For alterations/extension of an existing basement and the introduction of two front light wells to accommodate further habitable rooms to an existing family dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 January 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/17/3186288 2 Empress Avenue, Wanstead, London E12 5ES  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Dr Mohammad Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 2232/17 was refused by notice dated 19 July 2017.  The development proposed is for alterations/extension of an existing basement and the introduction of two front light wells to accommodate further habitable rooms to an existing family dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house that stands behind short front gardens that are contained and partly screened by a low front boundary wall, railings, planting and pillars. It occupies a wide plot and has a relatively wide 2-storey front elevation facing the road. When seen from Empress Avenue, the existing dwelling, due to its considerable width, appears more substantive in built form than its attached counterpart and several other properties nearby. 4. The site falls within the Aldersbrook Conservation Area (CA), which is predominantly residential in character. It is described on the Plan, which shows the CA edged red, as a classic Edwardian suburb with a well preserved layout and buildings. From what I saw, the CA is characterised by tree-lined streets addressed by largely 2-storey buildings with varied but often repeating designs and gabled and flat roof 2-storey bay detailing. Despite the varied treatment and appearance of front gardens, there is a broad uniformity and repetition in design among buildings in particular groups, which form generally well-mannered and attractive streetscapes. 5. The proposal is to enlarge the basement of No 2 that would feature two new front windows below street level to reflect the pattern and detailing of the fenestration in the host building above. Each proposed window would face onto a new light well covered by a horizontal metal grill or iron railings that would be flush with the adjacent ground, examples of which are shown in the Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3186288 2 submitted photographs. Otherwise, the front gardens of No 2 and the mosaic path, which were both well maintained, would be kept in good condition. 6. From what I saw, front light wells, grills and windows below street level that are visible from the road, as proposed, were unfamiliar features of properties in the local area. The appellant also notes the absence of properties with front light wells within the CA. Although not conspicuous in most public views along Empress Avenue, the new grills and the voids in front of No 2 would be evident from just in front of and to one side of the site. 7. In these views, the development sought would be partly screened by existing boundary features and foliage within the gardens of No 2 and that of the attached property. Notwithstanding their modest width and outward projection from the main house, the proposed grills and light wells would be close to and noticeable from the adjacent footway. As these features form no part of the established street scene to which No 2 belongs or the CA, they would draw the eye as being incongruous in their context. The new grills and voids would also signal a lower ground floor and thus visually accentuate the building’s sense of scale and mass that would further differentiate it from other nearby properties. 8. As the only example in the CA of a building with front light wells and grills visible from the road, the proposal would be obtrusive and an uncharacteristic addition. It would also amplify the contrasting scale and mass of No 2 with other properties with which it would be visually ‘read’. Taken together, the proposal would unduly erode the sense of cohesion in the existing built form within the CA. In doing so, the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset would fail to be preserved. Its harmful visual impact could not be satisfactorily mitigated by additional planting to provide extra screening or a condition to require the prior approval of a detailed landscaping scheme. 9. I acknowledge that the proposed changes to the front façade have been carefully designed to reflect the style of the host building and that the proposed light wells would be sited close to planting and would not visually dominate the host building. The overall amount of garden space at the front of the appeal dwelling would be consistent with other nearby properties. Nevertheless, the finished building would be incompatible in its context for the reasons given. 10. Reference is made to an approved basement development at 17 Alderbrook Road that from the plans provided differs in design to the proposal before me. From the limited information given, there appear to be very few direct parallels to be drawn with the appeal scheme other than its location with the CA and so it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from this example. In any event, each development should be assessed on its own merits, as the appellant acknowledges. 11. The harm to the CA would be less than substantial in this case. However, I am not persuaded that the public benefits of the new development, primarily through the support given to the local economy during the construction phase, would outweigh this harm. 12. On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Strategy Policy 3 of the London Borough of Redbridge Core Strategy and Policies BD1, BD5 and E3 of the London Borough of Redbridge Borough Wide Primary Policies. These policies seek to ensure that Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/17/3186288 3 development achieves a high standard of design; is compatible with and contributes to local character; and conserves the historic environment. 13. The appeal scheme is also at odds with a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which is to always seek to secure high quality design. There would also be a conflict with the Framework with regard to the protection of heritage assets such as conservation areas, and with the statutory duty. This duty requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, which I have done in this instance. 14. Once complete, the additional accommodation would improve the living conditions of the appellant and his family. It would also free up space within the main building for his disabled parent. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 15. Reference is made to Policy LP31 of the emerging draft Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP), which deals with basement developments. 
 As the LP is in draft form and its policies may change prior to adoption, I attach limited weight to it. From the extract of the document provided, LP Policy LP31 seeks to ensure that externally visible elements such as light wells are sensitively designed and sited to avoid any harmful impact on visual amenity. As the proposal would not do so, it would conflict with this element of LP Policy LP31. 16. An interested party supports the proposal and another raises additional concern that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment and that it would create problems during construction and set an undesirable precedent. These are important matters and I have taken into account all of the evidence before me. However, given my findings in relation to the main issue, these are not matters on which my decision has turned. 17. The appellant has referred to pre-application discussions with the Council and I note that the proposal was amended with revised drawings submitted after its original submission. Nevertheless, my remit is solely to determine the development for which planning permission is sought. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR