Appeal 3365091

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the alteration of the rear roof geometry and raising of the ridge height in conjunction with the conversion of the loft spaces, the addition of 2no. dormers and 8no. rooflights and the alteration of a window opening in the rear elevation at [site address] , Wandsworth, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of planning application ref 2024/4046 dated 18 November 2024 subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved drawings as follows: Proposed Loft Floor Plan ([name]); [name] & [name] ([name]); Proposed Roof Plan ([name]); [name] & [name] ([name]); Section A-A: [name] with 1:5 details; [address] Elevation ([name]); Site Plan (roof as existing) & Site Location Plan.

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 increase in the height of the roof shall only be constructed by continuing the front roof slope in the same plane, and no upstand or step shall be formed.

The rooflights hereby approved, shall be of a conservation area specification. They shall be in-line and flush within the roof pitch in which they are inserted.

The appeal site is located within the West Putney Conservation Area. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Conservation Area ‘CA’.

The appeal site is located on the north-western side of [address] and consists of a detached, extended two-storey dwelling with off-street parking and a large rear garden. It is in the Arts & Crafts style and sits within the western part of the West Putney Conservation Area. The surrounding area consists predominantly of detached large residential dwellings. It’s neighbour to the north-west (no.[address]) is also a detached two storey building of similar appearance and is currently used as a school.

The appeal dwelling was designed and built by [name] at the turn of the last century and is one of a number by this architect in this part of the CA. There is a duty imposed by s.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA. I have borne this in mind when making this decision in the West Putney Conservation Area which is significant because of it has many handsome houses with an overwhelmingly Edwardian character in the central, southern and western areas where the houses are of good quality and consistency, with recurring design themes and traits. The appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA through its Arts & Craft features.

The proposed development’s main elements involve raising the main roof ridge by about 0.5m, amending the roof form, inserting a front and rear dormer and inserting eight rooflights on the roofslopes (excluding the front roof slope). The chimneys would remain.

Whilst there are some locally listed buildings in the area, neither Nos. 11 nor [site address] are locally listed. There is undoubtedly an enhancement to the streetscene in these two handsome buildings sitting side by side and having group value. Nevertheless, they are not identical, and amongst other differences, No.11 has a rather ordinary two storey side extension on the appeal site’s side and a different design of middle first floor window. The appeal scheme would raise the ridge height of the main roof of no.13 by a modest 0.5m and I consider this would make little difference to the perception of uniformity of the two buildings. When viewing the front elevations of 11 and 13, the pair of front gables on each with their distinctive windows and Arts & Craft features would be the dominant design features and this would continue to be so.

The main roof pitch and the overall size and scale of the appeal property would accommodate the proposed increase in ridge height and the proposed crown roof without an unduly top-heavy appearance, disproportionately tall roof or awkward appearance. The proposed front dormer is simple in design, not overly large and the fenestration does not unduly clash with the existing front fenestration. During my site visit I noted a healthy number of front dormer structures in large properties in the CA and many successfully integrate with the design of their host dwellings. The proposed front dormer would integrate with the appeal property.

From the rear, the proposed increase in height of the roof ridge would also not appear overly large and the principal focus would be the gabled element to the south-east end of the house. The proposed Juliette balcony window would not in my view be particularly sympathetic given its size but the harm it would cause would not warrant a refusal of planning permission in this case and, looked at as a whole, the proposed rear elevation would sustain the legibility of the original design of the dwelling.

The proposed development would have a neutral impact on the heritage value and significance of the CA.

I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA. It would not be contrary to policy HC1(C) of the London Plan 2021, policies LP1, LP2, LP3 or LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (adopted

or the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016).

I am satisfied that given the size and siting of the proposed development including windows and rooflights there would not be a harmful impact on neighbours’ or local residents living conditions in respect of natural light or privacy. This also applies to privacy issues relating to the adjacent school.

The existence or otherwise, or efficacy of, restrictive covenants pertaining to the site or to nearby properties are not within my remit as a Planning Inspector determining a planning appeal.

The Council suggested some conditions in the event that the appeal was successful. I have considered these in the light of Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in order to avoid uncertainty. A condition requiring materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building is necessary to secure a good quality finish and a high quality development compatible with its surroundings. A condition to ensure that the increase in the height of the roof shall only be constructed by continuing the front roof slope in the same plane and by no other configuration is necessary to ensure appropriate character and appearance to the streetscene and for a similar reason there is a condition specifying some details of the rooflights.

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal. [name].C.