Appeal 3361762

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘a one storey side return extensions and a small first floor extension’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2024/3263 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, [name]; Ground, [name] & Roof Plan, [name]: 201; [name] & North West Section, [name]: 202 and Front and [name], [name]: 203.

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

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area including the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is a two-storey mid terrace dwelling situated on [address] in Wandsworth. The property is a simple two storey Victorian ‘workers’ style cottage. [address] slopes steeply downwards from [address] towards [address]. The houses along the street are loosely paired and step down the street in these pairs. It is evident that numerous roof ridges have been raised over time on many of the properties. Despite this, there is still a sense of homogeny along the street. Most dwellings along the road benefit from two storey rear outriggers and on my site visit I could see a number of examples of additional rear extensions including first and second floor extensions within the area.

I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LCBA) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

Having regard to the [name], the streets within the residential area of the CA are laid out in a simple grid arrangement, a surviving fragment of a wider area of Victorian speculative development that extended east and is primarily comprised of four short parallel streets. The appraisal outlines how the gradual stepped roof forms are a key part of the appearance of the area. It goes onto explain that the houses along [address] are more consistent in their design, being of a single plan repeated in pairs. The appeal property has largely retained its original features and appears unaltered from the front elevation, therefore contributing to the significance of the CA.

The proposed development would result in the creation of a single storey rear extension and a first-floor rear extension to infill the side return. The Council outline how the proposed single storey extension would not be visible from any public vantage point and would therefore have no impact on the character of the property when viewed from the street, and no undue impact on the wider CA. As such, their concerns relate to the first-floor extension.

The proposed first-floor extension would be set down from the rear eaves line and would have a limited projection. The two-storey outrigger would remain the prominent element of the rear elevation and the height, depth and width of the proposed first floor addition would not be a notable feature of the terraced row. Furthermore, because of the appeal properties immediate surroundings the rear extension would have very limited visibility in the street scene. The new rear elevation would incorporate a window design to match the existing sash window at first floor. While the proposals would result in the whole of the rear elevation being covered by extensions, with its limited size and window detailing, the extension would not be harmful.

There are a variety of other rear extensions and roof alterations which influence the character of the area and the small flat roof on the first-floor rear projection would not be out of place in this regard. Moreover, because of the immediate surroundings of the property the extension would have very limited visibility in its context and would not detract from the contribution the property makes to the CA.

Concerns regarding overdevelopment have been raised because of the extant planning permission Ref: 2024/3262. However, even if the proposal was combined with the previous approved scheme including a mansard roof, given the limited additional first floor extension area proposed, cumulatively the two schemes would not result in overdevelopment of the appeal site.

Concerns are also raised that the extension would not draw on any character influence and may set a precedent for other similar developments. Whilst the proposed extension may be a unique feature, I do not consider that it would be a harmful feature for the reasons outlined above. Each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern regarding setting a precedent does not justify withholding permission in this case.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development is well designed and in keeping with the character and appearance of the host property and would preserve the character of the CA. It would thus accord with the requirements of the LBCA and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. It is in accordance with Policies LP1, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023- 2038 (2023) (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that proposals relate positively to, preserve and where possible enhance the local character of the area, including CA’s. It would also accord with Policies D3 and HC1 of The London Plan (2021). These policies seek to ensure that development responds to local character and conserves the significance of

The development also complies with the Wandsworth Local Plan Supplementary Planning [name] (2016), the [address] Conservation Area Appraisal and the aims and objectives of the Framework in this regard.

I find no conflict with Policy LP2 of the LP, which amongst other matters, largely relates to the effect of development on the amenity of occupiers, and neighbouring properties.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

The Council have suggested a condition to ensure that external materials match the type, texture, tone, colour, size and profile of the existing building. However, I have used a standard matching materials condition as this would still ensure that the materials match the existing building, therefore safeguarding visual amenity of the CA in this regard.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.