Appeal 3347539

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations including erection of roof extension to main rear roof and extension above two storey back addition at [site address] , Wandsworth, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/0833.

The development has been completed and the appeal is therefore in relation to obtaining retrospective permission for the works.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in December 2024. As the changes do not materially affect the main issues in this case, the parties have not been invited to make further comments.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area and (ii) the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to outlook and light.

The appeal concerns a mid-terrace dwelling located in a road comprising similar dwellings. The property has been extended by way of a roof extension to the main roof and an extension above the existing back addition. The roof extensions that have been carried out are similar in terms of their overall dimensions to the extensions approved under LPA ref. 2020/2104. However, under the approved scheme, both the rear elevation of the roof extension and the side and rear elevation of the extension over the back addition were shown to be sloped at 70 degrees.

The Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) is non-statutory but nonetheless provides useful design guidance. It advises that a vertical face to a mansard-style roof addition should normally be avoided as the additional bulk can be more intrusive and over-bearing on the neighbouring property. It advises that extending the full width of the house with a mansard style between built up party walls works well with a 70 degree pitch roof on mid terraced houses. Similar design guidance is set out in respect to extensions over back additions.

The neighbouring dwelling at [address] has been similarly extended although the Council advise that the rear / side extensions that have been constructed appear to be steeper than the approved scheme which showed a 70 degree pitch in accordance with the SPD guidance.

The main roof extension and the extension over the two-storey back addition have been constructed with vertical sides. The main roof extension is not visible from [address] due to the extensions to [address] and the extensions over the back additions of both dwellings. The extension is barely visible from the garden of the appeal site or from any other dwelling. Even if it were glimpsed, it would be seen in context with other large roof additions along [address], many of which have a vertical face and form part of the established character and appearance of the area. This leads me to conclude that the extension to the main roof does not have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area.

The extension over the back addition can be seen from [address] but owing to the extensions to No 67, only the rear wall of the extension is visible in the public domain. In the context of the large number of rear additions to properties along [address] which display a variety of roof typologies, the extension does not stand out as a particularly dominant or intrusive addition. Furthermore, the extension is viewed in the same context as the extensions and alterations to [address] which have included a hip to gable end dormer extension with mansard roof (LPA ref. 2023/2827). No 69A is more prominently located on a corner plot at the junction with [address]. Given its siting and context, I am satisfied that the extensions that have been carried out to the appeal property have not resulted in significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing property or the surrounding area.

Despite some conflict with the SPD, I find that the proposal complies with Policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (2023) which together seek to ensure the scale, massing and appearance of the development provide a high-quality, sustainable design and layout that enhance and relate positively to the prevailing local character and that roof alterations are sympathetic to the style of the building and are in keeping with local character.

There is a glazed door on the rear elevation of [address] as well as several windows on the side elevation of the outrigger. The Council’s concerns are in relation to the effect of the development on light and outlook from the ground floor windows. Of these windows, two are obscure glazed and appear to serve non-habitable accommodation. The remaining windows are small and have the appearance of secondary windows. Evidence produced by the appellant suggests that these windows serve a dual aspect open kitchen / dining space which benefits from a large opening on the rear elevation and the secondary windows on the side. The glazed door is also shown to serve the living room which has its main source of light on the front elevation and this was evident from my site visit. Significantly, the occupier of No 63 has confirmed that all of the side facing windows are either obscure glazed or secondary and that the glazed door is a secondary source of light to the living room.

I am also mindful that the Council has already granted permission for an extension across the full width of the main roof and full depth of the outrigger, but with a 70 degree sloping sides. The change to vertical walls in my judgement will have had a negligible effect on outlook or light received by side facing windows due to the narrow gap between the dwellings. As these windows are obscure glazed or secondary, I am therefore satisfied that the extensions have not had a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook and light.

Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy LP2 of the LP which, amongst other matters, seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future occupiers.

No conditions are necessary as the development has been completed.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.