Development proposed is: an extension of the existing part-basement beneath the remainder of the property, including formation of a front lightwell, erection of a full-width rear dormer extension to the main and rear outrigger roofs, with rooflights to the front roof slope and, construction of a single- storey rear extension at ground floor level with a raised terrace into the garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2026 by S Sharp BSc(Hons) BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005601 123 Harbut Road, Wandsworth, London SW11 2RD • 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 Ms Joanna Chrobak of Invent Design Create Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application reference is 2025/2371. • The development proposed is: an extension of the existing part-basement beneath the remainder of the property, including formation of a front lightwell, erection of a full-width rear dormer extension to the main and rear outrigger roofs, with rooflights to the front roof slope and, construction of a single- storey rear extension at ground floor level with a raised terrace into the garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension of the existing part-basement beneath the remainder of the property, including formation of a front lightwell, erection of a full-width rear dormer extension to the main and rear outrigger roofs, with rooflights to the front roof slope and, construction of a single-storey rear extension at ground floor level with a raised terrace into the garden, at 123 Harbut Road, Wandsworth, London SW11 2RD in accordance with the terms of the application reference 2025/2371 subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2214 20 00 Rev A – Proposed OS map, 2214 20 01 Rev B – Proposed plans, 2214 20 02 Rev B – Proposed elevations, 2214 20 03 Rev B – Proposed sections. 3) Prior to occupation of the extension above the two-storey back addition hereby permitted, the window in its side elevation facing No 127 Harbut Road shall be obscure glazed and non opening (unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed) and thereafter retained. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of: • the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, the streetscene and the existing house at the appeal site; Appeal Decision 6005601 2 • the proposed rear roof extensions on the living conditions of future occupiers of 125, Harbut Road in relation to sunlight, daylight and outlook; and, • the proposed single storey rear/side extension on the living conditions of future occupiers of 121, Harbut Road in relation to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a mid-terrace Victorian house. From the street, the property appears as one of a row of houses of similar design, scale and positioning. Each house is set behind a small front garden. Alterations to front elevations are apparent, and some houses have a full depth basement with bay windows. No 111 has a lightwell inserted within its front garden. 4. At the rear, there are additions of varying design and size as well as alterations to the original houses. The character and appearance are eclectic. There is an example of a vertically sided addition to the roof of a rear outrigger at No 117. I also noted a vertically sided dormer addition to the roof of No 135. Both are prominent additions to the row visible from the rear garden at the appeal site. 5. The proposal includes a vertically sided roof addition to the main house. An addition to the roof of the existing outrigger is also proposed, again with vertical sides. These additions would both cover more than 50% of the length of the respective existing roofs upon which they are proposed. However, given the context of the other rear alterations and additions in the row, neither would appear incongruous or at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the area. 6. They would also not appear top heavy or overly dominant in the context of the character and appearance of the existing house. In the case of the main roof addition, the relatively short extent of the rear gardens means that its scale would not be readily apparent. The roof addition would also not be visible from the street. The proposed addition to the outrigger would be more prominent when viewed from the rear but its uncomplicated form with a flat roof and vertical sides would reduce its bulk and visual effect. This is a characteristic of the similar addition to No 117. 7. Turning to the proposed single storey rear/side extension, the siting, height and overall scale of this addition would be subservient to the existing house. It would leave the majority of the original rear elevation uncovered and the form of the main house and outrigger clearly legible from the rear garden. The sloping rear garden means that the scale of the extension would be larger than if the garden was at the same level as the house, but not materially so in effect. 8. The proposed lightwell within the front garden would not appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene. This is because it would be an unobtrusive, low-lying form that would sit close to ground level. It would not visually obstruct the front elevation of the property, and the space would still appear as part of the front garden. It would also be viewed in the context of the existing lightwell at No 111. 9. Overall, the character and appearance of the area, including the street scene, and the existing house, would be preserved with no harm resulting from the proposal. This would secure accordance with policies LP1 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Appeal Decision 6005601 3 Plan 2023-2038 (2023) (WLP). These policies seek to ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of developments provide a high-quality design and layout that enhance and relate positively to the prevailing local character, complementing the form, setting, period and detailing of host buildings. 10. In reaching these findings, I have had regard to the Council’s Housing SPD (2016) (SPD). This guidance is not cited in the WLP policies but is a material consideration. It contains criteria relating to additions and alterations to dwellings. These include that the sides to such additions should be no steeper than 70 degrees from the horizontal, and that they should not extend to more than 50% of the length of the existing element of the building to which they are proposed to be added. I note that the proposed additions to the main roof and outrigger would conflict with these criteria. However, for the reasons I have already given, they would not conflict with the WLP policies. Living conditions (No 125) 11. A 2 storey outrigger extends from the rear of No 125. This outrigger includes windows serving habitable rooms at ground and first floor level facing the appeal site. The floor levels of the outrigger are lower than those of the main house which has French doors on the rear elevation at ground floor level with a window above at first floor level. The outlook from these doors and windows, as well as existing sunlight and daylight levels, are affected by the vegetation on the shared boundary and the appeal house’s existing 2 storey rear outrigger. 12. The proposed addition to the appeal house’s outrigger would increase its mass and this would result in a loss of sunlight, daylight and outlook to No 125. However, noting the height and proximity of the boundary vegetation and the appeal property’s existing outrigger, the losses would be minor in scale. I also note that the views from No 125’s windows down the rear gardens, and light levels afforded from this direction, would be unaffected. As such, the effect on daylight, sunlight and outlook afforded to future occupiers of No 125 would be minor but acceptable. There would be no unacceptable level of harm to their living conditions. 13. The proposal would therefore accord with policy LP2 of the WLP. This advises that, amongst other things, that developments will be supported where they avoid unacceptable impacts on daylight and sunlight afforded to adjoining properties, and they are not visually intrusive or overbearing. 14. In reaching this finding I have had regard to the provisions of the SPD. This advises that vertical faces to extensions and coverage of more than 50% of the length of the existing dwelling’s outrigger should normally be avoided as the additional bulk can be more intrusive and overbearing to a neighbouring property. I have noted the use of the word normally in this guidance. In this instance, I have found that, although there would be a loss of outlook, it would not be to the extent that it would have unacceptable effects. Living conditions (No 121) 15. The boundary between No 121 and the appeal site is marked by a close boarded fence topped by a small area of trellis. This boundary treatment screens much of No 121’s garden and ground floor from view. I was able to discern that there is a window and a door at ground floor level, the door opening onto a small raised Appeal Decision 6005601 4 terrace before the garden levels drop down towards the boundary with the railway lines at the rear. 16. The proposed single storey rear/side extension would replace a section of the boundary fence nearest the house and abut the boundary. The extent of the proposed projection from the existing outrigger would be small in scale. The height would also be limited by a flat roofed design. The proposal would also leave the view from the rear of No 121 down its rear garden unaffected. The combination of these characteristics would mean that there would no unacceptable loss to the outlook from No 121 and no harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of this property resulting from the proposal. 17. The proposal would therefore accord with policy LP2 of the WLP in relation to this matter. Again, in reaching this finding, I have had regard to the provisions of the SPD. Other Matters 18. The Council refer to a number of different examples of extensions and alterations within the row, commenting that some were expressly granted permission, others were permitted development, but none are comparable to the appeal proposal. I have not got all the details before me of if and how permissions were granted for the examples cited in the evidence. However, it is clear that they are part of the character and appearance of the area. As such, whilst the circumstances behind each development may not be comparable to the appeal proposal, they nevertheless form a prevailing context against which I have undertaken my assessment. Conditions 19. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. 20. The Council has suggested a condition requiring a window on the side elevation of the proposed outrigger addition to be obscure glazed and non-opening (for parts not over 1.7m above the floor level of the room to be served by the window). The condition is necessary to secure the privacy afforded to future occupiers of No 125. I have slightly amended the Council’s suggested wording of the condition in the interests of precision and enforceability. 21. The Council has also suggested a condition limiting the use of the roof area of the proposal. I have assumed that this suggestion relates to the roof of the proposed single storey extension as the outrigger’s addition would have a sloping roof and be only accessible from the main roof. The roof of the single storey extension would afford views directly into both Nos 121’s and 125’s gardens and the latter’s ground floor and first floor windows. 22. However, without further alterations, the roof would only be accessible by climbing out of one of the first-floor windows, neither of which are proposed to be changed to doors. As such, the probability of accessing the roof is highly unlikely and it would be unreasonable to impose such a condition. 23. Finally, I have not imposed a condition relating to the external facing materials as there is sufficient detail contained within the drawings in relation to this matter. The Appeal Decision 6005601 5 detail on the drawings is also sufficient to not require a condition, as suggested by the Council, necessitating further details to be submitted and approved of the proposed grills to the lightwell. Conclusion 24. For the reasons detailed above, the appeal is allowed. S Sharp INSPECTOR