Creation of basement and associated front and rear lightwells

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2019 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:5 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/19/3226906 40 Park View Gardens, Hendon, London NW4 2PN • 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 Marc Rogoff against the decision of the London Borough of Barnet. • The application Ref 19/0358/HSE, dated 22 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 21 March 2019. • The development proposed is the creation of basement and associated front and rear lightwells. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the creation of basement and associated front and rear lightwells at 40 Park View Gardens, Hendon, London NW4 2PN in accordance with the terms of the application, 19/0358/HSE dated 22 January 2019 subject to the following conditions: - 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Existing Plan A01 and Proposed Plan A02. 3. The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall accord with the details on plan A02. Preliminary Matters 2. Planning permission has been granted, July 2018, for the creation of a basement with only a lightwell to the rear (Council reference: 18/3462/HSE). A previous application for a basement with lightwells to the front and rear covered by a metal grille was refused April 2018 (Council reference: 18/0945/HSE). Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect on the proposed development on the host property and the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/19/3226906 2 Reasons 4. To accommodate the proposed basement to the existing two storey semi- detached property, lightwells are proposed to the front and rear. Following concerns with the previous scheme, which proposed a metal grille over, the lightwells to the front would be covered by toughen glass. As noted by the appellant the revised approach would still enable the frontage to be used for parking. 5. The Council have referred to section 12 of their Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guide (SPD) 2016 although I note that this section relates to basements as part of new residential developments, and, as referenced in the SPD, guidance for basements to existing properties is covered by section 14.42 – 14.45. This guidance acknowledges that the only visual manifestation of basements are the lightwells. It suggests that they should appear as discreet interventions and where front gardens are shallow grilles should sit flush to avoid creating visual clutter. 6. The proposed glazing to the lightwell would be level with the paving and the main lightwell to the front would not project any further from the house than the existing steps to the entrance. It would also be off set from the shared boundary with No.38 Park View Gardens, and aligns with the bay windows above, and the further bay proposed for the basement. 7. The design is therefore reflective of the existing property and would not be visible in the wider area. Any view from the street of the discreet lightwell would be restricted to directly outside the property. I therefore cannot agree with the Council’s position that the lightwell would be “highly perceptible and prominent from the public realm and at odds with the visual amenities of the wider street scene”. I did not see any other basements along the street but the basement itself already benefits from planning permission and I do not find the proposed lightwell, which would enhance the level of light to the basement, would be harmful to the public realm. 8. The proposal reflects the design guidance in the SPD and would accord with Barnet Local Plan policy DM01 which seeks high quality design and to preserve or enhance local character. Therefore, for the reasons set out above and subject to conditions relating to the commencement of development [1], certainty [2] and to secure the materials [3] I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted. G Ellis INSPECTOR