The Wandsworth Planning Applications Committee met on 23 July 2025, and approved four applications for permission to develop, and one application to vary conditions, while also discussing tree preservation orders and recent planning decisions. The committee approved the recommendations for applications at Merivale Road, Penwith Road, Thurleigh Road, Blenkarne Road and Chetwode Road.

Wimbledon Tennis Club Judicial Review

Duncan Moores, External Legal Advisor, updated the committee on the judicial review issued by Sabledon Park Limbletid regarding the Wimbledon Tennis Club development. The claimant's application to challenge the Deputy Mayor's decision to grant planning permission was dismissed on all three grounds. Sabledon Park applied to the trial judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but that application was refused. Sabledon Park has until 22 August to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, needing to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the statutory trust and restrictive covenant point.

Councillor Guy Humphreys, Councillor for Southfields in Putney, added that the Save Women in Park campaign are having a meeting to decide whether they're going to take that route to ask for an appeal. He also noted that there is a further case being brought by All England, with opposition from Save Women in Park campaign, about the issues of the trust as a separate issue, which is expected to come to court in January.

Penwith Road

The committee approved an application to vary conditions at 150a-170 Penwith Road, which allows for the reconfiguration of four flats into six flats, with the six flats being designated as affordable units, by five votes to two, with one abstention. Councillor Humphreys declared a prejudicial interest in this item and left the room for its duration.

Ellen Richards, the team leader for the west area, summarised the history of the site, explaining that the original application was refused by officers but approved on appeal in 2019. The approved application allowed for 17 residential units, with eight designated as affordable housing. The applicant had made several attempts to reduce the number of affordable units. The current application proposed six affordable housing units, all one-bed units located on the first floor. Ms Richards stated that the site was mostly complete and many units were occupied. She added that officers recommended approval, despite the loss of a family unit, because the site was mostly built and a registered provider had been found to manage the affordable units.

Councillor Colclough for St Mary's Ward, Battersea, expressed dissatisfaction, stating that the developer had built a non-compliant unit and was now trying to get permission, with the new mix not compliant with the local plan¹. She said:

I feel like it's got to the point where the developers basically built a non-compliant unit, and is basically then trying to use the residents, who my heart goes out for, that they've been put in this situation, but it's not the fault of the council if they do or do not provide permission, is that they've been put in this situation by the developer building a non-compliant unit mix that we didn't agree to.

Ms Richards responded that the committee had previously accepted the six-unit mix in 2022, subject to viability assessments. She added that enforcement action was considered, but legal advice suggested it would be difficult to justify in the public interest.

Councillor Worrell, Shaftesbury and Queenstown, raised concerns about the reliability of the developers and sought reassurance that agreements would be honoured. She asked what steps could be taken if the committee rejected the application. Ms Richards acknowledged that the applicants had pushed the envelope and that the inspector's initial decision was disappointing. She reiterated the difficulties in justifying enforcement action, given the residents' legal interests and the fact that six affordable units would be provided.

Councillor Apps, Shaftesbury and Queenstown Ward, expressed concern that allowing developers to develop a different scheme than agreed would set a bad precedent and encourage developers to see Wandsworth as a soft touch.

Duncan Moores, External Legal Advisor, stated that the decision would not create any precedent and that each application would be dealt with on its merits. He added that officers had stood their ground firmly and that the application was acceptable on balance.

Councillor Pridham, Lavender Ward in Battersea, raised concerns about the residents already living there and the legal issues they faced. Ms Richards clarified that the legal issues were private matters between the residents and the applicants.

Councillor Rora sought clarification on what serving a notice on residents would mean. Ms Richards explained that it would involve serving an enforcement notice on everyone with a legal interest in the land, but that it was unlikely people would be expected to move out. Mr Moores added that a separate paper would come before the committee to outline the different enforcement routes.

Councillor Colclough returned to the discussion, arguing that the previous decision to allow six units was made under a different local plan. Ms Richards clarified that the policy associated with the land use had not changed significantly in the new local plan.

Councillor Tony Belton, Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, summarised the discussion and proposed approving the application, which was carried by a vote of five to two, with one abstention.

Thurleigh Road

The committee approved an application for the demolition of an existing two-storey dwelling house and the erection of a replacement three-storey house at 70 Thurleigh Road by six votes to three. Councillor Hedges spoke on behalf of residents objecting to the application, citing procedural impropriety, omission of important context, and factual inconsistencies in the report. She raised concerns about conservation, residential amenity, environmental and ecological damage, construction impact, and policy conflicts.

Nigel Granger, the East Area Team Manager, provided an overview of the proposal, stating that the harm caused to the conservation area would be at the very lower end of the less than substantial harm scale. Barry Sellers, principal urban design officer, said that the existing building was neutral in terms of its contribution to the conservation area.

Councillor Justin, Nine Elms, questioned the 25-month construction timeline. Councillor Ayers, East Putney, objected to demolishing a perfectly usable building. Councillor Humphreys argued that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the conservation area and that the scale of the proposed replacement was out of proportion to the site.

Councillor Belton said that the new building looked like a contribution to the conservation area and that there was no particular reason to safeguard the existing building. Councillor Humphreys raised the impact of removing 90% of the trees on the site.

Blenkarne Road

The committee unanimously approved an application concerning 7 Blenkarne Road, subject to an addition to condition 11 to include reference to the green roof. Councillor Worrell sought clarification on comments from the conservation and heritage committee and the tree officer, as well as the loss of a habitable room.

Mr Granger explained that the council's policy, LP25, protects existing housing stock, particularly family-sized accommodation. He stated that officers had observed the top floor flat to be a two-bedroom unit with a walk-in wardrobe area, and therefore no conflict with policy LP25 was identified. He added that there were a lot of replacement specimens for the trees and that the translocation of a magnolia tree was being undertaken by a specialist firm.

Councillor Colclough asked about the green roof, and Mr Granger said that the quantum of the green roof was not large enough to warrant a specific condition. Councillor Ayers suggested getting further information on the green roofs.

Councillor Humphreys said that the removal of the metal fire escape and the reintroduction of the canopy were positives, but that the side extension spoiled the reading of the house. Mr Granger said that the quantum of the elevation was not so harmful to the overarching character.

Councillor Pridham sought clarification on how LP25 is applied, and Mr Granger confirmed that it is based on how the property is being used at the time of the application. Mr Moores added that the purpose of LP25 is to resist the loss of units through amalgamations.

Chetwode Road

The committee approved an application relating to 21 Chetwode Road by five votes to four. Councillor Humphreys said that what had been built was markedly different from what was supposed to have been built. Mr Granger responded that the decorative features were now in place and that the overarching appearance of the building had been greatly improved.

Tree Preservation Orders

The committee approved the tree preservation orders as recommended. TPO 505/2025 relates to St. Stephen's Church, Battersea Bridge Road and TPO 506/2025 relates to 37 Keswick Road.

Other Matters

The committee noted the decisions, closure of investigation files, and closed appeals reports.