For the excavation to provide a basement

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 February 2018 By Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y5420/D/17/3187960 79 Wellington Avenue, London, N15 6AX  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 Mr M Horovitz against the decision of The Council of the London Borough of Haringey.  The application Ref HGY/2017/2427, dated 14 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 October 2017.  The development proposed is for the excavation to provide a basement. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The first main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The second main issue is whether the proposed basement extension would provide satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the host property. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Wellington Avenue and the adjacent streets are characterised by uniformly designed, modest sized, two storey terraced dwellings. The dwellings have projecting bay windows, originally with a fairly ornate glazing pattern and gable roofs. At ground floor level the porches and box bay living room windows project forward of the first floor front walls. The dwellings are set behind modest sized front gardens that are devoid of basement lightwells and which are enclosed by low brick and rendered walls. 4. A significant number of the dwellings have been altered and extended to the front. In particular, windows have been replaced with a variety of large paned windows with strong horizontal lines and some of the open porches have been enclosed. These alterations and additions have weakened the original character and appearance of the host dwellings and the street scene, although they have not affected the modest form, scale and overall sense of rhythm and uniformity within the street scene. Conversely the large flat roofed dormer extensions have increased the actual scale and perceived height of the dwellings concerned and disrupted the sense of rhythm within the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/17/3187960 2 5. The front gardens are an important feature of the street scene, with their low boundary walls, soft planting and diverse range of paving treatments. Despite their modest size they contribute to the sense of space and uniformity within the street scene. This includes the Appeal property whose front garden is enclosed by a low brick and render wall to the front and hedges to the sides. This uncluttered open front garden helps reduce the perceived scale of the uncharacteristic large, dark brown tile clad front dormer extension, which projects up to the first floor front building line of the host dwelling. 6. Amongst other things policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013 (Local Plan) and policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD), seek to ensure that new development enhances and enriches the built environment and contributes to the amenity of the local area. New development should respect local context and character and relate positively to neighbouring structures. Residential extensions should respect the character or compliment the form, period, setting, period and detailing of the host property. In addition, new development should ensure a high standard of amenity for its occupiers, including appropriate sunlight, daylight and open aspects to all parts of a development. 7. Policy DM18 of the DPD deals specifically with basements. Amongst other things it states that basements should avoid harming the appearance or setting of the host building or the established character of the surrounding area. Where new lightwells are proposed account will be taken of whether they protect the architectural character of the host building and their effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The supporting text to this policy advises where light wells are not an established and positive feature in the street scene their introduction can harm the character and appearance of the street scene. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), states that new development should respond to local character and history, reflect the identity of local surroundings, function well and add to the quality of the area. In addition, the NPPF looks to provide satisfactory living conditions for all residents. 9. Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan are consistent with the above policies. Together they require new development to be of the highest quality both internally and externally. 10. The depth of the proposed front basement window and the space taken up by the proposed front lightwell would materially add to the uncharacteristic perceived height and scale of the dwelling, resulting from the front dormer extension. It would also result in the property appearing cluttered, cramped and over-developed when viewed from the street scene. Whilst the proposed glazed panels around the lightwell would be visually lightweight, they would appear contemporary and totally out of keeping with this modest traditional family dwelling. 11. To the rear, the host dwelling already benefits from a single storey extension which has materially reduced the depth of the rear garden. The proposed rear lightwells would encroach into the remaining small garden area, adding to the cramped and over-developed appearance of the property. 12. As a result of these factors the proposed basement and associated lightwells would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property, the Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/17/3187960 3 street scene and the surrounding area. This harm would outweigh the benefits for the Appellant and their family that would result from the proposed additional accommodation. Whilst an alternative form of enclosure around the lightwells could be secured through the imposition of a condition, this would not address the other concerns. 13. I note that basement extensions with front lightwells have been approved at 74 and 76 Wellington Avenue (No.74 & No.76). However, the dwelling at No.74 does not have a large dormer extension on its front roof-slope and the front dormer extension at No.76 is smaller than the dormer extension on the Appeal property. More importantly, these basement extensions were both approved before the adoption of the DMD and The London Plan 2016. For these reasons, the above basement approvals are not directly comparable to the Appeal scheme, which needs to be determined in accordance with the current planning policies and in light of all other material considerations. 14. I have taken into consideration the appeal decision relating to 67 Wellington Avenue. However, it is not comparable to the Appeal proposal because the extension proposed was on the rear elevation and would not be visible from the street scene. Finally, it is noted that the Appeal relating to a proposed basement at 145 Castlewood Road was dismissed in September 2017. That particular scheme was assessed having regard to the current planning policies and relates to a similar sized property with a front dormer addition similar to that at No.76. 15. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed basement and lightwells would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the surrounding area. Accordingly the proposed scheme would conflict with policy SP11 of the Local Plan, policies DM1, DM12 and DM18 of the DPD, polices 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of The London Plan and the NPPF. Living conditions 16. The submitted drawings indicate that the basement would include a storage room with no windows, together with a study and playroom served by widows looking into one metre deep light wells, enclosed by clear glazed balustrades. 17. The lightwell window serving the study would have a southerly aspect and would stretch across almost all of the southern wall of the study. Consequently, the study would receive reasonable levels of daylight and sunlight. 18. Conversely the proposed playroom, would be approximately five metres in depth and would be served by two small, north facing windows looking into two small and enclosed lightwells. As a consequence, the proposed playroom would receive poor levels of natural light and sunlight. Finally, the proposed centrally located room and hall would not receive any daylight or sunlight. 19. The central room would have no outlook or natural ventilation and the front and rear rooms would have very poor outlooks. 20. Whilst the Appellant may choose to use the unlit room for storage purposes and the other rooms for a playroom and study, this could change in the future. Similarly, future occupiers may seek to use them for main habitable rooms such as bedrooms and a living room and this is not something that could reasonably be controlled through the imposition of conditions. Appeal Decision APP/Y5420/D/17/3187960 4 21. The proposed basement extension would thus fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for the current and future occupants of the property. 22. I therefore conclude that the proposed basement extension would provide unsatisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the property due to poor outlook, daylight, sunlight and natural ventilation. Accordingly, the scheme would conflict with policy SP11 of the Local Plan, policies DM1, DM12 and DM18 of the DPD, policy 3.5 of The London Plan and the NPPF. Conclusion 23. The conclusions on both main issues amount to compelling reasons for dismissing this Appeal. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR