Appeal 3370358

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for formation of a roof terrace with a timber screen surround above part of the three storey back addition at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Reference 2025/0856 and the plans submitted with it, 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: E01 P1, P01 P1, [name] by pddesign consulting dated 17/03/2025.

The terrace, as shown on drawing number P01 P1, shall incorporate the proposed screening to each side elevation to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level, and to the rear elevation to a minimum height of 1.35 metres above the finished floor level. The approved screening shall be installed prior to the first use of the terrace and shall be retained and maintained as such thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

An existing roof terrace and screen are already present on the site, extending across the full width and depth of the outrigger roof. Although the application and this appeal have been made retrospectively, the submitted plans depict a set-back terrace and screen. I can only consider this appeal on the plans before me. Accordingly, despite the title of the plans, my decision is based on the submitted plans ([name]. P01 P1 - Proposed/[name]).

In my decision, I have changed the description of development from that used in the banner heading above, which is taken from the original application form, to that used by the Council, removing words not describing acts of development. This is to provide greater clarity and accuracy.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Clapham Common Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property comprises a three-storey, late-Victorian terraced dwelling fronting [name]. The dwelling, which forms part of a distinguished terrace, retains much of its original frontage character and detailing. To the rear, it has been extended at ground floor and roof level, and a roof terrace has been formed above the existing three-storey outrigger.

The terrace group forms a coherent and architecturally unified composition. The front elevations are characterised by red-brick façades enriched with rendered decorative detailing including pilasters, string courses, and elaborated window surrounds. To the rear, the elevations are constructed in London stock brick with three-storey outriggers capped by tiled mansard roofs. The rear elevations are more functional in character and display a pattern of incremental alterations. Roof alterations and extensions, including the introduction of roof terraces, are evident and contribute to a varied roofscape.

The appeal site is also located in the CA. The terms of Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The Clapham Common Conservation Area Appraisal (2007) (CAA) identifies the area’s special interest as arising from the wide-open expanse of the Common and the architecturally refined terraces that frame it. It places particular emphasis on the coherent late-Victorian and Edwardian terraces along [name], noted for their architectural quality, distinctive detailing and strong relationship with the Common. The appeal premises forms part of one such terrace. The significance of the CA in this context therefore lies in the architectural merit of these buildings and their defining visual and spatial relationship with the Common, giving the area both architectural and historic significance.

The rear boundary of the appeal site aligns with the edge of the CA. The proposed roof terrace and screen would remain entirely contained within the established roof profile and would not project above the prevailing ridgeline of the dwelling. As such, it would not intrude upon any recognised public or private views either from within the CA or looking towards it from the Common. From the few public vantage points available beyond the CA, principally along [address], where the absence of a continuous footway on one side of the road limits pedestrian access, and from the more distant viewpoint along [address], the proposal would be perceived only fleetingly and at a highly oblique angle. Any private views from neighbouring dwellings would be similarly constrained and incidental.

The terrace’s position and recessed siting would ensure that the characteristic form of the outrigger and its tiled mansard roof would remain readily legible, which is not the case with the as built situation. The retained vertical emphasis of the adjoining chimney breast would further serve to minimise its visual prominence. Within the context of an already varied and incrementally altered roofscape, where visible the proposal would read as a modest and coherent addition, subordinate to the host building and consistent with the pattern of roof-level adaptations evident along the terrace.

The use of timber screening and its finish would sit comfortably within the surrounding palette of materials and backdrop of the existing dormer. It would appear neutral within the roofscape rather than drawing attention to itself ensuring the enclosure does not appear visually dominant or as an incongruous add-on in accordance with the guidance contained within the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (the SPD).

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would preserve the character, appearance and significance of the CA as a whole. As such, the proposal accords with Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies LP1, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023–2038), together with the SPD, which collectively seek to secure high-quality design that sustains heritage significance and respects the character of existing buildings.

For the same reasons, the proposal also accords with Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) concerning the conservation of the historic environment.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, I agree that a condition specifying the relevant plans, including in respect of the materiality and colour of screening, is necessary both to provide certainty and in the interests of character and appearance and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity and simplicity. In the interests of protecting the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring installation of screening and its retention.

For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should therefore be allowed.