Wandsworth Council's Planning Applications Committee has approved a temporary two-year change of use for a railway arch on Queenstown Road, allowing it to operate as a food and drink establishment, local community space, and drinking establishment with expanded food provision.
The decision, made at a meeting on Thursday, September 17, 2026, followed considerable debate and several previous deferrals of the application for Arch 79, located at Rear Of 326 To 342 Queenstown Road. The arch is anticipated to operate as a Class E(b) (food and drink which is mostly consumed on the premises), Class F2(b) (local community use), and a drinking establishment with expanded food provision (Sui Generis).
Concerns raised by residents and objectors included potential noise, anti-social behaviour, and the impact on residential amenity. Council officers addressed these by recommending specific conditions, including restrictions on opening hours and the use of external seating areas. The applicant's noise assessment and supplementary technical information were reviewed by the Council's Environmental Health Officer, who raised no objection subject to these conditions.
The food and drink establishment was imposed with the following opening hours:
- Sunday to Thursday: 08:00 to 23:00
- Friday to Saturday: 08:00 to 00:00 (midnight)
The use of the external seating area was restricted to between 10:00 to 20:00, with tables and chairs to be folded up, stacked, and secured outside of these permitted times.
The application for Arch 79 had been deferred for several reasons, including the need for further consideration of matters raised in the Late Items Paper, full consideration of additional submitted information such as a legal note from an objector, and a further consultation response from the Council's Environmental Health Officer. These deferrals allowed members to properly consider information provided by the applicant and objectors, and for the Environmental Health Officer to address technical issues.
The applicant provided technical background information and data to supplement the previously submitted Noise Impact Assessment.
This was to address previous representations in the Legal Note and objections which suggested that data in the submitted Noise Assessment was flawed.
The supporting documents included:
- Background SOUNDPLAN data underpinning previously submitted Noise Impact Assessment for Arch 79 Queens Circus by Enviropass
- Noise Emission Calculation
- Noise Assessment – Supporting Appendicies – Archway 79 Queens Circus
- Arch 79 Queens Circus Run Receiver Overview
The committee voted seven in favour, with one abstention and one against, to approve the application. The temporary permission aims to allow for assessment of the operational impacts before any decision on a permanent use. The two-year temporary permission is intended to provide an opportunity for the impact of the use (once operational) and any potential concerns upon the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers to be closely monitored and assessed during this period before a decision for the permanent use is made.
While the meeting information does not explicitly detail the criteria and process for determining whether permanent use will be granted after the two years, it is stated that the temporary permission serves as an opportunity to monitor and assess the operational impact and any potential concerns on neighbouring residential occupiers.
Beyond resident concerns, the 'considerable debate' during the committee meeting also involved discussions on the applicant's noise assessment and the Council's Environmental Health Officer's review, the legal advisor's comments on the sufficiency of information for a sound planning decision, and the appropriateness of the location within the Central Activities Zone. Discussions also covered the distance between the arch and residential properties, the business model of Live Fast Brewery, including its social enterprise aims and partnership with local food vendors, and the implications of a temporary permission for enforcement. Customer capacity assumptions underpinning the noise assessment, the principal points of difference in conflicting noise assessments, and the applicant's noise assessment's defective points were also debated. The impact and consequences of noise breaches or disturbances during the temporary period, the use of the wrong number of trains in an assessment and how this was managed, and the capacity of the premises, including external seating and internal capacity, were also discussed. The timing of when outside people would be required to go inside, and whether the application would have been considered under delegated powers if it were after a certain date, were also points of discussion. The government's introduction of new ways for planning application committees to function, including the splitting of applications into Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, was also mentioned.
Furthermore, the debate encompassed concerns raised by Transport for London regarding driver distraction and road safety risks. The visual impact of the Wandsworth Roundabout advertising structure, its scale, design, and cluttered nature, were also a significant point of contention. The potential for the proposed structure to increase driver distraction, and the visual impact of the proposed structure at Wandsworth Roundabout, with some councillors preferring the existing structure, were discussed. The minimum display time for advertisements on the Wandsworth Roundabout structure and the reasons for refusal for the Wandsworth Roundabout advertising structure, focusing on visual intrusiveness, scale, design, and cluttered nature, were also part of the discussion. The addition of visual clutter and its potential contribution to additional severance for neurodivergent individuals, and the durability and maintenance of the existing advertising structure versus the proposed one, were also considered. The luminescence levels of the proposed digital screens and the safety audit for the Wandsworth Roundabout structure and its public availability were also raised.
Concerns about construction management plans for Newcombe House, particularly regarding Battersea Park Road and access to Chesterton School, were also raised. The lack of designated space for bulky waste storage at Newcombe House and its potential contribution to fly-tipping, as well as the adequacy of waste management and recycling provisions at Newcombe House, were also discussed. Concerns about access and construction disruption on a private road for 2 Worcester Gardens, and the appropriateness of negotiations between private landowners for access on unadopted driveways, were also part of the debate.
Finally, the temporary retention of the flower stall at Clapham Junction Railway Station was discussed, including its visual impact on the conservation area, obstruction of pedestrian flow, and highway safety risks. The popularity of the flower stall and the number of letters of support received were noted. The possibility of granting permanent permission for the flower stall, the legal implications of extinguishing public highway rights if permanent permission were granted, the scope of the application for the flower stall, which was strictly for temporary retention, and the ongoing masterplanning for Clapham Junction and its potential impact on the flower stall's location were also debated. The logic of changing a permanent application to a two-year permission and vice versa, and the future consideration of applications under Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, were also part of the extensive discussions.
