Appeal 6002288

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) against the appellant, and this is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues, noting that the Council’s evidence includes an officer’s report and a decision notice, albeit the latter is invalid given it was issued following receipt of the valid appeal by the Secretary of State.

The Wandsworth Local Plan Partial Review (WLPPR) was adopted on the 4 March

It affects certain policies within the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (WLP) and I invited the main parties to provide comments on the WLPPR’s adoption. The appellant commented that the appeal should be determined against the development plan policies applicable at the time of submission. I am directed to determine the appeal against the development plan policies that are in force at the time of determination which includes the WLPPR. As such I have had regard to it in my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of future occupiers of 108 and [address] in relation to matters of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy; • the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings at the appeal site in relation to matters of daylight; • the living conditions of future occupiers of existing and proposed dwellings in relation to matters of noise disturbance resulting from the proposed plant; • the character and appearance of the appeal building and the terrace of buildings within which it is situated, and; • the functioning of the waste collection arrangements to the rear of the appeal site.

The appeal site is within a terrace of buildings with predominantly commercial units on the ground floor and residential uses above. On one side, at [address], there are windows serving residential uses on the rear elevation at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor levels. There are also 1st floor windows on a rear projection. The appellant’s evidence includes a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (DSA) carried out in accordance with Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines “Site Layout Planning for Daylight & Sunlight: A Guide to [name]” (BRE Guidance). This includes modelling based on [name] (VSC), [name] (NSL) and [name] (APSH) methodologies.

At first floor level, on No 108’s rear projection, a window faces directly towards the appeal site (referred to as First R1 W3 in the appellant’s evidence). Both main parties have provided floorplans for No 108 in their evidence, albeit they differ. The appellant’s evidence contains approved plans from 2007, which postdate the plans provided in the Council’s evidence. These 2007 plans show a partition between the area served by the affected window, labelled as a kitchen, and the main living space of a studio flat (also referred to as a bedsit elsewhere in the appellant’s evidence and in the Council’s evidence). It would not be possible to use the kitchen space without the partition being open. There are 2 other windows serving the studio flat, one on the opposite side of this dwelling to the appeal site, and another at the rear door.

Given the positions and orientations of these windows and the positioning of the partition to the kitchen space, I find that it is likely that future occupiers of this dwelling would rely on both daylight and sunlight afforded by the kitchen space window, leaving the partition open to avail of this light in the interests of their living

The same findings would apply if the space was a bedsit with the arrangement as per the plans in the Council’s evidence. The harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwelling resulting from the proposal would be significant given a VSC for the affected window of just 6.35%. This equates to only 34% of the existing level, and only 20% and 0% APSH (sunlight) of the existing annual and winter values.

In addition to the harm derived from the reduction in daylight and sunlight to this dwelling, I also find that the proximity of the mass of the proposal to this kitchen space window would result in the proposal being overbearing with a consequent harm to the outlook of future residents.

The appellant’s evidence shows that a bedroom in a flat served by a 1st floor window (referred to as First R2 W4) on the rear elevation of No 108 would also receive reduced levels of daylight as a result of the proposal. A bedroom is a habitable room. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that its use is likely to be different to that, say, of a living room. However, use of bedrooms commonly extends beyond sleeping and can include study or home working. I therefore find that there would still be harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of this dwelling by reason of loss of daylight resulting from the proposal.

This harm would be significant given the calculated VSC of 15.29% which is 73% of the current level. I also note from the appellant’s evidence that the proposal would result in the VSC for the other bedroom window (First R3 W5) in the same dwelling falling to 21.05%. This would be 76% of the existing levels. The appellant’s evidence describes the result as “marginal” rather than a “fail”. Nevertheless, the VSC would be below 27% and less than 0.8 of the existing level. The BRE Guidance advises that such a reduction is likely to have a significant effect on daylight, and I have no evidence before me to find otherwise.

In addition to the harm derived from the reduction in daylight to this bedroom, I also find that the proximity of the mass of the proposal would result in the proposal being overbearing with a consequent harm to the outlook of future residents of this dwelling. I acknowledge that it has living areas at the front of the building, overlooking [address], but the effect of the proposal would still be harmful overall.

With regards to privacy, there are no windows proposed facing No 108 and the views from the proposed rooftop amenity space and balconies would be screened by proposed obscure glazed screens, the installation of and retention thereafter could be secured by condition.

Turning to the effect on No 114, the appellant’s evidence indicates that one window (Second R1 W1) would fail in terms of the effect on daylight calculated using VSC. However, I note from the floor plans for No 114, included in the appellant’s evidence, that the window serves a bedroom also served by an adjacent window on the same elevation (Second R1 W2). The proposal would have an acceptable effect on this other window. Given its juxtaposition with the affected window, I find that the living conditions of future occupiers of this dwelling would be acceptable. In this regard, there are material differences to the affected rooms at No 108.

