London Borough of Wandsworth appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Wandsworth?
See how selected Wandsworth examples treated façade changes, boundary treatment, rear dormers and fencing.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 111 of 153
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 40
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 71
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 108
- of 112 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Wandsworth LPA (51.451964, −0.186167). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Wandsworth appeal findings
Wandsworth character findings on façades, boundaries and additions
One selected dismissal gives only a conclusion, so it cannot explain why the outbuilding was judged harmful.
Counted against appeals
Façades, boundaries and an outbuilding
Front façade remodelling
The inspector concluded that remodelling the front façade had a negative effect on the area’s character and appearance.
Boundary treatment harmed appearance
The inspector concluded that the front boundary treatment harmed the area’s character and appearance.
Outbuilding harm was unexplained
The selected extract concludes that the outbuilding harmed the area, but does not give the reason.
Helped or needed
Rear additions and fence details
Rear dormer stayed subordinate
The rear dormer would be confined to the rear, respect the host building’s form and detailing, and be visually subservient.
Fence stayed proportionate
The fence extension seemed unobtrusive and proportionate beside the more imposing host dwelling, with fencing similar in height to the hedge.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm from the front, rear or boundary treatment?
- Would the addition remain visually subordinate to the host building?
- Do the proposed materials and heights match nearby features?
The selected Wandsworth examples cover different proposal types, and the outbuilding decision gives only a conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
24 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear dormer loft addition.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
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.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
16 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘height extension of existing fence’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
When viewed from [address], the proposal would seem unobtrusive and proportionate within the context of the much more imposing host dwelling, and so would preserve the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposed fencing along the eastern elevation would be of a similar height to that of the existing hedge, maintaining the constitution of the adjoining footway and existing levels of informal surveillance from adjacent windows. Trellising would be utilised above the section of wall between the ground floor window and [address], continuing a level of informal surveillance of the street beyond.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
27 February 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons I conclude that the remodelling of the front façade would have a negative effect on the character and appearance of the area and would therefore fail to accord with Policy IS 3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan – [name] ([name] 2016) which seeks to ensure good quality design that protects and reinforces the existing varied character of the borough. The proposal would fail to accord with [name] 1 and DMH 5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan – Development Management Policies Document ([name] 2016) which between them seek to ensure that the scale and appearance of a development contributes positively to local spatial character, and requires proposals to use appropriate materials and not to dominate or compete with the original building, and Policy D6 of The London Plan (March
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
22 June 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of front boundary treatment.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to Policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (July 2023) which state that development must enhance and relate positively to the prevailing local character and be unobtrusive in the street scene.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
24 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey outbuilding.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
As it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, I conclude the scheme would not comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 15 · Source page 3