This meeting of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) saw members discuss a range of planning applications, focusing on their impact on conservation areas and listed buildings. The committee objected to a proposal on Upper Tooting Road due to its height and design, and deferred a decision on Moira Court. Members also raised concerns about several other applications, including those for Waterfall House, Rayne House, Riversdale Primary School and Greenview Court.

Upper Tooting Road Development

The committee objected to application 2024/1857 for 98-104 Upper Tooting Road, which proposes the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part four, part five-storey building with 23 residential units and commercial space.

Key concerns included:

• Impact on Heritage Assets: The proposed development's effect on the setting of the Grade II listed Kingshead pub and the locally listed former sorting office was a major worry.
• Height and Scale: The committee felt the building's height was inappropriate for the area and inconsistent with the local plan policy LP4, which protects areas outside of mid-rise and tall building zones.
• Design and Character: Members criticised the building's design for not reflecting the local character of Upper Tooting Road, which typically features smaller, individual shops.
• Archaeological Aspects: The committee noted the archaeological aspects of the site needed careful consideration, given its location on ancient Stain Street.

Councillor Finna Ayres questioned the need for such a large restaurant in the development, but was told that the viability of the restaurant had led to the design.

Ms Libby Lawson, of the Tooting History Group, expressed disappointment, noting previous concerns about the loss of smaller terraces of buildings. Mr Roger Armstrong, of the Clapham Society, suggested the building should have a slate roof and red brick to better reflect the traditional buildings of Upper Tooting Road. Mr Peter Farrow, of the Wandsworth Society, considered the building too large for the site and suggested it should be at least one storey lower.

Moira Court

Discussion of application 2025/0225 for Moira Court on Balham High Road was deferred to allow Mr Mark Dodgson, of the Balham Society, to be present. The application concerns the erection of an additional storey to provide nine flats, as well as an additional staircase and lift shaft.

Waterfall House

The committee discussed application 2025/2531 for signage at Waterfall House, a listed building on Tooting High Street, but did not make a decision. The application is for the display of non-illuminated wall-mounted fascia and boundary-fronted fascia signs for the dentist surgery located there.

The committee discussed the number of signs already present, and whether they were authorised. Ms Lawson noted that the dental practice had previously plastered the perimeter fencing with signs, but these had been taken down. She suggested that a sign on the wall would be more acceptable, and that this could set a precedent for a second sign for the dental practice.

Councillor Emmeline Owens noted that schools across the borough do not tend to have bright and colourful signs on walls and buildings. Mr Dodgson said that he was not totally against a separate sign, but that he objected to the duplication.

Rayne House

The committee commented on application 2025/193 for Rayne House on Sudbrooke Road, which includes the erection of an additional floor of accommodation with balconies and excavation to enlarge the basement.

The committee noted that the application was creating a mid-rise building in a street that is mainly two stories, contrary to the policy in the local plan. They also commented that they were unable to reach a view on the impact on the conservation area because no evidence had been provided.

Mr Armstrong raised concerns about creating a precedent for other sites to be redeveloped with taller buildings.

Riversdale Primary School

The committee commented on applications 2025/2161 and 2025/2288 for Riversdale Primary School on Merton Road, but did not make a decision. The applications concern the erection of a two-storey building to accommodate four classrooms and ancillary spaces, and the removal of an existing single-storey modular classroom building.

The committee noted that it was impossible to tell from what had been submitted what the impact would be on the street scene in Merton Road, the park at the back, and the listed building.

Mr Farrow said that he thought the building could well be successful in its relationship to the building, but that it was not clear from the submitted drawings.

Greenview Court

The committee discussed application 2025/2661 for Greenview Court on Baskerville Road, which proposes the demolition of the existing block of flats and the erection of three 5-bedroom houses.

Mr Andrew Catto, of the Putney Society, asked if the loss of units had been referred to in the previous refusal. Councillor Ayres noted that the new development would have more bedrooms.

Councillor Owens asked how much of an improvement the application was on the last one, and was told that it was a slight improvement in terms of the gables being reintroduced at roof level, but that there were still concerns about some of the detailed elements.

Mr Armstrong said that the application would cause harm to the conservation area, because it was trying to wipe away history. Mr Farrow said that it was extremely disappointing that the committee was being presented with replicas of Victorian housing in 2025.

The Moorings

The committee discussed application 2025/1787 for The Moorings on Battersea Church Road, which concerns the erection of a pontoon on the River Thames, but did not make a decision, as the application had been withdrawn.

Mr Sellers noted that the application was for the construction of a pontoon, a staircase from the embankment walkway onto the pontoon, and structures associated with the pontoon, which would affect the visibility of the setting of St Mary's Church from the river.

Decisions

The committee noted the recent decisions on planning applications, as detailed in Paper No. 25-293. They noted that they were an advisory committee and their advice was not always accepted.

The committee noted that applications they had objected to at 29 St Johns Avenue, 70 Thurleigh Road and 7 Blenkarne Road had been granted.

Other Business

The committee noted the future meeting dates.