Members of Wandsworth Council’s Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) were divided last night over proposed changes to the group’s terms of reference, following a public outcry sparked by our article that warned of weaker protections for historic buildings and parks.
The committee, which advises on planning applications that affect conservation areas and heritage assets across the borough, met on Monday night to debate a proposal to explicitly reference broader planning policies—such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the London Plan, and Wandsworth’s local plan—within its formal remit.
The suggestion has triggered controversy after we published an article on March 21 titled “Putney’s Historic Buildings and Parks Under Threat from Council Rule Change.” In it, we warned that the change was part of a larger politically driven move by the Labour-run administration to make it easier to approve developments that could harm heritage sites.
Committee Chair: ‘No Plot, Just Clarity’
Responding directly to the article, Committee Chair Michael Jubb said the proposed amendments were “not intended to weaken our position, but rather to strengthen it.” He rejected the notion of a council-driven effort to push its housing agenda, calling the article “barking up the wrong tree.”
“We are an advisory body, not a decision-making one,” Jubb stressed. “Our job is to make recommendations, and these are sometimes overlooked. The idea behind this proposal is to make our advice stronger and more effective by aligning it with established policy frameworks.”
Mixed Reactions from Committee Members
Despite reassurances, several committee members expressed concern that the change could undermine the group’s core mission.
Peter Farrow of the Wandsworth Society argued strongly against the amendment. “There’s no need to add this into our objectives,” he said. “Our job is to advocate for heritage assets—statutory and locally listed buildings, conservation areas, parks—and that should remain our sole focus. We are not here to do the weighing and balancing of other planning priorities. That’s the job of the Planning Applications Committee.”
Farrow also dismissed the suggestion that simply acknowledging other planning concerns in CHAC’s comments would strengthen their influence. “Saying ‘we are aware of other planning issues’ doesn’t add anything meaningful. It risks weakening the clarity and strength of our message.”
Mark Dodgson of the Balham Society echoed this unease, saying he was “unclear what problem” the new wording was attempting to solve. “Is it that we’re being criticized for referencing policies outside conservation? If so, who is criticizing us? And why would we need this addition at all?”
Dodgson also raised concerns about the language in the draft amendment—particularly the phrase “taking account as appropriate” of other policies—which he feared could be interpreted as obliging the committee to weigh in on planning matters beyond its remit.
Others Support Broadening the Context
However, some members felt the changes could help the committee’s voice carry more weight.
Councillor Tony Belton, a long-time member of the Planning Applications Committee, acknowledged that heritage recommendations are sometimes dismissed as overly narrow. “They think, ‘Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?’” he said. “I’d just like our advice to show that we’re aware of the wider pressures—like housing need—without claiming it’s our job to resolve those tensions.”
Andrew Catto, Putney Society representative, agreed. He noted that referencing policy frameworks can help “strengthen the ammunition” for councillors who support heritage, especially when proposals threaten protected buildings or conservation zones. He even suggested expanding the wording to include other published policies.
Committee Votes to Rework, Not Abandon
After lengthy debate, the committee rejected calls to scrap the proposal entirely. Instead, members voted to allow the Chair and officers to bring back revised wording at the next meeting—wording that would reflect the committee’s awareness of wider planning policies without suggesting it must engage in broader policy judgment.
However, several members made clear that even a reworded version may not win approval. “We have to make our heritage arguments stronger and clearer, not blur them,” one said.
In the meantime, the Committee also agreed to rectify an oversight by adding the Wandsworth Historical Society to the official list of member organizations and will consider outreach to additional civic groups in nearby boroughs, such as Richmond and Merton.
What’s Next?
The revised wording is expected to be brought forward for discussion at the next CHAC meeting. But with strong views on both sides—and the impact of our article still looming—it remains uncertain whether consensus can be reached.
