Appeal 3324145

The appeal is dismissed.

The Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (LP) was adopted in July 2023, after the determination of the planning application. The now superseded policies referred to in the decision notice no longer require consideration. The new LP policies are referred to in the reason for refusal and therefore the appellant was able to take them into account when the appeal was lodged.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Clapham Common Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey Edwardian end-of-terrace house with a pitched roof, 2-storey outrigger to the rear and a large dormer in the rear roof slope. It occupies a corner site and as a consequence the outrigger and rear roof slope are highly conspicuous in views looking along [address], the street running parallel to the site’s side boundary.

The property is situated within the Clapham Common Conservation Area (CA). This comprises the western part of the Common and the buildings facing it, which include a mix of grand houses, semi-detached houses, blocks of flats and terraced housing. The terraced housing on [name] forms a handsome backdrop to the Common and positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA.

The appeal proposal would comprise the erection of a roof extension above the rear outrigger to create a narrow dressing area/store. This addition would have a flat roof, abut the existing rear dormer and occupy about half of the roof. The use of slate cladding would, to a small degree, limit the impact of the addition. However, this would not disguise the proposal’s box-like form which, due to its prominent siting, would result in an incongruous and alien addition to the appeal property, the neighbouring street scene and the CA.

The appellant has highlighted the high number of rear roof extensions in [address]. There is no evidence before me that these additions have been granted planning permission in recent years and in some cases planning permission may not have been required. Notwithstanding this, unlike the appeal proposal, these rear additions are not apparent from the public realm and fall outside the CA. I also note the character and scale of nearby corner properties and the fact some of these properties have been extended in the past. None of the developments referred to are directly comparable to the appeal proposal and as each planning application must be considered on its individual merits I attribute limited weight to these matters.

Due to its siting, size and appearance I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The harm to this heritage asset would be less than substantial. In these circumstances paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) requires me to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. As the proposal would simply provide extra space within a private residence there would be no substantive public benefits.

For the reasons outlined above the proposal fails to accord with [name] LP1, LP3 and LP5, which seek to ensure that developments provide a high-quality design that contributes positively to local character, and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) which requires development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, to conserve their significance. There is also conflict with the aims of Clapham Common Conservation Area Appraisal & [name] (2007) and the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016).

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.