Alterations including the erection of a new roof to the main house with a single rear Dormer and 3 no roof lights a part single, part two storey side/rear extension and 3 no light wells in connection with the extension of the basement under the full footprint of the house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2018 by David Storrie DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3213157 28 Nottingham Road, London, SW17 7EA • 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 Chris Richards of Bestbaron Ltd against the decision of Wandsworth Council. • The application Ref 2018/2999, dated 15 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 August 2018. • The development proposed was originally described as alterations including the erection of a new roof to the main house with a single rear Dormer and 3 no roof lights a part single, part two storey side/rear extension and 3 no light wells in connection with the extension of the basement under the full footprint of the house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to alterations including changes to roof profile and raising of ridge height of the main roof; the erection of side and rear dormer extensions and three front rooflights to the main roof; the erection of a part single/part two-storey side extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the excavation to create a basement including formation of front and side lightwells with grilles over and planning permission is granted for the excavation to create a basement including formation of front and side lightwells with grilles over at 28 Nottingham Road, London, SW17 7EA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2018/2999, dated 15 June 2018, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P-3, P-4. Procedural Matter 2. The Council changed the description of the proposed development at registration to ‘alterations including changes to roof profile and raising of ridge height of the main roof; the erection of side and rear dormer extensions and three front rooflights to the main roof; the erection of a part single/part two- storey side extension; the excavation to create a basement including formation of front and side lightwells with grilles over.’ The appellant has acknowledged this change and I have used this in my decision above as it more accurately reflects the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3213157 2 3. Reference has been made to the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area Appraisal within the evidence before me. However, I have not been provided with a copy of this document and as such I give it little weight. 4. For the reasons that follow, I find that the lightwells and basement to be acceptable and they are clearly severable both physically and functionally from the roof alterations and extension. Therefore, I intend to issue a split decision in this case and grant planning permission for the excavation to create a basement including the formation of front and side lightwells. The appellant has questioned whether the proposed basement requires planning permission. However, this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. Main issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 6. The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling occupying a corner site at the junction of Nottingham Road and Wiseton Road. The adjoining property faces Wiseton Road whilst the main elevation of the appeal property faces Nottingham Road. The site lies within the south-eastern part of the CA. I consider that the character, appearance and significance of the CA is mainly drawn from the quality of the historic buildings it contains together with its use of materials and the relationship of buildings to the spaces around them. The historic buildings within this part of the CA are varied in age, architectural style and form. 7. The appeal dwelling appears to be a historic building and the quality of its architectural detailing and its use of materials that are characteristic of this area means that this building makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. Even though it has a shallow pitch and low ridge height in comparison to many of the other properties in the immediate locality, these features contribute to the variety that forms part of the significance of the CA. Moreover, due to its location on a corner site the roof form is a key part of its architectural composition. In addition, the modest scale of the existing property also contributes to the variety that forms part of the character and appearance of the CA. 8. The proposal would increase the ridge height and pitch of the roof slopes. There is disagreement between the parties on the degree of increase in the roof pitch. Whilst, part of the alterations to the degree of the pitch would be less discernible when viewed from Nottingham Road than from Wiseton Road the overall changes to the roof would be clearly discernible from the public domain. These changes would appreciably alter a key architectural feature of this building eroding its positive contribution to the significance of the CA. 9. The effect of this change in the form and profile of the property is further added to by the proposed dormer extension and proposed side extension. The side extension would partly replace an existing part single/part two storey side Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3213157 3 extension. Its length would be under 50% of the length of the main façade of the property and it would have single sash windows as opposed to the double sash windows of the main façade. Nevertheless, the increase in the size of the extension to wholly 2-storey would appreciably increase the scale of the property when viewed from Nottingham Road. The use of single sash windows would not diminish this. The appellant has referred to the approved first floor extension at 16 Wiseton Road altering the spatial character of the area and being somewhat discordant and that the proposed extension would allow a realignment of the rear building lines of the two buildings to improve the overall visual appearance. This does not alter my view that the two-storey increase would result in the side extension no longer being subordinate to the host dwelling, such that it would no longer appear as a modest dwelling in the street scene. 10. The dormer would be set back from the eaves, but not by a substantial amount, and its ridge would be very close to that of the proposed ridge to the main roof. Whilst it would not occupy the whole roof slope it would dominate this particular part of the roof and, on account of its height and depth, it would have a bulky appearance. Whilst I note that front dormers are a prominent feature to the properties immediately opposite the appeal site on Nottingham Road and that the appellant has drawn my attention to several side dormers approved in the locality, none are comparable to that proposed on the appeal site. In this case I consider that the proposed dormer, when viewed against the chimney stack immediately adjacent, and the proposed side extension, would look awkward and be poorly related to the property, appearing as an incongruous feature. Furthermore, I must consider each case on its individual merits. 11. Three lightwells are proposed to provide light to the proposed basement. Two would face Nottingham Road with the other facing Wiseton Road. Policy DMH5 (vii) of the Wandsworth Development Management Policies Document (DMPD) requires, amongst other things, that where lightwells are proposed, at least 50% of the original front garden depth should remain subject, in conservation areas, to a minimum depth of 2 metres of garden usually being retained. Two of the lightwells would potentially conflict with this policy being around 1.5 to 1.6 metres from the front boundary of the property. 12. Notwithstanding this potential conflict with the policy, I note the term usually that infers that there may be circumstances where the requirements could be relaxed. I consider that to be the case here for several reasons. Firstly, I noted that the site frontage was screened by a hedge thus limiting public views to these two lightwells. Even if they would be visible from the street, I do not consider that this would be unduly detrimental given the form and location of the property on this corner plot and the space that exists between this and neighbouring properties. Secondly, that the ‘front garden’ is effectively around three sides of the property. The appellant says this equates to some 44 square metres. Given that one of the aims of the policy is to preserve the amount and quality of the amenity space provision, I consider that this would not be unduly diminished as a result of the proposed lightwells. 13. Taking all the above factors into account, I consider that the cumulative impact of the alterations including changes to roof profile and raising of ridge height of the main roof; the erection of side and rear dormer extensions and three front rooflights to the main roof; the erection of a part single/part two-storey side Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3213157 4 extension changes, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would not preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the CA. Consequently, in these respects the statutory duty at Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would not be met and this is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In the words of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) these parts of the development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Whilst the appellant’s desire to improve the level of accommodation is noted, this does not amount to public benefits that could be considered to weigh against this harm. It follows that it would be contrary to paragraph 196 of the Framework. As such, these elements would also be contrary to Policies DMS1, DMS2 and DMH5 of the DMPD that, amongst other things, require development to physically integrate with their surroundings, sustain, conserve or enhance the historic environment and not harm the street scene or host property. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the excavation to create a basement including formation of front and side lightwells with grilles over but dismissed insofar as it relates to alterations including changes to roof profile and raising of ridge height of the main roof; the erection of side and rear dormer extensions and three front rooflights to the main roof; the erection of a part single/part two- storey side extension. David Storrie INSPECTOR