There are no windows proposed on the elevations facing No 114. I note that the proposal includes obscure glazed screens which would prevent overlooking from the proposed rooftop amenity space and balconies. As such there would not be any harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwellings at No 114 in terms of loss of privacy.

In reaching my findings above, I have had regard to the extent of the existing building at the appeal site and its proximity to 108 and [address]. I have also had regard to developments in the locality including at [address] as well as at No 114. The development at No 111-117 occupies a corner site. It is of a significant depth as I observed from [address], but the Council’s evidence states that a light study revealed no issues to adjoining properties. I have no evidence before me to conclude otherwise. In relation to No 114’s impact, I acknowledge the Council’s comments that the affected property i.e the appeal site, is currently a commercial use rather than residential. I also find that there is a material difference in the massing of the development at No 114 and that proposed at the appeal site.

Overall, in the context of the above, I find that there would be significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of dwellings at No 108 resulting from the proposal. This harm would result in conflict with policy LP2 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (WLP). This policy amongst other things requires that unacceptable impacts on levels of daylight, sunlight and overbearing impacts are avoided on adjoining properties because of a development proposed.

The appellant’s evidence includes an assessment of daylight and sunlight that would be afforded to the proposed dwellings, specifically assessed as [name] (SDA) and [name] (SE) respectively. The assessment concludes that 2 rooms would fall below the daylight targets contained within the BRE Guidance. They would be an open plan living/kitchen/dining room (referred to as R3 in the appellant’s evidence) within the proposed rear flat on the first floor and a bedroom (R1) also on the first floor in one of the front flats.

R3 is proposed to be dual aspect and the proposed floor plans show how glazing would be maximised at the rear of this room. Nevertheless, the appellant’s evidence shows that the daylight target in the BRE Guidance would be missed by a significant margin, as it would be for R1.

I acknowledge that other rooms would be afforded acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight. However, the proposed levels of daylight which would be afforded to R1 and R3 would have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of future occupiers overall. This harm would result in conflict with WLP policy LP2 which requires that unacceptable impacts on levels of daylight for the host building are avoided. There is also conflict with WLP policy LP27’s requirements in relation to the provision of acceptable levels of daylight for room R1. The policy requires acceptable provision of daylight for such proposed single aspect habitable rooms.

The proposal would result in the positioning of air source heat pumps (ASHP) on the extended roof of the appeal building. The Council’s evidence expresses concerns at the lack of a noise impact assessment (NIA) accompanying the application. One is now included within the appellant’s evidence. It concludes that noise from the ASHPs would not harm the living conditions of future occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties or the proposed dwellings at the appeal site provided a number of mitigation measures were implemented. These would include insulation within the roof construction upon which the ASHPs would sit, as well as the erection a 1.8m high acoustic barrier around them. The position of the barrier is included in an appendix to the appellant’s NIA but not included on their proposed plans. Nevertheless, had I been allowing the appeal, I am satisfied that a condition could have been imposed to secure the implementation of the mitigation measures and I would have written to the main parties and invited comments on suggested wording.

I therefore find that there would not be any harm to living conditions of future occupiers of properties within or neighbouring the appeal site resulting from noise from the proposed ASHPs with the mitigation measures secured. As such there would be accordance with policy LP14 of the WLP. [name] of this policy seeks the reduction, management and/or mitigation of noise and vibration that would result from a development to ensure the health and quality of life of existing and future residents.

The appeal site comprises of 2 buildings of different appearance. From the evidence before me I note that No 110 is locally listed (a non-designated heritage asset) but not No 112. The façade of No 110, including its stonework, glazing, pilasters and pediment is of particular note and provides legibility to the building’s former use as a bank.

It is these historical and aesthetic values of the façade that primarily contributes to the asset’s significance. [name] 110’s and 112’s facades contribute positively to the character and appearance of the streetscene. No 112 is similar to other buildings on the same side as [address] and forms a group with Nos 114, 116 and 118. These date from the early twentieth century with facing English bond red brick and paired vertical sliding sash windows on upper floors above ground floor shop fronts. I noted that No 114’s façade extends to a storey higher than the appeal site’s facades. The fabric internally and at the rear of both Nos 110 and 112 contribute little to the building’s significance. The setting of the rear elevations of both Nos 110 and 112 is rather dominated by the mass of the [name] to the rear.

The Council’s concerns primarily relate to the proposed additions to No 110’s roof and the rear extensions to both buildings. The former would comprise of a single dormer, set within a new mansard roof behind a proposed roof terrace. Given the width and alignment of [address], the dormer would be visible behind the façade from viewpoints on the footway on the opposite side of this street.

