The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee met to discuss several planning applications and review recent decisions. The committee unanimously objected to applications for Chivalry Hall and Land South of Tudor Lodge Health Centre, while unanimously supporting proposals for Putney Methodist Church and 110-112 Putney High Street.

Planning Applications Discussed

The committee considered a number of planning applications, providing comments and making recommendations.

Land rear of 2 - 28 Bickley Street, SW17 9NF (Application 2025/2256)

The committee provided comments on the proposal to erect three two-storey dwellings with associated bin stores, cycle parking, and landscaping. Concerns were raised about whether the site was within an archaeological priority area, with officers unsure and noting that this work is conducted externally by the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS). There was also confusion regarding historic boundary walls, with one identified wall having been demolished in 2017. The committee suggested that fascia boards might be better served by a simple brick design. They also stated that if the development proceeded and the Granada reopened, the proximity of the residential development should not hinder performances. Members felt the application was not detrimental to the Grade I listed building, as the view down the alleyway was unlikely to be worsened. The committee emphasised that the archaeological value of the site required further investigation before any development.

Chivalry Hall, 29A - 29B Chivalry Road, SW11 1HT (Application 2025/2348)

The committee unanimously objected to the proposed alterations, including the installation of replacement windows and doors, roof covering with rooflights, solar panels, and an air source heat pump, in connection with the amalgamation of two dwelling houses into a single dwelling. Concerns were raised about whether the window openings were original, with the Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer stating that while the central opening might have been altered, there was no indication of others being changed. The proposal also included shortening two window openings to make them the same size. It was noted that no pre-application advice had been sought for this application. The committee expressed concern that the proposed balconies would be very large and imposing, visible from the street, and that their necessity was questionable given that both proposed dwellings would have garden access. Significant concerns were raised about the inclusion of glazing bars and the alteration of window sizes. The objection was based on the grounds that the changes to the fenestration, particularly on the Chivalry Row frontage, were unacceptable. The removal of lancet windows on the side elevation and the alteration of window sizes and addition of glazing bars would reduce the understanding of the hall's original use. Strong reservations were also raised about the fenestration of the garden-facing wall and the depth of the proposed balconies.

Chivalry Hall, 29A - 29B Chivalry Road, SW11 1HT (Application 2025/3241)

The committee unanimously objected to this application, which was predominantly the same as the previously considered application 2025/3241. The primary changes included the retention of one unit to be split vertically, an enlarged gateway parking and crossover, and the retention of one set of lancet windows on the side elevation. Given that the substance of their objections remained unresolved, the committee resolved to issue the same comments as for application 2025/3241. The objection was based on the grounds that the changes to the fenestration, particularly the Chivalry Row frontage, were unacceptable. The removal of lancet windows on the side elevation and the alteration of window sizes and addition of glazing bars would reduce the understanding of the hall's original use. Strong reservations were also raised about the fenestration of the garden-facing wall and the depth of the proposed balconies.

Land South of Tudor Lodge Health Centre, 8c Victoria Drive SW19 (Application 2025/3192)

The committee unanimously objected to the proposal for a two-bedroom single-storey plus basement level house with associated lightwells, landscaping, bin and bike store. The committee queried the precedent for a thatched roof, with officers noting that a previous appeal inspector had commented on the overly modern style of a prior application, leading the applicant to adopt a more traditional design. Concern was raised about thatching the property, especially as drawings indicated some walls were proposed to be thatched. Questions were raised about the acceptability of building on this land, referencing the applicant's design and access statement which indicated the need to retain the space and open land. Objection was also raised to the loss of trees. The committee objected on the grounds of the principle of development, stating that a building of this size and scale was inappropriate and out of character for its setting. They also endorsed the objection raised by the Wandsworth Tree Wardens.

Putney Methodist Church, Upper Richmond Road, SW15 6SN (Application 2025/1986)

The committee unanimously supported the proposal for planning permission for an accessible entrance ramp and steps, replacement entrance doors, an internal glazed lobby, relocation of a brick pier, a new opening in the perimeter wall and railings, a new noticeboard, a shared bin store, raised solar panels, and an air source heat pump. It was noted that there had been no objections and four letters of support, with the Putney Society fully supporting the proposal. The addition of photovoltaic panels would generate enough electricity to remove the existing gas boiler. A comment was made regarding the need to screen the base of the photovoltaic panels to deter birds. A query was raised about the possibility of a less distinctive ramp approach from the car park to integrate with the general entrance. The applicant had met with community groups and the Putney Society. The committee unanimously supported the application, requesting further consideration regarding the design of the ramp.

110-112 Putney High Street, SW15 1RG (Application 2025/3306)

The committee unanimously supported the proposal for alterations including rear extensions and a front mansard roof extension to the existing ground floor commercial space, and a change of use at the upper floors to create residential units. It was noted that the proposal would retain the front façade while redeveloping the rest of the building. The committee felt that allowing a mansard roof was a positive addition, enhancing the street view. Concern was raised about how the floorplates would manage and support the double-height window. The committee unanimously supported the application, asking for further consideration regarding floor support in the middle of the large window and other associated matters for the proposed flat above.

Matters Arising

The committee sought an update on the Furzedown Lodge site. Officers stated that a pre-application meeting had been completed, but further progress was awaited from other Council departments regarding the best use of the site, which is Council-owned land. The Chair expressed disappointment at the lack of progress, given the significant time already spent on renewing the site, and requested Conservation Officers liaise with other departments to expedite the process.

Regarding Waterfall House, the Principal Conservation and Urban Design Officer reported that the appeal for five freestanding advertising banners had been dismissed. Officers noted that a further application, previously considered by the committee, was progressing in line with the committee's previous comments.

Decisions

The committee reviewed decisions reported for information. The Chair noted with approval that applications previously recommended for refusal by the committee had been determined as such.

Future Meeting Dates

The committee was advised that their meeting scheduled for 12th May 2026 was proposed to be cancelled due to its proximity to the Borough elections, with the May 2026 meeting of the Planning Applications Committee also cancelled for similar reasons. The committee noted their schedule of meetings for the remainder of the municipal year.