Appeal 6001545

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA); and, • the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

According to the [address] Conservation Area Appraisal & [name] (CAAMS) the special character of the CA derives from the high-quality Victorian houses in the area. The appeal property is an end of terraced Victorian house which incorporates features identified in the CAAMS as contributing to the special character of the area. These include a 2-storey front projecting square bay with a gabled roof and decorative scrollwork below the first-floor windows. Although these features are at the front of the house, and would be unaffected by the proposed development, the rear of the house is highly visible within the CA because of its location on the corner of [address] and [address].

The proposed rear roof extension is described in the appellant’s Planning Design and [name] as having a mansard style pitch which would be steeply angled below a flat roof. It would be set below the roof ridge and above the eaves, with a dormer window on one side and the remaining roof extending across to the partition parapet wall with the adjoining house.

The council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) advises that mansard style roof extensions are only appropriate on the rear of mid terraced properties which are less visible from the street. The proposed extension would be set in on one side of the roof thus leaving the gable end of the house unaltered as recommended in the SPD. However, continuing the extension to the side of the window would give it a bulky and incongruous appearance. It would be out of keeping with the smaller traditional dormer extensions on the front of Nos 35 and [address], which are set in from both sides of the roof, and on the rear of No 30, which are visible together with the appeal property from [address].

The roof terrace would be located on the flat roof over the entrance and part of the ground floor kitchen serving the basement and ground floor maisonette at the rear of the house which runs along the edge of [address]. The railings would be positioned along the top of the side wall which abuts the pavement edge and across to meet the corner of the projecting wing. They would be visible from [address], and its junction with [address], and appear incongruous and visually intrusive.

Given the small scale of the proposed development within the context of the Conservation Area as a whole, it would not harm its character. There would, however, be harm in terms of its appearance. The harm would be localised, limited and less than substantial but would nevertheless be contrary to Policies LP1, LP2, LP3, and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023) (LP) Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy HC1 (C) of the London Plan (2021) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which require development to be of a high quality which enhances or preserves the character or appearance of the historic environment.

Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires justification and, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. There would be modest benefits arising from the provision of an additional unit of accommodation and employment during construction. There would also be some improvements to the appearance of the building from the proposed replacement windows and doors which are more in keeping with original features retained on other houses within the street. However, such benefits would not outweigh the harm to the appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and its setting.

The proposed roof terrace would be to the side of a 2-storey projecting wing which adjoins the neighbouring house, No 26, and would block most views into No 26’s rear garden. It would be possible to look across into it from the end of the terrace, but views would be oblique and the potential for overlooking would not be significantly greater than already exists from the first and second floor windows on the rear projecting wing at No 24. The distance between the proposed terrace and gardens at the rear of houses along [address], and across to No 30’s rear garden, are great enough that the living conditions of their occupants would not be harmed by overlooking to any significant degree, which would in any case be less than already exists from neighbouring houses.

The officer’s report referred to the terrace providing little privacy for users and I also note that it would be accessed from a bedroom rather than a shared space which is not ideal. Nonetheless, the proposed development would accord with Policy LP2 of the LP as it would not lead to unacceptable levels of overlooking onto the private amenity space of neighbouring properties.

I note that No 30, the corner house opposite, has a roof terrace with similar railings as the proposed development. However, the house is set back from [address] behind a rear garden wall with the terrace and railings further set in from the edge of a flat roofed extension. Consequently, the main house obscures views of it from [address]. From views along [address] it is partially screened by trees and hedges along the edge of the garden. It is therefore less prominent and visually intrusive than the proposed development.

The other examples provided by the appellant, of full width and height rear dormers close to the appeal site, are only partially visible from a narrow service road along the rear of the terrace. They are not comparable with the appeal proposal which would be highly visible from public roads.

I have had regard to representations raising concerns over the effect of the proposed basement extension on the structural integrity of neighbouring properties and drainage, the removal of a tree from the site, and parking. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the proposal’s effect on the CA for the reasons given above, I have not pursued these matters further.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.