However, given the elevated position above street level, the setback behind the roof terrace, and the existence of other dominant features within the streetscene, such as the façade to the [name] shopping centre, the proposed dormer and roof would not appear incongruous or overly prominent within the streetscene. The proposed horizontal emphasis and width of the dormer would be different to the narrower dormers that exist elsewhere within the terrace but the existing façade, above which it is proposed, is different in character and appearance. The dormer would assimilate with the width of the main expanse of glazing found within this façade preserving its character and appearance.

Turning to the proposed rear additions, I have already found that the proposed massing would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings. However, the massing is not out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. It would be a much larger mass than the immediate neighbouring properties but the [name] shopping centre’s monolithic link to its [address]’s frontage is a dominating existing feature within the terrace. The appellant’s evidence also references other examples on [address] which I visited and have had regard to in my decision. These include No 89, No 99-101 and No 111-117. High, deep extensions to properties on [address] are already a defining element of the area’s character and appearance.

I have also had regard to the acoustic barrier that is proposed to be erected around the ASHPs. [name] have no elevations before me, I find that the proposed 1.8m height and location would not result in any harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area.

Overall, I find that the proposal would be in keeping with the existing building and the character and appearance of the area. There would be accordance with policies LP1 and LP3 of the WLP. These policies seek to ensure that designs appreciate and understand the local vernacular and character, physically integrate with their surroundings and will be supported where they sustain, preserve and, wherever possible, enhance the significance, appearance, character, function and setting of any heritage asset (both designated and non-designated), and the historic environment. In reaching this decision I have had regard to policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan which include similar provisions, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

During my visit I observed that the terrace of properties on the [address], that includes the appeal site, have pedestrian access onto a passageway to the rear. This passageway is blocked by the [name] shopping centre at one end but connects to a side passage in the opposite direction adjacent to the [address]. I observed that wheeled bins of various sizes, serving properties, were positioned in both the rear and side passageways. Such a storage and collection arrangement is proposed by the appellant.

The distance from the proposed rear access at the appeal site via the passageways would be over 40m and this would be more than the 10m push distance from collection points to where collection vehicles can legally wait on [address] as advised in the Council’s recently updated Reuse, Recycling and Waste Supplementary Planning Document 2025 (WSPD). Accordance with the WSPD is cited in criterion E of policy LP2 of the WLP. Attaining compliance with the distance criterion would mean positioning bins within the side alley next to the [name] on collection day. I have no evidence before me as to why this would not be possible although, having had regard to the WSPD, it is not clear to me as to whether accordance with its other criteria could be achieved given the limited width of the passageways.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that the arrangements exist for other properties also served by the passageway and the same or similar arrangements would have been applicable for the appeal site’s last use. This is a material consideration that I afford significant weight in relation to this matter. The Council suggests that a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings to 4 would mean that a kerbside, nightly collection could be used instead but such a proposal is not before me.

In the context of the constraints of the rear access, accordance with the guidance contained within the WSPD, and by consequence, WLP policy LP2 in relation to this matter is not practicable or reasonable. The proposed collection arrangements are acceptable.

There is common ground between the main parties in relation to the accessibility that would be provided by the appeal site’s location to services and facilities including public transport. This common ground also extends to the proposed housing mix, space standards and that biodiversity net gain (BNG) would not be required.

There would be benefits derived from bringing the appeal site back into use, retaining a ground floor commercial frontage and supplying 8 dwellings within Wandsworth where there is an outstanding need as set out in policy SDS1 of the WLP. This would provide not only homes, but construction phase employment and post-occupancy spend in the local economy. Given the number of dwellings proposed, and the alignment with the provisions of the Framework in relation to responding to housing need and delivering economic growth, I afford these benefits moderate weight overall.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that the proposal is not the subject of objections from parties other than the Council. I also acknowledge that the appellant proactively engaged with the Council at a pre-application stage. However, I am mindful that pre-application discussions are not binding on the Council once a proposal has been subject to the formal planning process.

The appellant expresses concern over the time that has elapsed from the time they submitted their pre-application enquiry to the Council for the development proposed, to the time they submitted the appeal. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under this planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

There are a number of benefits I have identified above which overall I afford moderate weight in support of the proposal. I have also found that the proposal is acceptable with regards to the matters of noise, accessibility to services and facilities, housing mix, and the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the area. These all have a neutral effect in the planning balance.

These neutral effects and the benefits identified above are outweighed by the significant harm I have identified to the living conditions of future occupiers of existing dwellings at No [address] and the moderate harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of 2 of the proposed dwellings at the appeal site. This significant harm results in conflict with WLP policies LP2 and LP27. I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed