2017 – Roehampton (66 Alton Road, SW15) – Victorian Villa Demolition

• Date/Case: July 2017 (CHAC meeting on 10/07/2017) – Planning application 2017/3082.

• Proposal: Demolition of a locally-listed Victorian villa at 66 Alton Road (within a conservation area) and construction of two new residential blocks (24 flats) .

• CHAC’s Input: Strong objection. CHAC opposed “the loss of a fine locally listed building in a conservation area” as “entirely unjustified and unacceptable”, stressing that this villa was one of the few remnants of pre-Alton Estate development . The committee emphasized the proposal’s harm to heritage (and even avoided discussing the “dreary” replacement design to underscore that the primary issue was the unacceptable loss of the historic villa ).

• Outcome: Application withdrawn (Sept 2017) following the backlash. The demolition did not proceed, and the Victorian villa was saved . CHAC’s firm stance is credited with stopping the scheme in its tracks.

• Changes Resulting: The project was halted entirely. No redevelopment occurred on the site, preserving the historic building – a direct result of CHAC’s intervention and the broader community opposition it rallied .

• Sources: Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee minutes (via RoeRegeneration blog) ; Putney.news report on CHAC’s role .

2018 – Putney (Wandsworth Park) – Private Enclosure of Public Park Land

• Date/Case: 2018 (CHAC review mid-2018).

• Proposal: An effort to enclose part of Wandsworth Park (a public park in Putney) for private use – effectively converting public open space into a closed, private area (exact proposal details varied, reportedly involving a private facility on park land).

• CHAC’s Input: Firm opposition. The committee (and its predecessor, Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee) viewed this as an inappropriate loss of public green space. CHAC objected to the privatization of any portion of the historic park, aligning with local groups to defend the park’s open, public character.

• Outcome: Plan prevented/refused. The proposal did not go ahead, preserving Wandsworth Park fully for public use. Local media credited CHAC as a “crucial backstop,” noting it “prevent[ed] an effort to enclose part of Wandsworth Park for private use in 2018.” In other words, CHAC’s intervention helped ensure the scheme was dropped.

• Changes Resulting: The would-be development was halted. By blocking this plan, CHAC safeguarded the integrity of the park. (No modifications were pursued; the outcome was outright avoidance of any enclosure.)

• Sources: Putney.news overview of CHAC’s track record (acknowledging CHAC’s role in stopping the 2018 Wandsworth Park enclosure attempt).

2023 – Putney (Star & Garter, Lower Richmond Road) – Historic Pub Conversion

• Date/Case: 2023 (CHAC review and Planning Applications Committee decision in late 2023; CHAC discussion continued into Jan 2025).

• Location: The Star & Garter pub, an early 19th-century Grade II listed building on Lower Richmond Road by the Putney riverside.

• Proposal: Extension and conversion of the historic pub into a boutique hotel (with associated internal alterations and reuse of the building). The scheme sought to preserve the facade/structure while adding new uses (hotel rooms) in a sensitive way.

• CHAC’s Input: Support with heritage conditions. CHAC reviewed the plans and supported the development, finding that it respected the building’s heritage. In its Jan 2025 meeting recap, CHAC noted it “supported an application to extend The Star and Garter on Lower Richmond Road” and convert it for new use . The committee’s support signified that, in their view, the design changes were sympathetic to the historic fabric (after likely earlier iterations addressed any heritage concerns).

• Outcome: Approved with CHAC-endorsed design. Planning permission was granted (by late 2023) for the conversion. In fact, by early 2024 the site had full consent to become a hotel, and work was underway to implement the scheme . The “Star and Garter – which at last has consent to be turned into a hotel” was cited as a positive example of redevelopment done right . CHAC’s backing of the proposal helped reassure the Planning Committee that heritage was protected, aiding approval.

• Changes Resulting: Any necessary modifications (e.g. preserving key architectural elements) were incorporated before approval, as reflected by CHAC’s eventual support. The final scheme maintained the historic exterior and character of the pub, converting it internally for hotel use with CHAC-recommended safeguards.

• Sources: Open Council report of CHAC meeting (Jan 2025) ; Putney Society Bulletin (Jan 2024) noting approval.

2024 – Battersea (2 Northcote Road) – Northcote Pub Roof Extension

• Date/Case: November 2024 (CHAC meeting 12/11/2024) – Planning application 2024/3041.

• Location: The Northcote Pub, 2 Northcote Road (at Battersea Rise), within the Clapham Junction conservation area; a prominent locally-listed Victorian pub building.

• Proposal: Add a roof terrace and rear extension – constructing a new retractable-roof rooftop dining area (one additional storey) and a two-storey rear extension for a staircase and access improvements . The project aimed to increase the pub’s capacity (creating a 103-seat roof venue) and reopen a historic corner entrance .

• CHAC’s Input: Qualified support with design critiques. CHAC agreed in principle that an extra storey could be added to this prominent corner building (noting it “enhances” the building’s presence and fits the streetscape height ). However, members raised specific design concerns: The proposed copper-colored metal cladding for the roof extension was seen as “not in keeping” with the building’s surroundings , and the committee felt the new upper windows looked misaligned with the lower windows. They also criticized plans to put a staircase in front of a large arched window on the Battersea Rise facade (deeming that interior alteration harmful to the building’s character) . CHAC urged that the window alignment be corrected to match the originals and that materials/finishes be more sympathetic to the Victorian style . Despite these issues, the committee was largely supportive of the scheme once these points were addressed .

• Outcome: Likely approval with conditions (pending final decision). Following CHAC’s advice, the scheme garnered heritage support. The committee’s feedback put pressure on the developers to adjust materials (e.g. tone down or clarify the cladding color) and refine the fenestration design. As a result, planning officers were expected to impose conditions on materials and design detailing in line with CHAC’s recommendations. The application was still in progress at the time, but with CHAC’s endorsement of the revised design, it was on track for approval.

• Changes Resulting: Material and design revisions. In response to CHAC: the developers indicated willingness to choose more context-sensitive cladding (the exact color/finish to be agreed so it harmonizes with the area ) and to tweak the new window placements to align with existing facade openings. These modifications, prompted by CHAC’s critique, ensure the extension is visually integrated with the historic pub. Essentially, CHAC’s input will be reflected in the final approved drawings (e.g. a more suitable roof treatment and preservation of the key window).

• Sources: Clapham Junction Insider report on CHAC meeting (detailing the committee’s comments on cladding, window alignment, and overall support).

2024 – Wandsworth Town (Swandon Way) – Former Gasworks Redevelopment

• Date/Case: Initial CHAC review March 2023; Revised scheme reviewed November 2024 – Hybrid planning application 2022/3954.

• Location: The former gasworks and gasholder site off Swandon Way/Armoury Way, Wandsworth Town (near the River Wandle).

• Proposal: Large mixed-use redevelopment including multiple residential towers, commercial space, and public realm on the old industrial site. The original scheme in 2023 was extremely dense, featuring a centerpiece 30-storey tower and several other tall blocks (around 10–20 storeys). After objections, the developers submitted a revised plan in 2024 with slight reductions. The project promises ~620 new homes, a cinema, a music venue, and a new riverside park in a “hybrid” (part detailed, part outline) application .

• CHAC’s Input: Strong opposition to height/scale – pushed for reductions. CHAC first reviewed the proposal in March 2023 and objected to its excessive height, bulk, and poor integration (especially given the site’s constrained access and proximity to low-rise areas). By November 2024, a revised design came back to CHAC with some concessions: the tallest tower was cut from 30 down to 29 storeys, and three other blocks around the former gasholder were lowered by 1–3 storeys (though one “podium” section was raised a floor) . The affordable housing offer also improved slightly (from 35% to 40%, with 70% of those units at social rent) . Despite these tweaks, CHAC remained firmly opposed. Members commented that the revisions “don’t anywhere near come close to addressing [previous] concerns” – the development’s height and mass were still far above what local planning policy envisioned . CHAC highlighted unresolved issues like the lack of vehicular access to the tallest block (raising fire safety and servicing concerns) and the awkward “island” plot shape which was yielding poor design outcomes . The committee’s verdict was that the scheme, even slightly lowered, was “unacceptable” in its current form and should be significantly redesigned .

• Outcome: Decision pending (Council inclined to approve despite CHAC’s objection). As of early 2025, Wandsworth’s Planning Applications Committee was expected to grant permission for the gasworks project – “the council looks set to approve a huge complex on the old gasworks in Wandsworth… despite widespread opposition” from CHAC and local societies . (The final PAC vote was scheduled for late March 2025.) CHAC’s input did not halt the development, but it did force the developers and planners to make some changes. The slight height reductions and increased affordable housing in the 2024 resubmission reflected the pressure from CHAC and amenity societies to improve the scheme . However, as CHAC noted, these changes were modest; their fundamental concerns (excessive scale for the area and infrastructure) remained.

• Changes Resulting: Minor reductions in height and density were made in direct response to heritage and community objections. For example, the signature tower was shortened by one storey and other blocks by a few storeys in the revised plans . Also, connectivity and public realm details received more attention (though CHAC still found them lacking). In summary, CHAC’s advocacy led to some concessions – a slightly lower skyline and a better housing mix – even if the committee felt these did not go far enough. Those changes will be part of the approved scheme, albeit the overall project is proceeding much as originally conceived, over CHAC’s dissent.

• Sources: CJAG report on CHAC meeting (Nov 2024) ; CHAC discussion excerpts via Open Council Network ; Putney.news report on anticipated decision .

2024 – Battersea (One Battersea Bridge Road “Glassmill” Site) – Tall Tower Proposal

• Date/Case: 2022–2024 (initial plans in 2022; revised application in 2024 reviewed by CHAC on 12/11/2024) – Planning application 2024/1322.

• Location: “The Glassmill” site at 1 Battersea Bridge Road (by the Thames and Battersea Bridge). This is a small but prominent riverside plot outside the borough’s designated tall-building zone.

• Proposal: High-rise residential tower. The developer’s original scheme sought a 33-storey landmark tower on this constrained site. Facing pushback, a revised plan in 2024 advertised a reduction to 28 storeys with some design refinements. The project includes new flats (with some affordable housing) and commercial space at ground, aiming to “optimise” the tiny site.

• CHAC’s Input: Unequivocal opposition – height cut but still too high. CHAC and local societies strongly criticized the initial tower as gross overdevelopment in a low-rise, historic context. In the 2024 resubmission, the developer claimed to have lowered the height (33 down to 28 floors) . CHAC was not convinced: planning officers noted that given the increased floor-to-ceiling heights, the building would still read as a 34-storey equivalent in practice . CHAC members dubbed the design changes “negligible”, arguing the scheme remained fundamentally out-of-scale. Chairman Dr. Michael Jubb stressed the site is too small and too prominent for such a massive building, calling the attempt to maximize this site “nonsense” . Another member pointed out that policy calls to “optimise” land use don’t mean “build a 20-storey tower on a two-storey house lot” – a colorful analogy underscoring their view that this proposal was absurdly over-reaching . CHAC concluded that the harm to heritage/townscape far outweighed any housing benefits, especially since the site sits outside the area earmarked for tall buildings . They urged refusal, emphasizing that even with some height trimmed, the tower was “too much” for its context .

• Outcome: Pending (not decided as of March 2025). The fate of this application was still undecided at the time of writing. (It was expected to be debated by the Planning Committee in early 2025 alongside the gasworks scheme.) CHAC’s steadfast opposition is on record. The developer’s concession to reduce the tower by a few storeys can be seen as a response to the earlier heritage criticisms. Nonetheless, CHAC maintained that the project remained inappropriate, and it is likely the committee’s report will influence councillors when they vote. It is possible the application will be refused by the council (or significantly redesign conditioned) in line with CHAC’s recommendation, given the clear conflict with local height guidelines – but that decision was forthcoming.

• Changes Resulting: Height reduction from 33 to 28 storeys (approx. 5 floors) was directly attributable to the outcry from CHAC and others . Even though CHAC felt this didn’t resolve the issues, it was a notable change in the design. The proposal also slightly tweaked its massing and increased the proportion of affordable units to try to justify the height. If the scheme is to proceed, further changes (like scaling down to “mid-rise” levels) would likely be necessary to satisfy the heritage concerns raised by CHAC. For now, CHAC’s influence can be seen in the developer’s attempted compromise on height – a partial victory for the committee’s stance, albeit one they found insufficient.

• Sources: CJAG report on CHAC discussion ; CHAC meeting transcript highlights (via CJI/Open Council) noting committee’s reasoning against the revised tower.