Appeal 3331477

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is a 3-storey semi-detached house with accommodation within the roof space. It is situated within the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA) and forms part of a group of handsome semi-detached houses of similar age and appearance that are built of brick and feature entrances at upper ground floor level.

The pairs of houses feature shallow-pitched, hipped roofs with deep eaves and many, including the appeal property, feature dormers within the side and rear roofs slopes. Due to the close spacing between the properties, the relative narrowness of the street and the deep eaves, the hipped roof forms are not particularly evident in views from within the street. However, they are visible from further afield and surrounding buildings. As such they are an aspect of the houses that adds to the substantial positive contribution they make to the character and appearance of the CA.

Planning permission1 has recently been granted for roof level alterations including the installation of a replacement side dormer and an enlarged rear dormer. This would enable the formation of a bedroom with an ensuite. I 1 Application reference 2023/2812 recognise that there is a high likelihood that this extant permission will be carried out if this appeal is dismissed and therefore it represents a fall-back scenario to which I attach significant weight.

The appeal proposal would comprise an addition to the roof to form a side-facing gable together with the installation of a dormer within the rear roof slope, similar to the recently approved dormer. The proposal would enable the formation of a bedroom with an ensuite. In the context of the group of houses of which the appeal property forms part a gable would be an incongruous addition that would severely disrupt the uniformity of roof forms in the street and the largely symmetrical arrangement of the appeal property and its pair.

Due to its siting and size, I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The harm to the 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 Policies LP1, LP2 and LP3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038, which seek to ensure that developments provide high-quality design that contributes positively to local character and preserves the significance, appearance and character of heritage assets. There is also conflict with the aims of [address] and [address] Conservation Area Appraisal & [name] (2010) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021), which requires development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, to conserve their significance.

I recognise the appellants’ need for more bathroom space and desire to remain living at [address]. However, there is no information before me to indicate that these needs require the creation of a side-facing gable and therefore attribute limited weight to this matter.

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