Appeal 6005627

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear dormer loft addition at [site address] , Wandsworth, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/3666, 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 accordance with drawing nos. ST_AUG 25_15 COL _00 (Site and Location); and ST_AUG 25_15 COL_002 [name] (Plan Proposed Plans, Section and Elevations).

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the side elevation window at second floor level has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal relates to a mid-terrace dwelling located on a residential street comprising properties of broadly similar age, scale and design. There is disagreement between the main parties regarding the precise number of dwellings on this side of [address] that have dormer extensions of a similar size and design to the appeal proposal. At my site visit, I observed three such examples at Nos 7, 9 and 13, along with various roof additions to other properties in the terrace. Regardless of whether individual examples were implemented under permitted development (PD) rights, they are established features of the area, and the cumulative effect is a roofscape to the rear of [address] with a notably varied character.

The Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) advises that rear dormers should generally extend no more than half the length of the rear addition. While the appeal dormer would exceed this, given the varied nature of the roofscape described, the proposed dormer would not appear unduly prominent, intrusive or discordant in its immediate setting.

The dormer would be set down from the main ridge and set back from the rear addition, reducing its perceived bulk and ensuring it would have a subordinate relationship with its host. Given it siting at the rear of the house combined with the mature trees that bound the site, such a change would not be prominent from public vantage points or from neighbouring properties. In this context, and despite the guidance contained in the SPD, I find that the scale, design and use of matching materials would ensure that the proposed dormer suitably assimilates with its host and the wider terrace.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance area. In that regard, it would accord with LP1 Policy LP1 which, amongst other things, requires that the scale, massing and appearance of development provides a high-quality, sustainable design and layout that enhances and relates positively to the prevailing local character and the emerging character. It would also comply with LP Policy LP5 insofar as it would be confined to the rear and would respect the form, setting, period and detailing of the host, would use matching or complementary materials and would be visually subservient to it.

A standard time limit implementation condition is required (1), along with a condition listing the approved plans to provide certainty over what has been approved (2). In addition, a condition requiring matching external materials is also necessary in order to ensure that the development harmonises with the character and appearance of the host dwelling (3). Finally, a condition is necessary to require that the proposed window in the side elevation is obscured glazed and fixed shut in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to privacy (4).

For the reasons given above I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. 1 Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038, [name] 2023 (LP).

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.