Appeal 3268881

The appeal is dismissed.

In the period since the appeal was submitted the Government has published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). Also since the submission of the appeal the Mayor of London has published the adopted London Plan 2021 (LP2021). This replaces the London Plan 2016 which is referred to in the appeal documentation. As an adopted plan I must consider the policies of the LP2021. However, in respect of this appeal, Policy D3 is the principal relevant policy and this largely covers similar points to former Policies 7.4 and 7.6. Neither the new policies nor the revised Framework have brought me to any different decision on the appeal and therefore I have not considered it necessary to invite the appeal parties to comment on the new documents.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on: • the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings on [address]; and • the living conditions of present and future residents of No 95 in respect of the loss of private amenity space.

The appeal site is located on the north side of [address], a street of modest, originally 2 storey, terraced houses in brick and render under a slate roof. Some, like the appeal site, have small existing cellar space within the interior of the house but none of the properties in the road have lightwells.

The property has been the subject of significant extension to the rear and most recently an application for a ground floor extension (identical to that proposed in the appeal proposal has been permitted ref 2021/0326). As such, I will not consider the matter of the ground floor extension element or its potential impacts on residential amenity further which have already been considered by the Council in granting permission and can now be implemented. My determination will therefore relate solely to the basement extension proposals.

The provision of additional basement space in principle, subject to meeting the guidelines of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would be acceptable. However, for a number of reasons this specific basement proposal would not be acceptable.

Firstly, it is being added to a house typology which is of modest scale and which would not lend itself to a large basement extension. Secondly, the extension depends on being able to achieve adequate light levels to the basement rooms thus necessitating front and rear lightwells to light a playroom and bedroom respectively. Front lightwells are not a characteristic of [address] and the proposal would materially change the character of the frontage. Thirdly, the window design in the front lightwell bears no relation to the fenestration of the rest of the property in particular the bay window above and contrary to the guidance in the SPD is recessed behind the ground floor bay window. I acknowledge that the intention of the design is to try and ensure that the basement window and lightwell are discrete but in doing so the proposed window would appear out of character with the rest of the frontage.

I have been referred to other streets in the vicinity where front lightwells are present and which the appellant considers justifies the proposal in this case. However, [address] has a particular character of its own where house size is modest and large basements necessitating front lightwells are not a feature. As such, I am not persuaded that the presence of lightwells in nearby streets carries any relevance.

Cumulatively the impact of this basement extension together with the very extensive extensions to the property already in place or permitted would be a step too far and would harm the original character and appearance of the property.

The Framework at paragraph 130 requires that developments must be sympathetic to local character to create high quality buildings and spaces amongst other things and in these respects the proposal fails. Policy D3 of the LP2021 reflects the Framework in requiring development to respond to the existing character of a place and be of high quality, with architecture that pays attention to detail. The same is the case with Hackney Local Plan (HLP) Policy LP1 which requires all development to be of the highest architectural and urban design quality and to respond to local character and context and be compatible with existing townscape amongst other things. For the above reasons, the proposed basement extension, in particular its front window and lightwell would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host building to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surroundings on [address]. It would therefore not meet the above policy objectives or the guidance in the SPD.

The appeal property has a small rear garden area currently which will be reduced significantly by the wrap around extension at ground floor recently permitted. The basement itself would not extend further out into the garden than this ground floor extension. The basement lightwell would however extend further into the garden. I accept that this lightwell would not have access to it and a grid would be placed over it allowing access across it to the remaining garden. Whilst this would mean that no additional loss of private amenity space would occur compared to the loss already permitted as a result of permitting the ground floor extension, there would be some loss of functionality in the garden space above the light well. The small amount of private amenity space remaining, whilst it would allow limited sitting out space and an area to dry clothes, would not provide sufficient space for children’s play etc for what would now be a large family dwelling. It would not therefore fully satisfy the guidance in the SPD which states that any extension or alteration must not compromise the quality and usability of any remaining amenity space.

Given the permission for the ground floor extension already granted, were this the only grounds for concern it would be unreasonable to dismiss the appeal on the basis of loss of private amenity space alone. However together with the impact on character and appearance, the limited functionality of the remaining garden space increases the total harm arising from the basement extension.

For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the proposal adequately meets the policy objectives of LP2021 Policy D3 seeking to promote urban greening nor HLP policy LP1 seeking well designed and integrated landscape design enhancing biodiversity and maximising opportunity for greening.

I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 and I understand the appellant’s wish to achieve additional living space and facilities for a large family and make sustainable and effective use of housing land an objective which is encouraged by the Framework in Section 11. I acknowledge that this national policy objective makes the principle of house extensions acceptable. However, paragraph 124 in the same section of the Framework states that this should not be at the expense of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. Sustainable and effective use of the dwelling would not therefore outweigh the harm to the character and appearance as a result of the proposal, in particular the streetscape of [address], and the further restriction on the usability of the small remaining area of private amenity space.

In reaching my decision I have had regard to the matters before me but for the reasons above the appeal should be dismissed.