Enlargement of the existing loft extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by Scott Wilson LL.B. MSc MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004882 15 Festing Road, Wandsworth, London SW15 1LW • 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 and Mrs David and Lucinda McKee against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/3972. • The development proposed is the enlargement of the existing loft extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the enlargement of the existing loft extension, at 15 Festing Road, Wandsworth, London SW15 1LW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/3972, subject to the following 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 drawing No 5197a. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window in the side elevation at second floor level of the development 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. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Procedural Matter 3. I note that plan number 5197b is included in the evidence, which appears to be a revised version of the scheme. Nonetheless, the Council has made its decision on the originally submitted plan 5197a. The appellant is clear that it seeks the appeal Appeal Decision 6004882 2 to be considered based on the originally submitted version. I have therefore made my assessments based on plan 5197a. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The property is on the east side of Festing Road. It is a traditional two-storey, single-bay-fronted, mid-terrace dwelling. To the rear, the property has a two-storey rear outrigger, which adjoins the neighbouring dwelling’s outrigger, such that they contain a dual-pitched roof. The outriggers are a feature that is repeated along the rear of the appeal terrace, and the terrace at Rotherwood Road which is located directly to the rear of the appeal property, such that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the immediate vicinity. 6. However, in multiple instances, these outriggers have been extended by upwards roof extensions, along with roof extensions to the main dwellings. Notably, the extension at No 11 Festing Road and multiple upwards rear outrigger roof extensions directly to the rear of the appeal site on Rotherwood Road. 7. I have not been provided with any substantive detail to ascertain if these developments are the result of the grant of planning permission, permitted development or if they even have permission at all. However, the Council do not report any enforcement investigations, and the current prevailing character of this row, and the group as a whole, includes multiple substantial upward extensions to the rear outrigger with vertical sides. 8. The proposal is for a rear roof extension projecting upwards from the rear outrigger with vertical sides. The roof extension would appear as different to the current rear outrigger roof extension, being bulky and box-like in appearance and would fail to follow the guidance in the Wandsworth Local Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016). However, the design would be consistent with the extension at No 11 Festing Road, and the multiple outrigger roof extensions on various dwellings along Rotherwood Road, such that it would respect the local architectural styles, and the distinctiveness of the area would be sustained. It would not unduly dominate the host building, and these material considerations lead me to conclude that the proposal would harmonise with the terrace rows, and this would outweigh the conflict with the Design Guide. 9. I am directed to other rear outrigger roof extensions in the area that are the result of permitted development or were granted permission under a different iteration of the development plan. However, I do not have any substantive evidence before me to demonstrate this matter. Even if I did, that would not overcome my conclusion that the multiple examples of rear outrigger roof extensions with vertical sides are a characteristic of this immediate area. 10. The Council refer to a previous appeal on the appeal site, which was smaller than the proposed scheme and was allowed. This is therefore of limited relevance to the appeal scheme. Furthermore, I do not have any substantive detail before me to indicate under what iteration of the development plan the appeal was determined, Appeal Decision 6004882 3 what policies were considered and what the determinative issues were. In the absence of this detail, I cannot be certain that that appeal is relevant to this appeal. 11. Consequently, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This would comply with Policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2021), insofar as they seek proposals that relate positively to the prevailing local character and respond appropriately to the host building. Conditions 12. The plans are listed for certainty, and materials are required to match the existing building to ensure a satisfactory external appearance. I have also imposed a condition requiring the side window to be obscurely glazed and non-opening in the interests of neighbouring occupier’s privacy. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Scott Wilson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. B Plenty INSPECTOR