Appeal 3305512

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was determined using amended plans and an amended description of development, described by the Council as ‘Alterations to fenestrations, including alterations to windows’. I have used the amended drawings in coming to my decision.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The property is located on [address] close to the junction with [address]. [address] is a quiet predominantly residential street characterised mainly by long terraces of period properties with slight variations in style, facing materials and architectural detailing, but generally consistent in pattern and built form.

Numbers 2, 4 and [address] form a modern terrace of three properties, Number 4 has been altered in appearance, is white rendered and the ground floor bay window has been removed and replaced with a standard window. Whilst the terrace is modern and has been subject to various alterations, the dwelling relates well to its surroundings in scale, character and materials.

The proposed double storey square bay in glass brick would, due to its extent, dominate the façade of the host property and the properties either side of it. In addition, the proposed design would be out of keeping with the host property and adjoining properties. This would erode consistency with the adjoining properties further. The elements of the proposal including the glass brick around the front door and the replacement window at second floor level would have a neutral effect, however the proposal in its entirety would be incongruous and harmful to the character of the area.

For these reasons I conclude that the remodelling of the front façade would have a negative effect on the character and appearance of the area and would therefore fail to accord with Policy IS 3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan – [name] ([name] 2016) which seeks to ensure good quality design that protects and reinforces the existing varied character of the borough. The proposal would fail to accord with [name] 1 and DMH 5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan – Development Management Policies Document ([name] 2016) which between them seek to ensure that the scale and appearance of a development contributes positively to local spatial character, and requires proposals to use appropriate materials and not to dominate or compete with the original building, and Policy D6 of The London Plan (March

which requires housing development to be of a high quality design.

The proposal does not accord with the Framework having regard to chapters 2 and 12 which require developments to contribute to achieving sustainable development and achieving well-designed places.

Having regard to the Wandsworth Local Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Document Adopted November 2016 (SPD), it states that the key objective is to ensure highest possible standards in design, taking into account the setting of a building and the wider public realm. For the reasons mentioned, this proposal is contrary to the guidance contained within the SPD.

The report of the Council's Officer into this application referred to a recommendation for approval subject to conditions. However, the body of the report and decision notice indicate this is a typographical error. This does not affect the considerations that have led to my decision.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the remodelling of the front façade would not accord with the policies IS 3, DMS 1, DMS 5 and D6. Although the proposal does not conflict with other policies, this leads me to conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Thus, having had regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.