Appeal 3351174

The appeal is dismissed.

Subsequent to the decision made by the Council on the application to which this appeal relates, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework). I consider that there have been no major changes relevant to the main issues in this appeal. It will therefore not prejudice any party by making my decision with regard to the revised Framework.

As the description of development varies in documents submitted, I have used that of the Council’s decision notice, as this is an accurate and concise description of the proposal.

The main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the appeal building and that of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal dwelling is a three storey detached house located at the junction of [address] and [address], in an area of similar detached and 2 storey terraced houses of traditional design. To the rear is an existing flat roofed full width single storey extension with central rooflight. This extends rearward by approximately 4.2 metres into the rear garden that has a relatively tall brick boundary wall to [address].

The proposed additional 2 storey rear extension would sit above and extend rearward to the same extent as the existing rear extension and would also be the full width of the original house. In combination with the existing single storey extension, the proposal creates a three storey extension that would be approximately 9.2 Metres in height. To its roof there would be a terrace surrounded by a short parapet, with a 1.7 metre tall obscure glazed balustrade on three sides, which would be set in approximately 1.5 metres from the rear wall of the proposed extension. The terrace would be accessed from 1 of the 3 enlarged dormers proposed to the existing rear mansard roof of the appeal dwelling.

Unlike the existing single storey rear extension, which is set down below the brick boundary wall to the rear garden, the proposed two storey extension and balustrade would be particularly apparent in views of the appeal dwelling from [address] and longer views along [address]. In these views the scale and box like massing and obscured glazed balustrade of the proposed rear extension would appear to dominate the appearance of the appeal dwelling.

This would result in the proposed rear extension appearing as incongruous and unsympathetic to the existing more traditional design of the appeal dwelling. Further, the excessive scale and box like massing of the proposed rear extension would also result in it failing to appear as a secondary or subservient addition to the appeal dwelling in views of the appeal dwelling that I have identified above.

In these views, the scale and massing of the proposed rear extension would also result in it appearing as dominating, incongruous and unsympathetic to the scale and design of neighbouring properties. This would have a detrimental effect on the streetscene of the local area, particularly when viewed from [address].

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of other full width multi storey rear extensions with roof terraces in the local area. These however are to mid terrace properties, with very different contexts to the appeal dwelling. These would have been considered on their own individual merits and I have done likewise in my consideration of the appeal proposal. As such, I have afforded these only limited weight in my considerations.

The proposal would maintain the existing separation gap of approximately 1.1 metres between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring three storey house at [address] (No. 92). The rear main wall of this neighbouring house is set approximately 2.5 metres further rearward than the appeal dwelling. The proposed rear extension would extend approximately 1.8 metres further rearward than this neighbouring property. This would reverse the existing situation with regard to the effect of the presence of a tall flank wall on occupiers of these dwellings.

Given the scale of these neighbouring properties and their gardens, the 1.8 metres rearward projection of the proposed rear extension and the 1.1 metre separating gap between them, I do not find that, despite it being set slightly below the appeal dwelling, the proposal would result in an overbearing sense of enclosure to No.92 and certainly not to the extent that it would be experienced by its occupiers as oppressive.

The proposed roof terrace would be accessed via a bedroom, rather than through more communal living and entertaining spaces. If in normal domestic use, I find that a roof terrace in this context by users of the terrace would be similar to that of the use of a garden or patio space. Any nuisance beyond this falls within other legislation and the Council’s other duties. As such I do not find that the proposed rear extension with roof terrace would inherently result in noise nuisance to the extent that it would result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such the proposal accords with policy LP2 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (2016) (the Local Plan) in this regard, which seek development that is not overbearing and does not result in an undue sense of enclosure or detrimental effects on amenity of neighbouring occupiers through undue noise. Lack of harm in this regard is a neutral factor in my considerations.

The appellant has set out their concerns with regard to communication with the Council during the planning application process. There are, however, other procedures in place that relate to such matters, and these are not for me to consider as part of this appeal.

For the reasons given above, I find that the appeal proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. This would fail to accord with policies LP1 and LP5 of the Local Plan. These collectively seek development that is of high quality design and relate positively to prevailing local character.

For the reasons given above, and with consideration of all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.