Alterations including enlargement of existing dormers on the north, west and south-facing roof slopes, relocation of existing skylight on the southern roof slope and installation of a new skylight to the northern roof slope, changes to the main pitched roof with additional rooflight, installation of solar panels without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 2025/2824, dated 30 October 2025

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by K Reeves BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005692 8 Castello Avenue, Wandsworth, London SW15 6EA • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mrs Huntingford against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/4457. • The application sought planning permission for alterations including enlargement of existing dormers on the north, west and south-facing roof slopes, relocation of existing skylight on the southern roof slope and installation of a new skylight to the northern roof slope, changes to the main pitched roof with additional rooflight, installation of solar panels without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 2025/2824, dated 30 October 2025. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the reports, specifications and drawings detailed 115_G200_AP (Rev. I). • The reason given for the condition is: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development and to allow the local planning authority to review any potential changes to the scheme. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. While this made certain revisions to aspects of national planning policy, the provisions in respect of the matters relied on by the main parties are materially unchanged. Therefore, no injustice would arise if I determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence already submitted. Background and Main Issue 3. Planning permission was granted on 30 October 2025 for various alterations to the roof of the dwelling, including the enlargement of existing dormers, changes to the roof pitch and the installation of rooflights and solar panels (referred to hereon as “the original permission”). 4. In December 2025, the appellant sought to vary condition 2 of that permission to allow the enlargement of one of the dormers. The Council refused that application on the grounds that it would cause unacceptable harm to the West Putney Conservation Area (CA). 5. Against this background, the main issue is whether varying condition 2 would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the West Putney CA. Appeal Decision 6005692 2 Reasons 6. The appeal site lies within the West Putney CA. The West Putney Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy explains that the area’s significance derives from the historic urban core of Putney Town, shaped by its Georgian and Victorian development, and more substantially from the later Victorian and extensive Edwardian suburb laid out across former field systems to the west. The area is characterised by coherent architectural groupings, generous plots and a consistent rhythm of detached houses that collectively express the planned nature of its historic growth. Within this context, buildings that retain their original form, detailing and compositional integrity play an important role in illustrating the architectural character of the period and in sustaining the legibility of the suburb’s historic structure. 7. The appeal building is a detached dwelling within a street characterised by a run of detached houses on both sides. The Appraisal identifies this side of the street as being of particular quality, noting the strong architectural coherence of the group. It specifically highlights the appeal building, together with No. 16, as being grander than the rest, drawing attention to its classic portico and stone-balustraded balcony. As part of this building group, and given its own architectural quality, the building contributes positively to the significance of the CA by reinforcing the planned suburban character, the established rhythm of detached houses and the collective architectural expression that defines the area’s special interest, including the coherent roofscape pattern evident along this part of the street. 8. The properties surrounding the appeal site each incorporate at least one dormer, but these are predominantly of relatively narrow width, leaving the original roof forms clearly legible and establishing a rhythm that reinforces the architectural coherence of the group. The existing dormer to be enlarged is currently comparable in scale to that prevailing pattern. The proposed increase in width would depart from it, creating a materially broader and more assertive form that would occupy a significant proportion of the roof slope. Even allowing for the presence of the chimney stack, the enlarged dormer would erode the legibility of the original roof form and disrupt the established dormer rhythm that contributes to the character of this part of the CA. 9. The appellant has emphasised the limited visibility of the dormer from the public realm. However, the statutory duty requires preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the CA, not merely the avoidance of prominent harm. The significance of the area derives from the architectural integrity of the appeal building and the coherence of the building group as a whole, and an intervention that disrupts the established roofscape pattern causes harm even if its public visibility is restricted. 10. A further point raised by the appellant is that the original permission established the principle of larger dormers across the roofscape. That approval, however, authorised only the specific forms shown on the plans and does not create a general design precedent for further increases in dormer size. The building would already accommodate a couple of sizeable dormers as a result of that permission, and the current proposal would add to that collection, increasing the cumulative massing of dormer structures on the roof. In these circumstances, the earlier permission does not justify extending dormer enlargement beyond the forms already approved. Appeal Decision 6005692 3 11. Reference has also been made to examples of larger dormers elsewhere in the CA. Those schemes sit within different character areas with their own architectural vernaculars and spatial relationships, and the roofscape conditions in those locations differ materially from the roofscape on Castello Avenue. While the cited examples show that larger dormers exist within the wider CA, they do not demonstrate that such forms are appropriate in this particular context. 12. Having regard to the above, the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the CA. The Framework sets out that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, and it requires that harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 13. The appellant refers to several benefits, including improved internal accommodation, the creation of a more balanced family home and the ability to live in the property for many years. These are private benefits relating to the enjoyment and functionality of the dwelling. They do not amount to public benefits in the sense required by the Framework and therefore do not weigh strongly in favour of the proposal. 14. The relatively small scale of the proposal and the limited public visibility places the extent of harm at the lower end of the spectrum of harm. However, the Framework establishes that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of the degree of harm. This is reinforced by the statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 15. When weighing the great weight to be given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset against the collective weight to be attributed to the benefits, the overall benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. 16. For these reasons, the proposed variation of condition 2 of the original permission would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the West Putney CA. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies LP1, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023 – 2038, which together require that development sustains and enhances the character and significance of heritage assets and responds positively to the established form and pattern of the area. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. K Reeves INSPECTOR