For alterations to the property including raising of the main ridge of the property by 500mm

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 June 2026 by Kim Vo MPLAN Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008103 3 Frewin Road, Wandsworth, London SW18 3LR • 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 Matt Brown against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/4099. • The development proposed is for alterations to the property including raising of the main ridge of the property by 500mm. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to the property including raising of the main ridge of the property by 500mm at 3 Frewin Road, Wandsworth, London SW18 3LR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/4099, 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 numbers: PP-14398435v1 (Location Plan); 201 (Ground & First Floor Plans); 202 (Second Floor & Roof Plans); 203 (West Section); 204 (South Section); 205 (West & East Elevations); and 206 (Front & Rear Elevation). 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. Appeal Procedure and Main Issue 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 scheme. The main issue for which is whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 3. The appeal property forms one half of a broadly uniform semi-detached pair with Number 5 Frewin Road (No. 5). Both have a cross hipped roof with level eaves and ridge heights and share the same fenestration pattern to the front. They each have a two storey front projection incorporating a two storey bay window, creating an overall C-shaped form. They also feature a central tall front chimney with a distinctive flared base, set in front of a parapet wall extending across the shared boundary, along the roof. This symmetry and traditional detailing reinforce Appeal Decision 6008103 2 the area’s original and suburban character and appearance, which positively contributes to the architectural significance of the CA. 4. Whilst the appeal property and No. 5 form as one of the better preserved pairs along Frewin Road, the originality has been affected by No. 5’s front rooflight and side dormer. The wider street scene contains numerous examples of roof interventions, with many dwellings featuring front, side, and rear dormers, rooflights, and, in some instances, alterations to ridge heights. The appeal property retains its original roof and the cumulative impacts of incremental change on heritage assets should be managed. Notwithstanding this, it sits within a context where the coherence of the original roofscape has been noticeably eroded over time, and the overall roof character has thus evolved. 5. The proposal would result in a roof form taller than No. 5, altering the symmetry of the semi-detached pair, and also create a misaligned junction within the cross hipped roof. However, the proposed increase would be modest and not appear disproportionate, nor would it exceed the height of the existing chimneys. At street level, the change in ridge heights would not be readily perceptible, due to the parapet wall and the front chimney stack, both of which already interrupt views of a continuous ridgeline across the pair. It would also be obscured by the unaltered two storey front projection, which would continue to serve as the dominant feature in the foreground. Similar developments at neighbouring properties, which I saw on my site visit, also demonstrate how such changes, although visible from the street scene, are not overly conspicuous due to their siting and roof level position. 6. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) places emphasis on great weight being given to the asset’s conservation. Given the assessment above, the proposal would ensure that both the character and appearance of the CA is preserved. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies LP1 and LP3 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023; Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021; and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek for development proposals to provide a high-quality design that relates positively to the prevailing and emerging local character, and for proposals to sustain, conserve, preserve and enhance the significance, appearance, character, function and setting of any heritage asset. Conditions 7. To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and to specify the approved plans. A condition is also necessary for materials to match those used on the existing building to maintain the character and appearance of the CA. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. I recommend that the appeal should be allowed given it would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. Kim Vo APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6008103 3 Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted. Subject to the conditions set out. John Morrison INSPECTOR