Alterations to existing front portico

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 by D Cleary MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012827 Crestway, 246 Dover House Road, Wandsworth, London SW15 5DA • 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 Karina Arden Maccabee against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth. • The application Ref is 2025/3444. • The development proposed is described as alterations to existing front portico. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner above I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice, as it more concisely reflects the proposed development. 3. During the course of the appeal, a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. While the format has altered, the considerations material to this decision have not fundamentally changed. I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced, and I have had regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Westmead Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal site lies within the Westmead Conservation Area (the WCA). Under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. The Westmead Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy provides a clear understanding of the WCA’s special interest as a phased early-20th-century suburban estate. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the significance of the WCA derives from its historic plan form, the architectural consistency and quality of its buildings, and its well-landscaped and verdant setting. 6. The appeal dwelling forms one of a group of four detached houses of similar scale and original design. Their largely unaltered front façades mean that, both individually and collectively, they make a positive contribution to the significance of the WCA. The existing porch at the appeal property is a modest projection whose Appeal Decision 6012827 2 siting, scale and design does not visually dilute the overall appearance of the host dwelling or disrupt the cohesive qualities of this part of the street scene. 7. Attached to this porch is an existing open-sided canopy with a shallow hipped roof. It is understood that this structure is unauthorised and was the subject of a recent appeal decision1. In dismissing that appeal, the Inspector found that the canopy’s overall scale, form and forward siting resulted in an incongruous and overly prominent modern feature that detracted from the planned nature of the dwelling and failed to harmonise with the relatively unaltered and consistent front elevations of neighbouring properties. 8. The current proposal seeks to replace the existing canopy with a smaller version. Its width and projection would be reduced, meaning it would sit further back from the street and appear less dominant against the existing porch. However, while the scale would be diminished, the essential form, design and relationship to the principal elevation would remain materially similar to the structure previously found harmful. 9. Notwithstanding the reduction in size, the proposed canopy would still introduce a modern, visually assertive feature that contrasts with the traditional character and appearance of the original dwelling. Its hipped roof and open-sided form would remain highly apparent in views from the street. When considered in the context of the neighbouring dwellings, the canopy would continue to appear as a prominent and incongruous addition that undermines the visual cohesiveness of this part of the WCA. This is an attribute that I have identified as contributing positively to its significance. 10. I have noted the appellant’s reference to other canopies within the WCA. However, I do not have full details of their planning status, and they do not appear to be wholly comparable in terms of siting or design. Moreover, they are not within the immediate visual context of the appeal site. In any event, I have considered the proposal on its own merits. 11. The Framework confirms that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (HE6(1)), and that any harm to such an asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight (HE6(3)). HE6(4) requires that harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, and the effect on that asset and its significance, must be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. I have considered the benefits advanced. While the canopy would provide some weather protection for the appellant and visitors, such benefits are private in nature and carry limited weight. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal would not enhance the dwelling and any benefits would not outweigh the harm to the heritage asset that I have identified. 12. For the reasons above, the development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WCA. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policies LP1, LP3 and LP5 of the Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038. Together, amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design, which conserve or enhance the historic environment. 1 Appeal Reference: 3360192 (dated 23rd May 2025) Appeal Decision 6012827 3 Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. D Cleary INSPECTOR