Appeal 3283088

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is a three-storey, mid-terrace property. It has a flat roof which is currently used as a roof terrace. No 10 forms part of a wider terrace of dwellings with the immediate row of dwellings featuring a very similar appearance and roofline. This roofline includes matching raised stairwell accesses to one side of the flat roofs and this similarity creates a pleasant, unified rhythm to the terrace when viewing these dwellings.

It is proposed to erect an additional floor of accommodation at roof level. The additional floor would be finished in cladding to match the existing roof. The rooftop extension would be setback to the front to create a front terrace and the rear wall of the proposed development would be aligned with the existing rear wall of No 10.

Given its setback from the front, views of the rooftop extension would be limited from [address]. However, while modestly separated with glimpsed views, it would be possible to clearly see the proposed extension and its neighbouring dwellings from [address]. In particular, views of several dwellings in [address], including No 10 and its adjacent neighbours are possible between [name] and [name] and [address].

Although the materials may be appropriate, the proposed development would interrupt the architectural rhythm of the existing stairwells, the unified layout and roofline of this row of dwellings. While it would not be prominent or visually harmful when viewed from [address], when viewed from [address] the rooftop extension would be visually intrusive and fail to integrate within its surroundings.

I note that a similar roof extension is also proposed to [address], which is the subject of a separate appeal. While this would add a degree of unity to Nos 9 and 10, I have not been provided with any evidence that both developments would be implemented at the same time or even at all. Even if they were, views of the other dwellings in [address] would be possible from [address] and the visual imbalance and disruptive impact between Nos 9 and 10, and the neighbouring dwellings would still be apparent from public vantage points.

The proposed development would consequently harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DMS1 and DMH5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan Development Management [name] 2016 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to The Wandsworth Local Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2016.

The appellant draws my attention to paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and suggests the Council’s development plan is not up to date or fully consistent with the Framework. However, the appellant provides no further analysis or discussion as to why this may be the case. In the absence of such evidence this has limited bearing on my decision.

The appellant also refers to paragraphs 119, and 125 of the Framework. I have considered these paragraphs and the proposal would provide additional floorspace for the appellant. This additional floorspace does provide an effective and efficient use of land as supported by these paragraphs. However, while this carries some weight in favour of the proposed development, it does not outweigh the harm I have identified above. It also conflicts with paragraph 130 of the Framework in regard to providing development which is sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

Interested parties have raised concerns about sunlight/daylight, privacy, security issues, outlook, and noise. [name] am dismissing this appeal there is no need for me to consider these matters further.

Although the appellant is disappointed that negotiations with the Council were unsuccessful, it is reasonable to accept some development proposals will not reach agreement through negotiation. The Council ultimately made a decision in regard to the submitted drawings and these are the drawings which are before me. The failure to reach agreement between the appellant and the Council has limited bearing on my findings.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan for the reasons I have given. There are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.