Appeal 3287096

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of the development used on the application form was different to that on the Council decision notice. For the purpose of the appeal, the description from the decision notice has been used.

The main issue is whether the development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area (WTCA).

The appeal site is a two-storey, semi-detached house with a two-storey rear projection. It is built in gault brick and is located within the WTCA. The dwelling sits within a row of similar dwellings with further similar houses to the rear. Some of these properties, including the appeal site, benefit from ground-floor infill extensions. The development seeks permission to erect a rear roof extension above part of the two-storey rear projection.

The extension would modify the form of the rear elevation in a way that is not sympathetic to the main dwelling and would imbalance the semi-detached pair and disrupt the pattern of the rear roof scape. Although the plans propose the use of similar materials to the existing dwelling, the extension would be incongruous within a relatively uniform row of houses. Due to its design, which incorporates a flat roof, the development would erode the character of the pitched roof form of the rear projection. Furthermore, the development would be visible from the rear gardens and windows of neighbouring properties as well as from [address]. Therefore, the extension would cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the WTCA.

The appellant has provided evidence of a similar development that has been approved at [address]. Furthermore, on the site visit it was observed that there are a small number of examples of rear alterations on nearby roads. However, these alterations vary in style and are not so prevalent in the area, and specifically along [address], that they are integral to its character.

For the reasons given above, the proposed roof level alterations would fail to preserve or enhance the WTCA. As the development would only be seen from a small part of the WTCA it would cause less than substantial harm. No public benefits have been put forward to outweigh this harm. The development would not accord with [name] 1, DMS 2 and DMH 5 of the Wandsworth Council Local Plan, Development Management Policies Document (DMP), adopted 2016. Policy DMS 1 requires development to integrate with its surroundings and Policy DMS 2 seeks to ensure that development sustains and conserves the character and appearance of heritage assets. Policy DMH5 relates specifically to well designed extensions.

Furthermore, the development would not comply with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan (LP). Together these Policies seek to resist development that would not enhance local context. Policy HC1 specifically seeks to manage the cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan when taken as a whole. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.