Erection of a hip to gable extension with a dormer extension to main rear roof slope with a smaller dormer on the front main roof
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Heritage & Conservation
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 November 2025
By G Powys Jones FRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 13 November 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/25/3374741
11 Collamore Avenue, London, SW18 3JR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Nick Swabey against the decision of the London Borough of
Wandsworth.
• The application Ref is 2025/2273.
• The development proposed is the erection of a hip to gable extension with a dormer
extension to main rear roof slope with a smaller dormer on the front main roof.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a hip
to gable extension with a dormer extension to main rear roof slope with a smaller
dormer on the front main roof at 11 Collamore Avenue, London, SW18 3JR in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2273, subject to the
conditions set out in the accompanying Schedule.
Main Issue
2. The proposal is concerned with various alterations and additions to the dwelling’s
roof. For the reasons set out in the officer report, the Council has no objection to
the proposed rear dormer or the change from hip to gable. I have no reason to
disagree with the Council’s stance on these matters. The Council’s sole concern is
with the proposed front dormer.
3. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the front dormer on the character and
appearance of the host property and its surroundings.
Reasons
4. The appeal property is a sizeable end of terrace dwelling standing on Collamore
Avenue’s junction with Lyminge Gardens. The terrace has a pleasant appearance
at the front being well proportioned and displaying gabled features above double
height bays. Apart from some rooflights the terrace’s roof profile at the front is
unchanged, and the Council regards the proposed installation of a front dormer as
objectionable since they consider it would look incongruous and inappropriate.
5. However, it appears to have arrived at its judgment from a starting point of treating
the proposal as a ‘roof extension’, considered to be both prominent and bulky in the
street scene. I do not share the Council’s assessment. The proposed dormer, in
my view, does not constitute a roof extension in the commonly accepted sense of
the term. Far from being bulky, it would be reasonably sized, set down from the
main ridge, and complementary in shape, size and proportion to other features in
Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/25/3374741
2
the front elevation, particularly the gables and window below. It is well-designed
with a ridged roof, hipped gable and would be finished in matching materials.
Although it would be the first of its type in the terrace, I consider it would fit
harmoniously and unobtrusively within the street scene.
6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would sit acceptably in its visual and spatial
context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its
surroundings. Accordingly, I find no material conflict with those provisions of policy
LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (WLP), a policy directed specifically to
residential extensions and alterations, providing that proposals should respect and
complement the form and detailing of the host property and that modifications to
any elevation fronting a street are of a minor scale and unobtrusive within the street
scene.
Conditions
7. It is necessary that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved
plans, and a condition to this effect is therefore imposed in the interests of certainty.
8. The Council’s suggested condition in respect of materials is also imposed in the
interests of visual amenity.
Other matters
9. All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the
references to the National Planning Policy Framework, and other policies in the
WLP. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the
considerations leading me to my conclusions.
G Powys Jones
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Drawing Ref Nos: A3100; A3101; A3102;
A3103; A3104; A3105; A3106; A3107; A3108; A3109; A3110; A3111;
A3112; A3113; A3114; A3115; A3116; A3117; A3118; A3119; A3120 &
A3121.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building.
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.