
industrial
units to
the south,
which have
not been
bought by
this developer,
having bought
two of them.
and this
is a
site which
has
had,
has featured
prominently
in the
current local
plan,
indeed in
previous
local plans
as a
site allocation
which needs
a comprehensive
redevelopment.
a second
issue
clearly is
its height
close to
the Thames
and
its
location
near
two
conservation
areas,
but right
on the river
and right
next to
the
heliport
itself.
And the
heliport
has recently
put in
a very
detailed
set of
objections
to the
scale,
essentially,
of this
building,
the scale
and the
height.
There is
a yet
further
issue
about
access
to
the
site,
which is
vehicle
access
can only
be via
an
unadopted
road,
which the
developers
don't own,
alongside
the
looker's
garage
car
sales room
to the
sort of
northeast
of the
site.
And that
gives rise
to all
kinds of
issues
about
parking,
deliveries,
and so
on.
So,
as I
say,
there are
a number
of issues
that we
need to
consider.
The
planning
department
and
eventually
PAC
will need
to consider
about
this
proposal.
Having
said that,
I think
it is a
very
interesting
design
by a
very
distinguished
set
of
architects
at
HTA
design.
So,
I think
the issue
is about,
well,
there are
issues
about
not so
much
the look
of the
building,
but about
its scale,
particularly
its height,
and its
taking up
of the
whole
of the
development
site.
So,
more to
do with
its location
and the
density
of the
site,
as well
as access
to the
site,
particularly
vehicle
access to
the
site.
So,
I would
like to
have
some
thoughts
from
Mr.
Sellers
or
Ms.
Way
about
those
issues.
Yeah,
if you go
to the
site at
the
moment,
you'll
see that
it's
actually
quite
congested
in terms
of
motorbikes,
delivery
trucks,
and so
on in
that area
around
the
base.
That
was
very
noticeable
when
we were
on site
to look
at that
some
time
ago.
The
ambition
is set
out in
the
design
access
statement,
but again,
it's not
within the
gift of
the owner
of the
site,
of course,
because it's
all outside
the red
line,
and it
wouldn't
need a
legal
agreement
set up
with the
owners,
as well as
surrounding
owners,
in order
to
fulfil
any
ambition
for
dealing
with
the
public
realm,
in terms
of its
quality,
how it's
laid out,
accessibility,
and so on.
So there are
issues there,
how that could
come forward.
do you know?
Mr.
Farrow.
Two issues,
I hope I
remember both
of them.
Somewhere on
the presentation
you gave,
I think it
was on the
list of
materials,
it said the
materials used
on the
affordable
housing were
the same as
those on the
expensive housing
in order
that they
would be
treated the
same,
which is
pleasing,
but I
recall when
you discussed
the ground
floor,
you said
there were
two separate
entrances,
one for the
rich and
one for the
poor.
Was that
the case?
That's
correct,
that's a
normal requirement
in most
tall buildings
because the
registered
providers for
any affordable
housing,
normally want
to have that
control over
the site for
their own
entrance rather
than being
pep-potted
within the
overall
development.
So the
two entrances
are,
there's very
little difference
in terms of
the quality of
the entrances,
it's just that
they are
separate entrances,
yes.
Okay,
I rather
thought that
this had been
sort of frowned
on in planning
terms,
or if not
planning terms,
social terms,
that the
distinction should
be reduced
rather than
sort of,
they should
be integrated
rather than
separate.
And there
were,
you showed
a plan of
the,
as it were,
the for-sale
housing,
but there are
obviously plans
for the
affordable housing,
but you
didn't put
those up.
The affordable
housing is part
and parcel
of the whole
design.
It's all
integrated.
But I say
it's on,
the lift
cores,
there's two
lift cores,
two staircases,
and they,
I think,
I'm just trying
to remember,
the affordable
housing,
the right
hands are
one core
going up
to a certain
level,
I can't remember
the level
of hand,
and then
the top
level,
it's all
private
tenancies.
Well,
that's the
case,
nothing could
do about
it,
but I
kind of
find it
disappointing.
The second
issue related
to the
matters you
raised earlier,
Chair,
about the
height of
the building,
I'm
curious to
know,
as I
think
Andrew
Cato
said,
that why
the Council
have accepted
it as a
sort of a
valid
application,
when it
clearly
offends
the
planning
policy
in terms
of its
height.
Back in
the day,
there was
guidance
about the
density in
terms of
habitable rooms
per hectare
and the
like,
and even
further back
in the day,
there were
plot ratio
considerations
which determined
the bulk of
the buildings
that could be
fitted on
sites.
forgive me,
I regret I
haven't looked
thoroughly
through the
application,
is that
dealt with,
that is,
the density
of the
development in
those terms
within the
application
documents?
I can't
recall offhand
the actual
density being
specified there,
but it's
obviously going
to be quite
high,
but then you
have to look
at the
context in
terms of
what's going
on around
the site of
the building
at the
moment,
because you've
got the
32-storey
building just
to the north
of that
building,
coming up
from
withstanding,
and you've
got the
other two
buildings,
25-storey,
as I
mentioned,
already
considered and
under construction.
