Alterations including front and rear ground floor extensions, loft conversions the main building, annex and the garage, and a basement under the existing annex

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by Lucy Cuthbertson BSc Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006365 28 Granard Avenue, Wandsworth, London SW15 6HJ • 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 Antonio and Olessia Willybiro against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/3692. • The development proposed is alterations including front and rear ground floor extensions, loft conversions the main building, annex and the garage, and a basement under the existing annex. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, and the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a dwelling within a residential street. The surrounding properties are generally detached dwellings set within relatively spacious plots, with a mix of single and two-storey forms that maintain a consistent and proportionate scale. Hipped roofs are a common feature which help to unify the varied architectural styles along the street. The appeal site has a notably smaller garden area than other dwellings nearby, and the existing house is already built close to the site boundaries, limiting visual separation between the dwelling and its neighbours. 5. The proposed development comprises a series of extensions, including front and rear additions, substantial roof extensions across the main dwelling, garage and annex, and a large basement extending beneath the annex and much of the front garden. Appeal Planning Officer 6006365 2 6. The proposed roof extensions would significantly alter the form and proportions of the building. In particular, they would result in the loss of the existing hipped roof forms to both the main dwelling and the annex. The removal of these elements, combined with the overall increase in bulk, would result in a building form that appears overly dominant, creating a top-heavy and bulky appearance. 7. In the context of the site’s relatively small plot size and limited garden space, the increased scale and massing would appear particularly pronounced. While the site already exhibits a constrained relationship with its boundaries, the cumulative bulk of the extensions, especially at roof level, would further intensify this relationship, resulting in a more cramped and visually dominant form. Given their prominence, the roof extensions would be highly visible from the street and would appear disproportionate when compared with neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the street scene. 8. Overall, the development would not be visually subservient to the host dwelling, , and would result in an unduly dominant and intrusive form of development. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies LP1, LP5 and LP6 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023) (LP) and the guidance contained within the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Living Conditions 9. The neighbouring occupiers, including those at adjoining properties such as No. 30, currently experience a constrained relationship with the appeal building due to the close proximity of built form to shared boundaries. While this limits openness to some degree, there are no excessively overbearing structures at present. 10. The proposed roof extensions to the main dwelling, garage and annex would result in a substantial increase in height, bulk and mass. This would be clearly perceptible from adjoining properties and would create an overbearing effect and increased sense of enclosure. The introduction of side-facing windows at second floor level would enable direct views towards neighbouring properties, including No. 30, resulting in increased opportunities for overlooking and a consequent loss of privacy. While the rear-facing windows would not, in isolation, result in a significant increase in overlooking, the overall impact of the development would nonetheless be harmful. 11. The combined effect of the increased bulk, proximity to boundaries and additional overlooking would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 12. The proposed development would cause harm and adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. These harms are not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy LP2 of the LP which seeks to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 13. The appellant has submitted that the proposal would provide additional needed accommodation, however I am not convinced that reconfiguring the property through in a less harmful way is not possible. Photographs of properties in the area have been provided, whilst these details a varying design, this does not overcome the harm I have found above. In any event I do not have full details of these Appeal Planning Officer 6006365 3 buildings or their associated approvals and cannot therefore conclude that they are directly comparable. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Lucy Cuthbertson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR