Excavation of basement, front lightwell and rear lightwell

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th July 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/U5360/D/18/3201561 47 Craven Walk, Hackney, London N16 6BS  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 J Grosskopf (of Lanturn Limited) against the decision of the London Borough of Hackney Council.  The application (reference 2018/0354, dated 31 January 2018) was refused by notice dated 28 March 2018.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “excavation of basement, front lightwell and rear lightwell”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the excavation of a basement, front light-well and rear light-well at 47 Craven Walk, Hackney, London N16 6BS, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 2018/0354, dated 31 January 2018) and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr J Grosskopf (of Lanturn Limited) against the London Borough of Hackney Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. Reasons 4. Craven Walk is located in an established residential suburb of Hackney. Typically, houses are set behind small front gardens, usually in terraces or as semi-detached pairs, in traditional styles but with modern alterations in a number of cases, sometimes clumsily designed. The surrounding area is attractive but the appeal site does not lie within a conservation area or other statutorily designated, especially sensitive location. Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201561 2 5. Number 47 Craven Walk is a two-storey mid-terrace house, faced with painted brickwork under a tiled roof, with some architectural embellishments, including a large bay window on the front elevation. 6. It is now proposed that a basement should be excavated beneath the existing building and its rear patio. The basement would be lit by light-wells at the front and rear and, in consequence, some changes to the elevations would result. In particular, the two-storey bay window on the front elevation would be extended down to the basement level, within the new light-well. 7. Among other things, the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance of creating an attractive streetscape and maintaining the overall quality of the area. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes providing good standards of accommodation, while protecting residential amenities, reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development. 8. Policies in the Development Plan also reinforce the aim of achieving good design. Of particular relevance, in the context of this appeal, are Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of ‘The London Plan’, Policy 24 of the ‘Hackney Local Development Framework Core Strategy’ and Policy DM1 of the ‘Hackney Development Management Local Plan’. 9. Hackney’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document Residential Extensions and Alterations’ has been formally adopted and is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. It includes specific guidance in relation to proposed new light-wells (at paragraphs 4.1-4.6). 10. The basement itself, with light-wells at the rear, is not contentious. It is argued, however, that the proposed new light-well at the front of the property (together with associated alterations to the front elevation) would be “obtrusive” and harmful. 11. The proposed new light-well would not occupy the whole of the front garden but would allow space for some planting or other feature between the front boundary and the light-well. Indeed, the front boundary is currently marked by a low wall and a hedge. The space available would be limited, however, and the detailed dimensions and construction of the light-well would be critical to ensure the quality of the finished design. Those matters can be controlled by the imposition of a suitable condition, however. Subject to that, the proposed new light-well would not have an obtrusive or harmful effect on the character or appearance of the host building, nor would it harm the streetscene or the surroundings more generally. 12. In reaching that conclusion, I have taken account of the Council’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document’ and I have noted the references that have been made to other examples. The Decision on this case has been made on its own merits, however. 13. The appeal scheme would amount to a modest extension to the existing dwelling, providing a playroom and study, and would, thereby, add to the stock of residential accommodation in the locality, albeit in a very limited way. I have concluded that the project would not cause unacceptable harm to the Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201561 3 character or appearance of the host building or its surroundings. Hence, it would not be in conflict with national planning policy or the Development Plan, in principle, and it is acceptable in planning terms. In short, I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 14. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the local planning authority in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). In addition, a more specific condition has also been imposed to require the submission of details of the proposed construction of the front light- well and the frontage area (since the drawings themselves provide only limited information in this respect). Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR Appeal Decision: APP/U5360/D/18/3201561 4 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number 2145_OSmap (location plan); drawing number 2145_01 (existing plans); drawing number 2145_02 (existing elevations); drawing number 2145_07A (proposed plans); drawing number 2145_08 (proposed elevations). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) No development shall take place until samples (or specifications) of the materials and drawings (at appropriate scales) of the construction details to be used in the construction of the front light-well hereby permitted (including the whole of the area between the front of the building and the front boundary of the site) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, using the approved materials.