So they've
chosen that
particular site
because it's
probably central
to the other
buildings around
it, which
gives them
a key spot,
so to speak,
within the
urban mixture
there.
As it were,
the context
is important.
The context
is always
determined by
the previous
building,
which is
invariably
taller than
the one
before that,
and it's
a constant
process of
things getting
bigger,
taller,
and more
significant
on the
skyline.
I do
have a
almost a
knee-jerk
reaction,
adverse reaction,
to buildings
of this
height,
because I
think they
do create
problems
in the
landscape
of the
area,
and I
think,
in conservation
terms,
this building
will have a
significant
effect.
I'm
saddened by
the fact
that we
have to
say,
because
previous
mistakes,
in my
opinion,
have been
made in
granting
buildings of
excessive
height,
exceeding
the planning
policies of
the local
authority,
and I
believe the
London
plan,
that we
have to
accept,
we have
no option
to consider
this is
acceptable
because of
other
disasters.
I don't
think it's
a significantly
good reason
to give it
justification
by saying
it's a
way marker.
I've never
found it
easy where
applicants seek
to justify,
and sometimes
the planners
seem to
support them,
by saying
people navigate
their way
around London
by looking up
and spotting a
tall building
and working
their way
towards it
when they
want to get
somewhere.
it's
complete and
utter nonsense.
And if
that's the
only justification
that they can
come up with
for making
it significant,
then I think
it's a very
poor justification.
That said,
and all the
other reasons
that we've been
talking about,
I think it
will have an
effect on
conservation
heritage assets
in the area
simply because
of its height,
and I would
object to it
irrespective of
any merits
that it may
have in terms
of being an
interesting tall
building.
Thank you.
Perhaps I
might add to
that that
34 storeys
is significantly
higher than
20, 25
storeys.
But Councillor
Ayres.
Thank you,
Chair.
You've made
very well the
point I was
going to make
about the
second-class
entry, and
I would
disagree with
Mr Sellers
that the
second-class
entry is
no worse
than the
other entry.
It is.
It's narrower.
It has a
very constricted
entrance.
The only
open space
on the
site itself
is by the
other entrance.
There's a
chamfering off
of the building
and a bit of
planting there,
and it's
wider.
However, I
have been
convinced many
times now
of the need
for two
entrances, and
I'm not
objecting to
that.
I am
objecting to
the lack
of facilities
in the
other entrance.
That was
one of my
things I
wanted to
say.
I also
wanted to
raise the
issue of
play space.
is there
any connection
between the
play space
in that
dreadful back
basement with
one window
with no
view?
Is that
connected to
the other
play spaces
on the
upper levels?
In which
case, one
can forgive
that awful
space if it
were to be
used for
the sleeping
arrangement of
young children.
But if
they're seen
as separate
uses,
then I
really object
to that
play space
and the
basement.
But usable
if it's
connected with
the other
one.
My final
point is
also been
made already.
It is a
very clever
design.
I'm impressed
how they've
got the
wheelchair
units,
the low
cost
units,
two lifts,
two staircases,
and on
the ground
floor,
a substation
as well.
It's very
ingenious,
it's very
beautifully
textured as
well as
sculpturally,
but you
can't have
something which
is so big
for its
site that
you can't
have normal
spaces for
normal
activities.
And that
ground floor
plan up
there shows
you,
it can't
look at
the size
of that
bin store.
Imagine
that bin
store.
It's a
greedy
building.
I'm sorry,
it's a very
greedy
building.
And I
foresee
lots of
negotiations
about them
saying,
well,
we'll take
off four
storeys and
then we'll
reduce the
affordable
housing by
50%
because we
can't
otherwise
make a
double
digit
profit.
I can
see that
coming,
but that's
all I have
to say.
Thank you.
Are there
any points
that people
want to
raise that
haven't been
raised already?
Mr.
Potter?
Can you
put your
microphone
on?
Ah,
sorry.
I was
going to
add about
the
consent
of the
Civil
Aviation
Authority.
It seems
to me to
be a
very
dangerous
spot to
land
helicopters,
quite
apart from
the
acoustic,
the
amenity
aspect of
the noise
and racket
from
helicopters
for the
existing
residents
and
proposed
residents.
I think
it's too
much on
that site.
In
construction,
you've got
the problem
of,
again,
amenity,
traffic,
heavy
construction
vehicles,
and
motor
traffic.
so I
would be
against
it.
Councillor
Owens.
Thank you,
Chairman.
Again,
on the
heliport,
I'm a bit
confused,
because we
had a
proposal,
obviously,
for a
tower,
a glass
mill further
down the
river,
which we
discussed
in a
previous
meeting,
and we
were told
that at
that time
that the
heliport
were fine
with that
particular
proposal,
because the
helicopters
take off
and effectively
don't go
east.
They go
in and
out west.
I was
wanting to
understand a
bit more,
because the
heliport have
objected to
this.
Similarly,
why do we
keep allowing
developers to
put forward
plans which
go against
the local
plan?
That's another
one.
But yes,
interested in
the heliport.
thank you.
Are there
any other
points that
haven't been
raised before
I try to
sum up?
It seems
to me that
we are,
all the
voices I've
heard are
again this
building as
it is,
at present.
There are
issues related,
well,
that the
heliport has
put in a
very detailed
objection,
as we
know.
We're
concerned about
the impact
on the
nearby
conservation
areas.
We're
concerned
particularly
about the
height of
the building
and related
to the
height of
the building.
It's
location on
the river,
and also
the way
in which
it occupies
the whole
of its
site.
So it's
a very
dense,
or as
Councillor Ayers
has put it,
a very greedy
building
in its
location.
Sorry,
can I just
try and
finish
summarising.
We are
also
concerned
about
access
to the
site,
which is
not
controlled,
only it is
in the
hands of
others,
rather than
the developers.
So we
would be
buying,
as it
were,
a pig
poke,
in terms
of access.
I think,
does that
meet most
of the
points?
Oh,
and the
points about
the
facilities
on the
two lower
floors?
Councillor Ayers,
I've missed
something.
No,
I don't
think you
missed it,
I think it
needs a bit
more emphasis,
that's all,
that the
density,
the population
of when
it's finished
is going to
generate so
much traffic,
delivery traffic,
not just people
going to and
from where
they live,
but these
people aren't
going to
cook,
it's going
to be food
deliveries,
grocery
deliveries,
and where
are these
bikes going
to park,
or these
vans going
to,
where are
they going
to park?
Are they
going to
go down
in the lift
to the
bicycle parks
in the
basement?
Delivery is
going to be
made by
helicopter,
it's the
future.
I will
take that
as a joke.
My one is
a serious
point because
one has
seen it all
around very
dense,
I mean,
masses and
masses of
food delivery
bikes.
And
vans too,
which would
have to go
down Bridges
Court Road,
which is
a narrow,
heavily
parked road,
not suitable
for large
volumes of
traffic.
And that's
directly related
to the
side of the
highway.
Indeed,
indeed.
Is that
a reasonable
summary of
our objections?
Is anyone
going to
say that
this is a
building they
would not
object to?
Okay.
In that
case, let's
...
Chair, just
apologies for
the ringing.
It merely
proves that I'm
technically...
I did try and
silence the
thing.
I thought it
was silent.
So, you know,
me and
technology.
Let us
move on to
application
2025
2138
Garages
Burstock Road.
Who's going
to lead on
this?
Mr Sellers
again.
Yes, that's
right.
Yeah.
It's an
interesting
small site
in Burstock
Road.
It's
really sort
of tucked
out of the
way, effectively.
You can't
really see the
site from
the street
very well.
It's been
subject of
a pre-application
and the
pre-application,
they advised
that if you're
going to
include the
rear gardens
of 25 and
26, which
it does,
that it
should be
not of a
single building.
So it's
oversized for
the site.
That was
what the
words we
used as
I recall.
But they've
gone ahead and
put the
application in
and you
see it's in
the backland
area of the
conservation
area, Oxford
Road Conservation
Area.
To the
north there
you've got the
almshouses there
locally listed
and 289 I
think it is,
the great
two listed
building on
the corner.
so, and
then you've
got the
quite tight
nitty grain of
the buildings
and the
conservation
area, particularly
in Burstock
Road itself,
where it's
actually coming
forward, which
is basically a
two-story
detached house,
which is, in
terms of its
footprint and
massing and so
on, is really
quite an
anathema, really,
to the character
and appearance of
the conservation
area.
the excess
is very tight
because, I
don't know how
they would have
got cars down
there, which
needs to be
four gouges at
the back, but
it seems extremely
tight.
I'm sure the
gouges are
probably too
small in
today's numbers
in terms of
getting cars
in there, but
it wouldn't be
used for
access apart
from just
for pedestrians
and cyclists
really getting
down that lane.
It's a very
tight site in
indeed.
The idea would
be to say,
if you look at
the plan coming
forward, this
is one single
detached building,
irregular shape,
quite a very
large garden,
effectively, which
is, again, quite
unusual for the
character and
appearance of the
conservation area.
We've got a
block of flax on
the right-hand
side, I think
that's three or
four stories,
four stories,
I think, probably
four stories,
remember rightly.
And the rest of
the plans in
terms of first,
second,
front roof
scape.
But it's a
single building.
And when you
look at the
local plan,
because the
local plan says
under policy LP7,
for example,
that you should
amalgamate,
if you're
amalgamating
sites, then you
should have more
than one building
for that site.
And it doesn't
really, you
know, I think
probably two
small units might
have been more
appropriate than
one single large
house.
