Appeal 6006230

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the application form. However, I have replaced the words ‘PV solar’ with ‘natural’ to reflect revised drawings submitted to the Council during the planning application stage. The revised drawings also include amendments to the size of the first-floor windows. It is this revised scheme that was determined by the Council and upon which my recommendation is based.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] and [address] Conservation Area (CA).

According to the [address] and [address] Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] (AMS), [address] represents a well-preserved street, full of rustic charm with sequences of two-storey, semi-detached Victorian villas. It recognises that, while there are variations in details among pairs of buildings, overall, they possess a unity of style, scale and layout. The AMS also refers specifically to Nos 43-43a, stating that these two houses are unusual in that they are grouped one behind the other and were built in conjunction with [name]. Consistent with much of the street, these properties are locally listed.

The appeal dwelling retains materials and architectural features typical of its period and consistent with many other properties within the CA, including London stock brickwork, prominent chimney stacks, vertical sliding timber sash windows and a pitched slate roof. As a largely intact example of a Victorian villa, it makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA both as an individual property and as part of a group, which I find derives in considerable part from the cohesive scale, form and period detailing of the buildings within it. It also has significance in its own right due to its historic and architectural interest.

I agree with the Council that, subject to the detailed design of the windows, the proposed changes to fenestration on the south elevation and the addition of rooflights would not be highly conspicuous and, along with the use of natural slate tiles, these elements of the appeal scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The rear elevation of the appeal dwelling currently incorporates timber sash windows and a door which reflect the proportions, rhythm and materials typical of the CA. In contrast, the proposed aluminium framed patio doors would introduce a markedly contemporary element. Their overtly modern appearance would be reinforced by the extensive use of glazing, with this opening spanning almost the full width and height of the ground floor rear elevation.

The proposed extension would be modest in depth, with a comparable footprint to that of the existing ground floor projection, thereby not impacting upon the size of the rear garden. It would also be set back slightly from the side elevation. Even so, due to its two-storey height and substantial width, the proposed extension would fail to maintain a subservient relationship with its host and would engulf the rear elevation of the appeal property. Together with the unsympathetic patio doors and the removal of the original chimney stacks, the proposal would undermine the period proportions and architectural detailing of the appeal dwelling and would erode the contribution it makes to the wider CA.

Given the orientation of the appeal dwelling, any loss of symmetry arising from the extension would not be readily perceptible from the street. However, limited public visibility does not negate the need for sympathetic design. The extension would also be clearly visible from the rear windows and courtyard of [name], and the blank flank elevation would be apparent from the side‐facing window of the neighbouring property at No 41. Furthermore, the removal of the chimney stacks would be noticeable from both public and private viewpoints.

The appeal scheme would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Given the siting, scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole would be at the lower end of less than substantial having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. The appeal scheme would provide additional accommodation for its occupiers, the benefit of which is essentially private in nature. I find therefore that there are no public benefits sufficient to outweigh the considerable weight and importance I attach to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the

Therefore, the proposal would also be contrary to Policies LP1, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 (2023) and Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021). Together these policies seek to protect the district’s heritage assets and, amongst other things, to ensure that developments provide a high-quality design that contributes positively to local character.

It would also conflict with the guidance in the AMS and the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which have similar aims, and with the Framework’s heritage and design policies.

I have had regard to the approved extension (LPA ref. 2007/3332) referred to by the appellant. I do not doubt that, as this permission has been implemented, there is a realistic prospect of the works to the appeal dwelling being carried out. Even so, from the drawings before me, this scheme is clearly different in scale, siting and materiality to that which is proposed and therefore its visual effects would not be comparable. This previous permission does not therefore justify a proposal that I have found to be harmful, particularly given the appellant would be entitled to build both extensions if this appeal were to be allowed.

The Council has raised no concerns with the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or with parking and access. On the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree. However, these are neutral factors that do not justify the harm identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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