Wandsworth Council's Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee has refused an application to extend Moira Court in Balham, citing harm to the heritage area. The decision, made by delegated authority, follows the committee's unanimous objection to the proposal.
The application sought to add an additional storey to the building, providing nine flats, along with a new staircase, lift shaft, and walkway bridge connecting the two Moira Court buildings. However, the committee raised concerns about the lack of detail in the drawings, potential non-conformity with building regulations, and the materials and design being out of keeping with the existing locally listed building.
Specifically, the committee felt the extension would negatively impact the adjacent Heaver Estate Conservation Area, arguing that the proposed roof extension, lift tower, and walkway bridge would fail to preserve the setting of the conservation area and would detract from its established character and appearance.
The committee also raised concerns regarding the overall lack of detail with regards to the provided drawings, noting the absence of submitted images or CGI renders showing the potential impact of the proposal on the adjacent conservation area. Members of the Committee were of the opinion that the proposal was unlikely to be buildable due to a number of building regulation and technical concerns. It was also noted that the proposed thickness of the roof construction was likely to be inadequate, which would require the height of the building to increase to mitigate against this.
The council's refusal was based on multiple factors, including that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy LP4 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023), which concerns the zonal framework for mid-rise zones. The introduction of a fifth storey outside the identified Mid-Rise Zone would be contrary to the zonal framework under Policy LP4 of the Wandsworth Local Plan (2023).
The committee's decision was noted with approval at their meeting on 4 November 2025, marking a rare instance where their recommendations to refuse an application were supported by either the Planning Applications Committee or council officers, according to the report on recent decisions.