But, again, you
could have had
something also,
well, in terms of
design, it's,
again, it doesn't
really fit into the
conservation area in
terms of its
design, either,
because if you look
at the buildings
around it,
particularly in the
streetscape of
Burstlock Road,
they're very much,
well, self-contained,
very tight-grain
buildings, whereas
this is just an open,
one open, large
building in a very
constrained site.
And so, really, I
mean, I've got a
great deal to say
about it, other than
say the design is
unusual, and it
occupies a good part
of that site.
And from the
streetscape, you
can't really see the
views very much.
This is some CGI's
of what they're
proposing, which is
saying, if you think
of the character
and appearance of
Burstock Road, for
example,
these are not
really, really in
line with that
particular character
appearance at all.
So, it should be
much more well
managed and well
considered in that
context, I feel.
Again, it's shown
the large garden
proposed around the
building.
Here's the CGI's
coming up.
So, it's a question
where you think about
the impact of that
particular proposal on
the character
appearance of the
conservation area and
what the committee's
views are.
going to be able to do
that.
Thank you, Mr. Sellers.
There's any factual
questions relating to
this proposal.
Okay, comments on it.
I'll start with Mr.
Cato.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
The Putney Society has
seen this one.
We like what we see and
are not, therefore, have
decided, therefore, not to
comment against it, if you
see what I mean.
The point to bear in
mind is that that corner
of Putney was fairly
heavily bombed in World
War II, so that, in
fact, every adjacent
building that appears on
the site plan that we
were shown earlier is
modern.
It's 1950s or 80s or
similar, and they're a
mixed bag, to put it
politely.
So, I think this site has
no impact on any of the
historic elements of the
conservation area, because
bluntly, you can't see it
from anywhere that matters.
As such, it is free reign,
and we rather welcome that
a local small-scale
developer, who should be
encouraged, amalgamated the
gardens of several houses to
create a little back plot.
And I can assure Mr.
Sellers that having designed a
similar backland plot now
under construction,
myself, it's all about the
daylight angles, which is why
the roos end up the way
they are.
You've got to keep away from
everybody else's rights of
light on all of the
boundaries in the way that
the developers of Heliport
House don't seem to have
done.
Thank you.
Mr. Farrow.
I very much support those comments.
It looks like a well-considered
attractive building, an asset to
the area.
I'd happily support it.
So, two supportive comments, or
supportive or neutral comments.
any other comments that people want
to make about this proposal?
If not, I think what we're saying is
that we are, if I can put it this
way, content to let this application
go forward.
Is that right?
I prefer something a little more
positive.
It sounds like damning with faint praise.
I prefer, if others agree, to say
that, you know, it's a pleasure to
see a well-thought-out, put-together
scheme on a site like this.
Okay.
People happy with that?
Okay.
Let us then move on to the grapes,
which is an application.
Well, it's, there are proposals,
there have been proposals for the
grapes on Fairfield Street, which we
have considered in this committee
before.
This is a slightly revised one,
2025 1091.
Who's going to lead on this?
Ms. Way.
Thank you, Chair.
So, the committee will be aware, well
aware of this site.
So, the Grapes Public House, just close
to where we're, we're sited.
On Fairfield Street, the building itself
is grade two listed, 19th century, two-story
public house building at the corner of
Fairfield Street and Barshard Street.
Um, as you're aware, it's within the
Wandsworth Town Conservation Area, and the
buildings to the north of the site, along
Fairfield Street and along Barshard Street, are
all locally listed, uh, buildings.
So, um, as Mr. Dub has already, um, stated, this
has come to the committee back in 2023, beginning
of 2023, for an application within the northern
part of the site, which is currently occupied by
some sheds, and, um, is not, forms part of any of
the gardens of the public house, which is largely
to the west.
Uh, the previous application that was brought to
the committee was for a two-story house in the
location in the same red line plan, as you'll see
here, in the same location.
That, um, application was refused by officers.
It went to appeal and was dismissed at appeal.
Subsequently, a further application was submitted in
later 2023, early 2024, which was for a single-story
house in the location, uh, which was then
subsequently approved.
So, they do have permission on this site in the
red line boundary for a residential building, but
albeit the reason why it was considered acceptable by
the planning officers was because of its two-single-story
nature, which then seeks to maintain that gap between
the two, the public house, the locally listed buildings,
and recedes within that street scene.
What they're now proposing is, is subsequent to that
permission.
They are seeking to, um, introduce another story on top of the
single-story building that they have been granted permission
for, and actually the footprint will be enlarged.
So, you'll see the, the designations, as I've mentioned, um, this sort of
enclave of, of worker cottages and, um, Victorian buildings that, that have been
encompassed by the conservation area.
This is the building in question, despite its very modest height, it is quite grand and
quite a presence on Fairfield Street by virtue of its, um, detailing and particularly the
balustrade and the arch windows that give it a sense of classical grandeur.
So, this is the site, red-line boundary with service yard between the grapes and the, um,
red-line site.
