# 7 Vicarage Mansions, Queenstown Road, Wandsworth (mansard roof)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves
- **Authority:** Wandsworth (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007541
- **Application reference:** 2025/3183
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Removal of original roof and erection of a mansard extension to form a further level of accommodation (resulting 5-storey building) in Park Town Estate CA opposite the Grade II Church of St Philip
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** Transitional(2), L2(1)(d)(i), HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP1, LP3, LP4, LP5
- **Main issues:** conservation area, listed building setting, weight to local policy, upward extensions
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, old-wording-slip, upward-extension

## Summary
A mansard roof on a Victorian corner block in the Park Town Estate Conservation Area, Wandsworth, was refused. The appellant argued two things. First, that the 2026 Framework made Wandsworth's heritage and tall-building policies "materially inconsistent", so they should get very limited weight. Second, that L2 gives substantial weight to upward extensions and mansards. The inspector rejected both. The policies keep full weight. L2's support applies only where its criteria are met and there is no conflict with designated heritage assets.

## Issues and findings
- **Weight to local policy.** "these policies remain broadly consistent with the Framework's requirements to conserve designated heritage assets, to secure high-quality design and to manage building heights through a plan-led spatial strategy. There is no substantive basis to regard them as materially inconsistent with national policy, and they therefore attract full weight" (DL ¶4).
- **Height strategy.** The Framework's support for upward extensions and taller corner buildings does "not displace the development plan's locational approach to height" (DL ¶10).
- **L2 criteria: FAIL.** "Policy L2(i) supports upward development only where it would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building or its surroundings. Here the increased height would disrupt the disciplined roofscape … and weaken the intended hierarchy between the appeal building and the listed church" (DL ¶11).
- **L2 weight: NOT ENGAGED.** "substantial weight applies only where the criteria in Policy L2 of the Framework are met and where no conflict arises with the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶15).
- **Heritage.** The inspector found harm to the CA and to the church's setting, and applied a balance against private benefits. Note the old wording: "the Framework requires great weight to be given to heritage conservation irrespective of the degree of harm" (DL ¶15).

## Planning balance
The heritage balance: the benefits (thermal performance, drainage, extra space, mostly private) did not outweigh harm given "great weight" (DL ¶14-16). There was also plan conflict with LP1, LP3, LP4 and LP5 at full weight (DL ¶17-18).

## What made the difference
Heritage sensitivity. The appeal building is part of a planned corner composition framing a listed church, so L2's support for mansards and taller corners did not apply. The Annex A argument failed because the local policies track the Framework's own heritage and design aims.

## Transferable points
- Local heritage and height policies are not "materially inconsistent" with the 2026 Framework merely because L2 now supports upward extension. They keep full weight (DL ¶4, ¶10).
- L2's substantial weight is conditional on its criteria (L2(1)(d)(i)) and on no conflict with designated heritage assets (DL ¶11, ¶15).
- It is an early example of an appellant invoking the transitional "very limited weight" provision and failing (DL ¶3-4).

## Policy findings
- **Transitional(2): fail.** appellant's Annex A argument rejected: LP1, LP3, LP4 and LP5 'broadly consistent' with the Framework and keep full weight (DL 3-4)
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** upward development supported only where it would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building or surroundings; here it disrupts a disciplined roofscape and the church's hierarchy (DL 10-11)
- **L2(1): not-engaged.** 'substantial weight applies only where the criteria in Policy L2 … are met and where no conflict arises with the conservation of designated heritage assets' (DL 15)
- **HE6(4): fail.** harm to the CA and the setting of the listed church; framed as 'great weight … irrespective of the degree of harm'; benefits largely private (DL 13-16)

## Key facts
- Local Plan LP4 restricts mid-rise (5-storey) buildings to designated zones; site outside them (DL 10)
- Dormers from a previously refused scheme removed; parapet conceals close views (DL 7-8)
- The 2026 Framework was raised by the appellant, not by inspector-led consultation (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007541
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/67ef917f-f80b-47f7-9ead-26cda55836b9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007541.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.