For replacement windows

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: 25 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008759 181 Magdalen Road, Wandsworth, London SW18 3PB • 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 Mrs. Sheree Dost against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/4421. • The development proposed is for replacement windows. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement windows at 181 Magdalen Road, Wandsworth, London SW18 3PB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/4421, 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 the approved plans, drawing references: 30468332 (OS Plan Black / White); 30468332 (Existing and Proposed Elevations); 30468332 (Sheet 1 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 2 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 3 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 4 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 5 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 6 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 7 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 8 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 9 of 11); 30468332 (Sheet 10 of 11); and 30468332 (Sheet 11 of 11). 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 issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Magdalen Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal relates to a two storey end terrace dwelling, with a single storey side and rear extension, and a rear dormer. It occupies a prominent corner plot within a well-preserved 1930s suburban council housing development, which features the formal arrangement of terraces and semi-detached properties with long rear gardens, organised into irregular, oblique blocks. Along the row from the appeal site to Swaby Road, there is a strong uniformity in the regular rhythm of white sash Appeal Decision 6008759 2 windows with glazing bars, and shared features of brick façades, two storey bay windows, brick lintels, and entrance canopies. Collectively, these elements reinforce the traditional consistency and originality of the row, making a positive contribution to the architectural and historic significance of the CA. 5. The windows within the terrace are primarily painted white timber frames. However, some properties, including Numbers 189 and 233 Magdalen Road, feature full uPVC openings. During my site visit, I observed that the existing windows in the main house are uPVC. It is suggested they were replaced by the dwelling’s previous owner. Whilst not specifying materials, this tallies with cited Building Control documentation relating to window replacement works carried out in 2002. Whilst a manufacturing and not necessarily installation date, the windows are stamped September 2002. 6. The plans in regard to 2012/3487, an allowed appeal for a single storey side and rear extension that appears to have been constructed as approved, specify that the white uPVC sash windows were to match the existing, indicating that uPVC windows were already present at that time. The existing windows are heavily weathered and discoloured. One is missing most of its glazing bars. With this and the above in mind, it is more likely than not that the existing windows have been on the property for some time, well in excess of ten years. 7. The proposal would therefore replace existing uPVC windows, which are in poor condition and currently detract from the character and appearance of the CA. Whilst they would include trickle vents, which do not currently exist, these would be narrow, visually recessive and not be readily noticeable when viewed against the wider window. They would match the existing windows in terms of glazing bar patterns, frame thickness, sliding sash design, double glazing, colour, and material. Their design and detailing would also reflect the appearance of the traditional timber windows across the wider terrace. 8. Whilst not a traditional material, uPVC is present elsewhere within the terrace and more widely in the surrounding area and would not appear incongruous in this context. Although the existing windows have deteriorated, this is not unique to uPVC and can occur with timber windows that have aged or been poorly maintained. Therefore, and in these specific circumstances, the proposed replacement windows would be similar to the existing situation and would thus not result in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the CA. 9. 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 and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek for development proposals to ensure that the proposed finishing materials and façade design demonstrate an appreciation of the local character and for proposals to sustain, preserve and enhance the significance, appearance, character, function and setting of any heritage asset. Appeal Decision 6008759 3 Conditions 10. To provide certainty and for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to impose the standard time limit and specify the approved plans. The materials are shown thereon. There is therefore no need for a further condition. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. I recommend that the appeal should be allowed in the circumstances set out. 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 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is thus granted, subject to the conditions listed. John Morrison INSPECTOR