So, this is what they're proposing in terms of the site plan.
So, you see you've got the single-story building, the access from Fairfield Street,
and the additional story on top, which is just set back from number 43.
Elevation drawing, so taking some of the cues from the previous permission,
in terms of that curved erasurement of the corner, but effectively we're looking at, um,
sort of box on top of the single-story building with, like, a pyramidal roof,
sort of a very shallow pyramidal roof on top of that.
Some brick detailing and brick relief work to this side elevations and on those curved
elevations, but quite simple facade treatment.
And the entrance will be to the, towards the rear, so the southern elevation here.
I've included, er, this is just a plan form, so you'll see here, the main premise of the
proposals is to add an extra, um, bedroom, which they previously had, didn't have permission
for, so there, it was quite a small house, just a single bedroom.
So now it's looking at a two-bedroom property with a, um, a self-contained home office included.
It's illustrated street elevation to show that additional story, and you see here, the red
line here is what they have permission for in terms of the height and that layout.
So there is, um, so they've brought that elevation down slightly, but it is wider than the previous
permission, so it takes it right up to the north part of the red line.
So I've added this in just for, to illustrate the difference between what was given permission
for, this wasn't in the, um, presentation that we sent out to you on Friday, but this
shows you what was given permission for in terms of the height and scale, and actually
the, the, um, the, the site location plan here, you see here that actually it's much smaller
building in terms of footprint, and, um, so therefore you have a much larger space around
the building for some modest garden, but it stays at single storey and is, seeks to, um,
recede within the street scene behind what will be a newly built brick wall along Fairfield
Street.
At the moment, half of this, um, boundary is brick and then half of is fence, so there will
be a brick wall along this boundary.
One of the reasons that was raised is in terms of a concern from the two-storey development
that we brought to the committee back in early 2023 was this set-forward nature of the building
and the impact it would have on the three arched windows of the grapes looking down Fairfield
Street, which is quite prominent detail as you're walking down Fairfield Street from
Wandsworth Town and Old York Road, uh, Wandsworth Town, um, station and Old York Road and turning
down towards, uh, Wandsworth Town.
So this is an illustration to show that they're seeking to try to set the building back to such
an extent that these three arched windows will be retained.
However, you'll see that two-storey element, um, there in its, in terms of its relationship
with the, um, listed building and the locally listed buildings next door.
And that's what we have.
We don't have, uh, that many CGI's in this, apart from this one.
So I'm going to put it back to our street scene, because that's probably your best illustration
of what the proposals will look in its context.
So in the, in light of the planning context, in terms of what they've got permission for
and what we've, what the committee has considered in previous, um, committees in terms of the
two-storey element of that, um, dismissed application, it would be, um, good to understand what the
committee's views are of this now amended scheme with the extra story on top.
Thank you.
Um, any factual questions to start with?
Mr. Armstrong.
Yeah, I'd like to know about the flat roof of the single-storey element, whether that could
become a roof terrace or garden or some kind of washing line hung out and stuff like that.
Is it actually pitched or is it a, an asphalt flat roof?
So the, the single-storey element of the development is a flat roof.
It can be controlled, but in terms of the use of that, can be controlled by virtue of condition
to ensure that it cannot be used as a roof terrace or any paraphernalia be added on top
due to the impact it might have on the quality of the build and on the surrounding heritage assets.
Um, the, um, first-four element has got a pyramid, sort of a pyramidal roof, so there
wouldn't be any ability for them to use that as a roof terrace, but there will be, and there
will be photovoltaics on that roof towards the rear part of that roof as well, so there
will be, they won't be able to use that top, the top roof either, because of the nature of
its design.
Um, any other factual questions, right, comments? I'll start with Mr. Farrow.
Um, I'm slightly conflicted because, um, I think if it were somewhere else it would be
quite a nice building. Um, uh, nicely put together. Um, I sort of like the look of it, but I think
it suffers from the problems of the, um, scheme that was rejected in as much as it's too big.
Um, this is a site which I think would be better developed, um, a single-storey building, and,
um, I think that, um, I would object to it on that basis. Um, sympathetic to the designer,
but, um, I think that, well, there are two things. It's too big in terms of it being two
stories, and it's probably too big in terms of the area, the footprint, the area it occupies
on the site. The previous application had a rather splendid garden. This one doesn't
really have a garden at all. It's like sort of a pathway around the building. Um, I think
that, um, they should be content, um, with what they were previously allowed, and, um, not
try and, um, get a little bit more by trying again. Um, uh, we would object to it on, on
the grounds of its, um, bulk and height.
Thank you. Does anyone dissent from that view? Mr. Cato?
Yes, sorry to dissent, um, but I think that the case for a single-storey building is a
weak one when everything around it in that immediate block is two stories. I would suggest
that it's actually more in keeping to catch up than to stay down.
If I may, um, I agree, um, it's surrounded by two-storey buildings, but, um, it was a
um, and has been for some considerable while, um, sort of single-storey. Um, I, I think that
is what benefits the area. The dis, the pub, um, standing distinctively, um, as it does
and, um, effectively the, the garden area of it was, um, and the buildings to the north.
I, I think that's the composition that I would very much prefer. Um, again, sympathetic, um,
um, to, to, to, to the applicant in seeking, um, to do what they've done. And I think, um,
they've done it well. But, um, as I say, I, only in as much as that, um, I think the proper
development of the site should be single-storey, uh, would, would, would I object to it?
Um, could I, um, ask a question which I should have asked before? Um, do we have a CGI which,
uh, would show the effect as you proceed south along, uh, Fairfield Road on those three very
distinctive arched windows and, and the view of them?
All we have is this image here, which is not a CGI, so to speak, but, um, a drawn,
CAD, uh, a CAD drawing to show the location of the development, which is in yellowy-orange.
So that doesn't give you any detail of the development, just gives you its sighting
and height in relation to those three arched windows to show its setback nature.
We don't have anything more than that, unfortunately. And those are the, um, images
to show the existing context, albeit they're quite pixelated because of the nature
of this being quite a, a small drawing that was provided. So this is all we have in terms
of that impact. So the, the answer to my question is essentially that it would not obscure the,
the views of those, what seems to me the most important, um, aspect of the sighting of the,
of the, of the building. Um, Mr. Potter.
Thank you. Um, I, I think the general site arrangement is fine, the space around the building.
There's two minor comments I'd like to make. That is the, the, the roof shape, I think,
should be like its neighbours. Uh, the pitch should be slightly higher or sharper, um, added
to which I think the single storey bit should be pushed back, uh, by about 300 or so, um, from
the, the facade of the two storey. The, the single storey should be pushed back.
Yes. 300 behind the two storey bit should be a step, step in the facade.
Uh, that's it.
Okay. So we have different views on, on this council.
What I like about this building is that it's not trying to ape the buildings next to it,
but it's very sympathetic to the styling. I think it's elegant and graceful. I agree its position
on the site could be improved. I think that would help it. But in terms of the whole area,
the whole conservation area, I really want to see as many single, um, houses introduced
into that area because otherwise it's just going to be an endless forest of towers from
Swandon way down. Um, so that area is a sort of last little uncle enclave of small dense domestic
buildings, which I like very much. So I would like to encourage this to go ahead with a,
with a few amendments which have been discussed.
Um, can I try and square a circle, um, by saying that, uh, essentially we have comments
to make about this application. There are some concerns about, um, the, the detail of the location of the,
of the, of the, of the building, uh, and particularly the relationship between the, the, the ground floor
and the, and the first floor. Mr. Potter's point. Um, we, uh, we do not, we're, we're sympathetic to a two-story building.
So long as the impact on the environment of the, of the grapes can be minimized.
Is, is that a reasonable attempt at squaring this circle?
Uh, so we're commenting. We're not, we're not saying yay or we're saying nay. We're just commenting.
Is that okay?
Thank you.
Do I have a, a failed career as a diplomat?
Uh, let us move on.
Don't try to answer that question.
Um, 2025-2022, the London Rowing Club.
Um, who's leading on this?
Uh, Ms.
Thank you, Chair. Last one of the evening.
So, London Rowing Club within, along Putney Embankment.
So, the site itself is a three-story building constructed in around 1871.
Uh, it formed one of the first rowing clubs to be built along the Putney Embankment.
One of the reasons why it forms part of the local list, as you see here,
is also within the Putney Embankment conservation area.
Other things to notice, there's a set of bollards just to the, um, to the east or southeast of the site,
which are actually listed in this location here.
So, this is the building in question.
There's been some alterations to the building, but largely it has retained its original Victorian character.
And the subject of the application is this first floor balcony.
And it's the one area of the building which has been quite considerably changed.
So, if you see in the heritage statement, there's quite a lot of information about this building
and some previous imagery and, and historic images of the building.
The current, uh, balcony, first floor balcony here that you'll see is modern
and has been greatly altered from, uh, the pre-, previous balconies.
Um, it's got a modern balustrade timber.
It's not in the best of, of conditions.
And previously, the previous balcony had a canopy over it, which when you see up front,
when you go actually onto the balcony itself and look up, you can see some scarring where the canopy, um, was there previously.
There's a very large flagpole right in front of the building.
It historically wasn't there.
It was further, further to the west of the building, but has since been moved towards the centre of the building
and now forms quite a distinctive feature as you walk down Putney Embankment.
And it's a typical arrangement with the boathouses at the ground floor to allow the boats to be drawn out
and straight down the slipway into the Thames.
And then the first floor being a lot, two large open, um, rooms which allow access onto this balcony.
This is another image here to show that, like, the, um, location of the building in relation to the embankment.
Just something to make you aware of.
There are bollards in front of the site, which are on a slightly awkward angle,
because of the nature of the, of the site and the red line boundary.
