The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) has backed down from controversial proposals that would have weakened protections for Wandsworth’s historic buildings, parks, and public spaces.
The original proposal, revealed in March, sought to insert council, London-wide, and national planning policies into the Committee’s decision-making remit — a move critics warned would open the door to rapid urban development at the expense of Wandsworth’s unique character.
As Putney.news reported at the time, the changes risked diluting the Committee’s mission and prioritising development targets over genuine heritage preservation.
At a subsequent CHAC meeting, leading local voices including Peter Farrow of the Wandsworth Society and Mark Dodgson of the Balham Society opposed the amendments, arguing they would strip the borough’s conservation watchdog of its core purpose. We reported their arguments in a follow-up story.
Meanwhile, the Wandsworth Liberal Democrats launched a campaign to save the Committee’s independence, collecting support across the borough and sending a letter directly to the Chair urging a rethink.
Committee rethink
As a result of this pressure — from Putney.news, local societies, and campaigners — the Committee has revised its proposals [pdf], removing all references to council and regional planning frameworks. The final version restores the Committee’s clear focus on championing heritage and conservation, while only allowing mention of broader planning issues where appropriate.
This is the right decision — and it comes not a moment too soon.
Wandsworth’s Labour-run council has shown little or no regard for the borough’s historic environment, as a series of recent controversies reveal:
- The council is currently pushing a damaging new Events Policy that would turn beloved parks into festival grounds, threatening noise, crowding, and ecological harm. When residents raised serious concerns, the council ignored them — resubmitting the same policy for public consultation without change.
- Just last month, Wandsworth Council forced through approval for a 29-storey tower on Swandon Way, despite the scheme clearly breaching protections for the delicate Wandle eco-system.
- And this week, in an extraordinary display of inconsistency, Wandsworth Council rejected a very similar tower proposal in Battersea this week after resident opposition.
Thanks must go to the CHAC for listening to public concerns — in stark contrast to the borough’s political leadership. Wandsworth’s historic places are under siege, and the CHAC’s renewed commitment to its conservation mission will be vital in the months ahead.
Wandsworth deserves better — and that means defending its heritage, not building over it.
What were the proposed changes and what are they now?
At earlier meetings in January and March 2025, the Chair of the Wandsworth Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee proposed a change to the Terms of Reference to allow the committee to consider broader planning issues, not just heritage impacts.
The idea was that while the committee’s focus remained on conservation, it should be allowed to “make reference to specific planning documents” such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), London Plan, and Wandsworth Council Local Plan when responding to planning applications.
The Chair argued that this would “strengthen the position of the Committee” because planning decisions take many factors into account, and if the committee tied its advice to wider planning frameworks, its comments would carry more weight with officers and the Planning Applications Committee.
However, this first version of the change faced criticism. Some members worried that referencing broader planning policies could “obfuscate” the committee’s core purpose of heritage protection and weaken its specialist voice. They argued that the committee should instead “provide fuller and more detailed comments regarding matters of conservation and heritage” rather than branch out into other areas like housing or sustainability. In light of this feedback, the committee voted in March 2025 to defer changes and ask the Chair and officers to revise the proposals.
The newly proposed changes (to be discussed on 6 May 2025) are more carefully worded. They still allow the committee to refer to broader planning matters, but they reassert that the primary focus remains on heritage. In particular, the new wording says the committee can make wider planning references “as appropriate” — meaning it’s optional, not required.
This updated approach reassures members that their heritage-first role is preserved, while giving flexibility to strengthen arguments when needed. The new draft also fixes technical points, like officially adding the Wandsworth Historical Society as a member organisation, and cleaning up minor typographical errors.
| Original Proposed Changes | New Proposed Changes (May 2025) | |
|---|---|---|
| Main Purpose | Still heritage-focused, but also encouraged to consider broader planning matters. | Reaffirms the “primary focus” is heritage, with broader planning references allowed “as appropriate”. |
| Language about wider planning issues | Stronger: proposed that the Committee would “make reference to specific planning documents” like the NPPF, London Plan, Local Plan. | Softer: now says the Committee may make reference “as appropriate” to wider planning considerations, but not mandatory. |
| Concern from members | Members feared this would “obfuscate” the committee’s core conservation role and weaken its voice. | Revision acknowledges these concerns, aiming to strengthen heritage focus while giving flexibility when helpful. |
| Overall impact | Seen as a shift toward a more policy-heavy, less heritage-specific committee. | A balance: keeps heritage advocacy central but gives tools to link objections to wider policy when useful. |
