Appeal 3333253

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for alterations including the erection of a mansard roof extension to the main rear roof; erection of an extension above part of the two-storey back addition at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2023/2746, dated 19 July 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: -

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: CLV-MSQ-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0011, CLV-MSQ-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A- 0012, CLV-MSQ-ZZ-RF-DR-A-0013, CLV-MSQ-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-0110 and [name]-0111.

The description of development is taken from the Council’s decision notice as it concisely and accurately describes the development but omits the reasons for the proposal which were also included on the application form.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; including the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CLCA).

The appeal property is part of a long terrace of three-storey properties with projecting two-storey square bay windows with a gabled roof to the front. This creates a distinct rhythm and uniformity to [address]. It is part of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CLCA) which has a mix of character areas. With a strong sense of enclosure and unity to the frontages the Edwardian terraced properties along [address] are distinctly different to the other areas of spacious villas or small terraced houses.

To the rear, the appeal property has an outrigger shared with No.76 and a small flat-roofed dormer on the main roof. The proposed mansard roof would wrap around the existing dormer and extend approximately halfway along the outrigger. Whilst the proposal would change the composition of the rear roof form, aligning with the ridge height of the outrigger it would be set down from the main ridge line and would have 70-degree faces.

None of the other properties within the terrace have had a roof alteration of the type proposed, although many do have roof lights and small dormers, and as seen from the property’s rear garden, a range of larger dormers and terraces are present in the wider locality. I have also been referred to planning consents for larger dormers, including over the outrigger, to other properties along [address].

The Council’s concerns primarily relate to the largely unaltered roof form and cohesion of the ‘North terrace’. Due to the layout of the streets and that buildings are sited along the rear boundary of several properties in [address] (including the appeal property), views of the rear are limited and the composition of the North terrace as an entirety is not seen. I also agree with the appellant that the rear of the appeal property is not highly visible in public views from [address] along The Courtyard.

In my opinion, the glimpsed views of the various roofs in which individual properties or terraces are not directly identifiable are part of the character of the area. Therefore, whilst the addition of a mansard extension will make a notable change to the rear roof form, including the loss of an existing chimney, I do not find that it would be harmful to the character of the terrace or the key features of this part of the Conservation Area.

The general design of the extension reflects the guidance in the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), which is confirmed by the Council. The proposal would create a comprehensive alteration to both sections of the property’s roof and whilst the continuous band of roof lights would be a modern feature, they would correspond with the existing single-storey extension. Also in my view, the transparency associated with the glazing would act to reduce the visual bulk of the structure.

The proposal would introduce a new feature to the terrace, but it would not be an overly prominent feature in the surrounding area, and I do not find that it would directly impact the architectural significance of the terrace or the CLCA as a whole.

Therefore, the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved, and the proposal would accord with the policies LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023 to 2038, policy HC1 (C) of the London Plan and section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Together these seek high-quality design, to preserve and where possible enhance the significance of heritage assets, and for extensions to respect the form of the host property.

In coming to my decision, I have also had regard to my duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

In line with the statutory requirements and for certainty, conditions are imposed to ensure that the scheme is carried out in accordance with the appropriate timescale and the submitted plans. It is also necessary, in the interests of the appearance of the property and the conservation area setting, for the materials to match the existing property.

For the reasons set out the appeal is allowed.