A lot of these, these bollards have been truncated and cut off.
So this is the existing front elevation here to show you the, um, existing balcony with a very large flagpole right in the centre of the building.
Uh, a section through the building to show how its, um, its relationship with that balcony and the, the main function room at first floor level.
And the proposal is effectively to replace that balcony completely, extend it outwards.
So it will wrap around the central flagpole and introduce, uh, reinstate the balcony or the canopy.
The canopy will not extend to the same depth as the balcony.
It will actually extend to the original depth of the, um, the historic canopy that was on site.
The detailing of it is sought to try to pick up some of the cues from some of the old photos.
So the detailing of the balustrade will be very similar to some of the, those historic photos shown in the heritage statement.
Here show you the section.
So you see the increase in depth here.
So the current balcony sits roughly around this point here.
So they were extending it out.
The flagpole will be retained and it will be wrapped around it.
But the canopy will not extend out that full depth, largely because of the flagpole.
Um, but again, will be, um, sort of three quarters of the depth of the canopy.
The main premise of this application is obviously it's, um, uh, to, um, just to improve the facilities at the rowing club.
It's been quite a, uh, well used space because it's connected to the main function rooms of the rowing club.
Um, so it really seeks to try to, um, enhance those facilities within the club and improve upon them.
They have a lot of, you know, they have weddings, et cetera, at the, at the site.
Um, any noise disturbance associated with the use will be heavily controlled by conditions.
So they'll have restrictions on how long they can use the canopy, uh, the balcony for, to try to protect the residents surrounding.
So that there's not noise disturbance at certain hours.
Um, and here you go.
The first four plans, as shown, the existing balcony and the proposed balcony and that increase in depth, taking you all the way up towards the flagpole.
You see the, the line of, um, BAM bollards here.
It doesn't say, but it does say in the heritage statement that those bollards will be restored.
That was a request at pre-application stage, that those bollards will be restored.
So they are seeking to introduce that.
It may not be obvious in the plans, but it is set out in the heritage statement that that will be sought and it can be conditioned that we try to make sure that that takes place.
It was subject to pre-application engagement and quite, so changes have been made following that pre-application engagement.
The pre-application actually sought to have staircases either side of the balcony so that you didn't have to go inside of the building to go up to the balcony.
Had the, um, the quite large, um, staircases either side of it, which did then, in a, that combined with the increase in depth does, did provide, make it quite a bulky and assertive feature on the front elevation.
They've taken those two staircases off and they've also made some changes to the design of the balustrade to look at something that's more akin to what was there previously.
So finally, just some visuals of the balcony here to show it in its context and, um, the increase in depth.
No other changes proposed.
And this is a cross-section to show that, the balcony and its increase in depth with the canopy with retractable awnings proposed.
It can, um, come forward and back.
And then the design of the balcony, which again can be conditioned in terms of detailed drawings, but they have picked up some of the detailing of those previous images that were, that they found in the heritage statement.
Within the actual building itself, there's a big image of the, um, the rowing club which shows the actual balcony, the original balcony as well, which is included in the heritage statement.
So, um, given it's a locally listed building, quite one of, one of the most prominent buildings within this particular conservation area as well.
I really welcome the committee's views on what they consider of this application and whether they think they, it's appropriate for the locally listed building and the conservation area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Um, questions of fact to start with.
Councillor Ayres.
What's so special about the, um, bollards?
It wasn't necessary.
Are you talking about the listed bollards?
Or the ones in front of the building?
Why would you list bollards unless it says, sort of, two miles to London?
There was this, they looked, it looked quite rundown because of the bollards had been cut.
So, by reinstating the bollards as they work, as then, they are there, but they've been sort of like truncated.
So, it just means that then those features are reinstated as they were rather than they've been quite, it looks unfinished at the moment.
So, it's just an extra feature that they're going to reinstate as part of the proposals.
Okay.
Uh, any other questions?
Comments?
Mr. Cato, I think, you're Bailey.
It is indeed.
Um, the partner society have already written in support of this application.
Um, the, uh, my only question in any sense is, um, are, and if you look at them, that the photos, the historic photos,
the historic photos that have been provided with the application, um, you will see that this, but the original canopy survived until about 1970.
So, um, there's plenty of evidence of what should be there, used to be there.
Indeed, the shape of the building with, um, half round windows separated from the, the French doors is designed entirely to have a canopy.
Uh, so we thoroughly welcome the reinstatement of the canopy and I welcome, um, the balcony with a provisor that there's not enough detail on the scale of the drawings at the moment to see if the railing is really going to be as nice as it sounds, um, from their report.
Any other comments about this?
Again, I would very much like to support the Putney Society's comments. Um, it seems a good proposal, nicely done.
Anyone want to add to that or?
No?
In that case, I think we're approving of this application.
Yes?
That takes us on to item four on the, on the agenda, paper 25268, which summarizes the, well, gives an account of the decisions.
I'm just going to go through the decisions that have been taken on, uh, applications that the, the committee has considered in the recent past.
Uh, 160 Falcon Road, which we discussed last time and approved and planning permission has been granted.
Um, uh, uh, number two, uh, seven Vicarage Mansions on Queenstown Road.
We, um, objected, uh, and the decision, uh, was to refuse.
So, that is welcome.
Um, number three is six to twelve Endersham Road, the gardens at the rear, to which we, uh, uh,
objected.
Um, but, and it went to planning applications committee, which, um, in the end, after a debate, uh, granted planning permission.
Um, I feel almost that I needn't say anything about number four, the glass mill.
It will be firm in most people's memories.
Uh, we still don't know whether an appeal is going to be submitted.
Well, we know that they have said that they will appeal.
Um, no appeal has been, uh, submitted as yet, in my understanding.
Is that right?
Thank you.
Um, number five was Tooting Beck, 100 Tooting Beck Road, um, um, a building that has been
before this committee many times.
Um, we, uh, we objected to some of the details of the, the application, but, again, um, planning
applications committee after some debate, uh, granted, uh, approval.
Uh, and number six, the Battersea Power Station, um, which we commented on, uh, and again, um,
planning commission was granted by delegated authority.
Um, and finally, um, um, uh, 794 Bollingbrook Grove, which we, uh, objected to, um, uh, was, um, refused, um, and they
went to appeal, and the appeal was dismissed, which I think we should welcome.
Uh, planning inspectorate doing its job.
Um, any comments anyone wants to make on any of those decisions?
Frances.
Just a, a point of clarification for our, my, my benefit at any rate.
Is there a time limit for appeal against the glass mill refusal?
I think it's six months from the app, from when the application has been refused, formally
refused by the local authority.
They have that period of time to decide whether to appeal.
I believe so, yes.
So six months.
Thank you.
So sometime before Christmas, they've got to get it in.
Is, sorry, Peter Farrow.
Sorry, um, just one thing about the Endersham Road, um, that we objected to.
I wasn't present at the meeting, but I supported the objection.
I will support the objection.
Um, I watched online the planning applications committee consideration of the scheme.
And we've mentioned before that we, that the committee does not seem to give significant
weight to what it is that we say.
And I think that was, that was apparent in the, um, in the debate, um, uh, on Endersham Road,
that, um, our, our opinion, um, I think was not given the weight that it should have been.
I know that's, um, something that you have, um, yourself, um, felt sensitive to in the past.
So I just wanted to know whether or not, um, you think, um, it is a point that we should record.
If indeed you agree.
I think probably that is a matter for an offline conversation with the chair of the planning
applications committee.
As you were.
Any other?
However, however, I think I can understand that comment in all sorts of ways.
But the committee gave it fairly broad consideration.
As I remember it, the person sitting behind me was rather supportive of, uh, of, of this
committee's observations.
Did I get that right?
You were, weren't you?
Well, rather supportive.
So it was considered, but there were, there were other things to be borne in mind, including
the gain of a certain number of residential units and, uh, uh, and other attitudes that
committee members, planning applications committee members considered to be more significant,
perhaps.
They weren't, of course, looking at it just from the point of view of the impact on the conservation
area.
It's a broader sweep.
So I, I wouldn't say we ignored the comments at all, but I can understand why you might
feel us at that.
Thank you.
I had an online word from the chair of PAC.
Is there any other business?
In which case I simply draw your, ah, sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry, Chair.
Mr. Cato.
Sorry, Chair.
Um, just to, um, raise the fact, I don't expect the committee because, um, none of you
have had a chance to see these things.
Um, just to raise for information, um, that, um, in the last couple of weeks have been two
new applications concerning listed buildings in South West 15.
Um, one is for 26 Bessborough Road, which is grade two listed, a 1938, um.
Um, housed by Colin Lucas of Conal Ward and Lucas.
Um, and the second is for, um, new disabled access and lots of solar panels on the roof
of the Methodist Church in Putney.
Um, we, um, as a, our panel supported the Methodists' proposals and are neutral on the
Bessborough Road ones, which looks like a new owner doing the right thing by a, a long
suffering house.
Um, but I don't know if it, because obviously these would be long since decided by the time
we next meet.
Sorry, ah, you did signal in advance that you wanted to raise that and I'm sorry I forgot
about that.
Um, is there any other business?
In which case, um, can I remind you that we meet again on, uh, the 8th of September?
And I'm told that it will not be in the Council Chamber but will be back in Committee Room
1, 2, 4.
3.
Uh, which is slightly more comfortable.
Certainly, I have to say as chair, it is slightly more comfortable for me.
Uh, all are in here though, believe it or not.
Um, sorry, I was just going to say, you can give my apologies perhaps to the Committee Chair
wouldn't for that, that occasion.
I will be on holiday, I'm glad to say.
Thank you very much, everyone.
And thank you for your, uh, attention this evening.
And, uh, I hope you don't melt when you get home.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.