The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee met on Tuesday 4th November 2025, discussing several planning applications and reviewing recent decisions. Key decisions included objections to proposed developments at Bickley Street, Chivalry Hall, and land south of Tudor Lodge Health Centre, while supporting proposals for Putney Methodist Church.

Bickley Street Development

The committee discussed a proposal for three two-storey dwellings on land to the rear of Bickley Street, SW17 9NF. The development is situated within the setting of the Grade I listed Granada cinema. David Andrews, a Conservation and Urban Design Officer, presented the application, noting that while the proposed dwellings would not directly impact the significant parts of the cinema, they would affect its setting, particularly the view from Mitchum Road.

Concerns were raised by Mr. Mark Dodgson of the Balham Society regarding the archaeological potential of the site, which is believed to be the location of Eldon House, a mid-1700s manor. He requested further archaeological investigation before any development proceeds. There were also concerns about the proposed design's impact on the setting of the Granada cinema, with specific objections to deep fascia boards on the brickwork. Mr. Andrew Catto of the Putney Society supported the principle of development but echoed concerns about the visual impact and the need for archaeological assessment. The committee agreed to comment on the application with concerns regarding archaeological value and the need for further investigation before construction begins.

Chivalry Hall Applications

Two concurrent applications for Chivalry Hall, 29A-29B Chivalry Road, SW11 1HT, were considered. Ms. Lauren Way, Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer, explained that the applications related to the former synagogue, a locally listed building, and its associated hall, Chivalry Hall, built in 1927.

The first application (2025/2348) proposed amalgamating the two existing flats into a single six-bedroom house, including a garden room extension and new balconies. The second application (2025/3241) proposed reconfiguring the existing two flats with minor alterations to the fenestration. A significant point of contention for both applications was the proposed changes to the building's fenestration, particularly on the Chivalry Road elevation and the side elevation facing the garden. Councillor Finna Ayres and Councillor Emmeline Owens strongly objected to the proposed alterations to the front elevation, describing them as awful and detrimental to the building's proportions and public face. Mr. Catto also expressed concern about the loss of original window features and the scale of the proposed balconies. The committee expressed a firm no to the first application, citing unacceptable changes to the fenestration and glazing bars. For the second application, the committee noted that the objections regarding fenestration were largely the same, and the appearance of the two proposed developments was substantially identical. The committee's comments were predominantly negative, focusing on the unacceptable changes to the fenestration.

Land South of Tudor Lodge Health Centre

The committee reviewed an application for land south of Tudor Lodge Health Centre, 8c Victoria Drive, SW19 (2025/3192). Ms. Way presented the proposal for a two-bedroom, single-storey plus basement level house. This site was previously the subject of a refused application in 2022, which was dismissed at appeal. The inspector's appeal decision highlighted that the site fell within the definition of open space and that the proposed development would fill a green space and reduce the ability to appreciate Fairlawn Park.

The committee expressed strong reservations about whether any building should be constructed on this site, given its location within the grounds of the Grade II listed Fairlawn house and its proximity to the locally listed Fairlawn Park. Mr. Catto noted that the proposed thatched cottage design was inappropriate for the location and that the applicant's own heritage statement supported the inspector's view on maintaining open land. Councillor Ayres described the thatch design as showing complete ignorance of thatching. Dr. Pamela Greenwood of the Wandsworth Historical Society added that the design did not match anything in the area and looked like something from a chocolate box lid. The committee concluded that a building of this scale and design was completely inappropriate for the site, and they had strong reservations about whether anything should be built there at all.

Putney Methodist Church

Ms. Way presented an application for Putney Methodist Church, Upper Richmond Road, SW15 6SN (2025/1986), which proposed a new accessible entrance ramp and steps, replacement doors, and the installation of solar panels. The church is a Grade II listed building. The primary concern raised by the Reverend was to avoid any curtailment of the extent of the photovoltaic cells on the south-facing roof slope, which they intended to install for environmental reasons.

Mr. Catto of the Putney Society expressed strong support for the proposals, including the solar panels, noting that they would generate enough electricity to eliminate the need for a gas boiler. Councillor Ayres commended the application, sharing her experience of installing solar panels on a listed building at St. James's Piccadilly. Mr. Roger Armstrong of the Clapham Society raised a point about the potential for pigeon colonization around the solar panels and questioned whether the ramp's placement was fully integrated, suggesting an alternative location near the car park entrance might be more suitable. Ms. Greenwood noted that while a ramp was proposed, it felt like an afterthought rather than an integrated feature. However, Ms. Way clarified that the proposed ramp was tucked behind an existing wall, providing protection and avoiding the need for separate railings. The committee indicated they were in support of the application, with a potential request for further discussion on the ramp's design.

110-112 Putney High Street

The committee considered an application for 110-112 Putney High Street, SW15 1RG, which involved rear extensions, a front mansard roof extension, and a change of use of the upper floors to residential. Ms. Way explained that the proposal included the demolition of the rear elevations and the addition of new flats. Number 110 is a locally listed building, and number 112 is part of an adjacent terrace.

Mr. Catto noted that the building was designed by Edmund Sedding, a renowned church architect, and that extending upwards on Putney High Street was not unprecedented. He considered the stepped mansard a good idea, as it gave each building its own roof. However, he expressed concern about how the floor plates would interact with the double-height window of the former bank. Councillor Ayres questioned the designation of the buildings as a pair, noting their distinct differences. Mr. Dodgson also expressed unease about placing a mansard on the striking stone-fronted building, though he acknowledged its limited visibility. The committee generally supported the application, with a minor caveat regarding the detail of supporting the floor within the large window.

Report on Recent Decisions

The committee noted Paper No. 25-377, a report on recent decisions in cases where the committee had made recommendations. The Chair highlighted that for the first time, recommendations for refusal had been supported by the committee or officers. The committee noted the report with approval.

Future Meeting Dates

The committee noted the scheduled meeting dates for the remainder of the 2025/26 municipal year, with a note that the meeting on 12th May 2026 was likely to be cancelled due to its proximity to the Borough elections. The Chair confirmed that the schedule for the following year would be presented at the January meeting.