Appeal 6001499

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the existing garage and replacement with single storey side extension and basement extension with living accommodation. Conversion of the existing loft into living accommodation with a new rear dormer and conservation rooflights. Two-storey side extensions to north and south. Single storey rear extension. New windows and doors throughout, at [site address] , Wandsworth, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2025/2207 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and drawings: 0230(PL8)01 (Proposed site plan), 0230(PL8)02 (Proposed basement floor plan), 0230(PL8)03 (Proposed ground floor plan), 0230(PL8)04 (Proposed mezzanine floor plan), 0230(PL8)05 (Proposed first floor plan), 0230(PL8)06 (Proposed second floor plan), 0230(PL8)07 (Proposed roof plan), 0230(PL8)08 (Proposed west/front elevation), 0230(PL8)09 (Proposed south/side elevation), 0230(PL8)10 (Proposed east/rear elevation), 0230(PL8)11 (Proposed north/side elevation), 0230(PL8)12 (Proposed section B‐B), 0230(PL8)13 (Proposed sections A‐A and C‐C), 0230(PL8)14 (Proposed section D‐D), and 0230(PL8)15 (Proposed section E‐E).

The external materials to be used in the construction of the development shall be those shown on the approved drawings. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with these details, and no alternative materials shall be used without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the West Putney Conservation Area (‘CA’).

The appeal site lies within the West Putney Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. The National Planning Policy Framework further requires assessment of the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal.

[address] has a varied townscape with buildings from different periods, and the West Putney Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] (‘the [name]) identifies it as the street with the greatest diversity of housing design in the character area. I observed that many properties have been extended in a range of forms, including to the sides, rear and roof.

The significance of the [name] derives from the consistent quality, scale and architectural interest of its residential streets. [address] and [address] are characterised by generous plots, wide spacing and substantial detached houses that retain much original detailing. The Character Appraisal notes that these buildings are generally of good architectural quality, with original features contributing strongly to the area’s character. It also records a wide range of side and rear extensions, including two storey additions of varying widths.

The appeal property is a two storey detached Victorian dwelling constructed in yellow brick with a slate roof and timber sash windows. It occupies a generous plot, set back from the highway behind a modest frontage with off‐street parking, and includes a single garage to the southern side and a sizeable rear garden. The dwelling is of an individual design, and its proportions, materials and overall form sit comfortably within the established pattern of well‐crafted detached houses on spacious plots. Its set back position and separation from neighbouring dwellings reinforce the generous and verdant suburban character identified in the [name] as an important component of the Conservation Area’s significance. The property therefore makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the [name].

The evidence indicates that most elements now proposed have already been granted permission under earlier applications, including the basement, the ground and first floor northern side extensions, the conversion and extension of the garage, and a rear dormer. These approvals establish a clear fallback position of significant weight.

The Council accepts that the two storey northern side extension is appropriate in scale and respects the appearance of the host dwelling. I have no reason to disagree.

However, the Council raises concern regarding the proposed single storey southern side extension. This has largely already been approved under a previous consent, and the [name] confirms that ground floor extensions to both flanks were previously found acceptable. The suggestion that its depth and width should now be reduced is inconsistent with those approvals and carries limited weight. This extension would remain subordinate to the host dwelling and, when read alongside the approved northern extension and basement, would not materially alter the property’s established relationship with the wider street scene.

The first floor extension above the southern side extension would be modest in scale and recessed from the principal elevation, whilst also retaining adequate separation from the boundary.

The single storey rear extension, even when viewed cumulatively with the southern side extension, would, because of its separation and siting, remain subservient in scale. In the context of the approved basement and side extensions, it would not result in a disproportionate enlargement or harm the setting of the host dwelling. I also note that a similar rear extension could be erected under permitted development rights. Despite the overall extent of the proposed development, the host dwelling would retain a large rear garden.

The proposal includes conservation style rooflights set flush with the roof plane and modestly scaled dormer forms. Similar roof alterations have previously been approved at the property, and the [name] identifies a varied roofscape along [address]. In this context, the proposed additions would not appear visually cluttered or harmful to the character of the host dwelling.

Taken together, the proposed extensions and alterations would respect the proportions, form and materiality of the host dwelling and would continue its individual architectural character.

While the cumulative additions would increase the overall floorspace, the approved extensions already establish the principal massing. The proposal would not materially alter the scale or prominence of the host dwelling when read alongside the approved development. The extensions would remain proportionate, set in from both boundaries, and would not appear cramped or sprawling. The original dwelling would continue to read as the primary built form, with the additions clearly complementary and subordinate in height, width and architectural expression. The spacious character of the plot would be preserved.

For the above reasons, the character and appearance of both the dwelling and the [name] would be preserved.

Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies LP1, LP2, LP3 or LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan, nor with Policy HC1(C) of the London Plan. Taken together, these policies seek to ensure that development is of high design quality, respects the form, scale and detailing of the host building, preserves or enhances the character and appearance of conservation areas, and maintains the visual integrity and spatial qualities that contribute to their significance.

In addition to the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans and drawings, in the interests of certainty.

Although the Council has suggested a condition requiring all materials to match the existing, this requirement is reflected in the submitted drawings. Therefore, and to ensure a high quality development and to safeguard the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area, I have imposed a condition requiring that the external materials accord with those specified on the approved drawings.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.