Appeal 6004965

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Installation of stairway in front lightwell and new door in association with enlarged front lightwell at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/2501, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 10388-PR-P001, 10388-PR-P002, 10388-PR-P003, 10388-PR- P004, 10388-PR-E001, 10388-PR-E002 and 10388-PR-S001.

The permitted glazed balustrade shall be constructed in clear transparent glass or similar material with no tinting, frosting, or applied finishes, and with only minimal framing details. It shall be permanently retained as such and shall not be altered or supplemented by screens, panels, or other features that would reduce its transparency.

The Council amended the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the revised description accurately reflects the appeal scheme, and I have therefore adopted this amended wording in the heading above. I have removed reference to the term retrospective which is not a form of development. The proposal before me is substantially different to the works which have been undertaken on site.

At the time of my site visit, I observed that works had been undertaken to the front of the dwelling at basement level. Planning permission for these works was previously refused under reference HGY/2024/3415, with a subsequent appeal1 dismissed. Permission had originally been granted for a front lightwell under reference HGY/2022/1963. However, the works carried out on site comprise a significantly larger lightwell than that approved, and include a staircase from ground to basement level, along with a new entrance doorway at basement level.

The proposal before me seeks to reduce the size of the lightwell compared to that currently in situ and proposes an alternative arrangement for the staircase and associated balustrade. A dedicated access at basement level would be retained.

Reference has been made to a Breach of [name] issued by the Council on 24 November 2024, which requires the restoration of the property to the form approved under planning permission ref. HGY/2022/1963. However, it is not my role, in the determination of this appeal, to address matters relating to that notice. My assessment has therefore been undertaken on the basis of the submitted drawings associated with application ref. HGY/2025/2501, which forms the subject of this appeal.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and host property.

The appeal site is situated within a predominantly residential area. The property comprises a two-storey mid-terraced dwelling. The surrounding street scene is characterised by a cohesive appearance, with common features including projecting bay windows and modest front amenity spaces. Whilst there have been some alterations and extensions to properties, as well as the introduction of small structures within front amenity areas, a generally consistent architectural rhythm is retained. The site is not located within or close to a conservation area.

Front boundary treatments on the street vary in material but are typically low in height, providing a degree of uniformity and allowing views into the front amenity areas. Basement lightwells and associated staircases are not a prevailing feature within the locality.

A basement lightwell was previously approved by the Council under reference HGY/2022/1963. This extended across part of the front amenity space and had a depth of around 1 metre. The approved scheme did not include an external staircase or a separate basement entrance.

The development before me would occupy a similar proportion of the front amenity space to that permitted. However, it would extend to a significantly greater depth and would include an external basement entrance door, together with a staircase and balustrade. As such, it differs somewhat from the previously approved scheme.

Nevertheless, the permitted scheme itself would have introduced a notable change to the front elevation of the dwelling, with associated impacts on the front amenity area. In this regard, I note the Council’s statement within the [name] for 1 APP/5420/D/25/3360088 the proposal before me, which confirms that the principle of enlarging the existing dwelling through the provision of a relatively modest front lightwell is acceptable.

The proposed lightwell incorporating a staircase is significantly smaller than the scheme as constructed, which extends to over half of the front amenity space and includes a metal balustrade and staircase, making it particularly prominent within the street scene impacting markedly on the front elevation of the dwelling. The proposal would retain the basement entrance door as constructed with minor alterations.

The repositioning of the staircase closer to the principal elevation would significantly reduce its visibility from public vantage points within the street. In addition, the replacement of the existing metal railings, which form a substantial structure with a notable visual presence within the front amenity area, with a glazed balustrade exhibiting a greater degree of transparency, together with the relocation of the access to the eastern side, would materially lessen the visual harm to the front of the dwelling when compared to the current arrangement.

As a result, the proposal would be considerably more sympathetic to the established built form than the existing situation and would address the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, as noted by the previous Inspector in relation to the development as built. The overall effect, when compared to the permitted basement scheme, would be limited primarily to the introduction of the glazed balustrade. This element would be significantly less harmful than the current arrangement, as it would minimise the obscuring of the architectural form of the main dwelling within the street scene.

The reduced scale of the proposed lightwell would not result in any greater loss of front amenity space than that previously approved under reference HGY/2022/1963. Consequently, the site would not appear unduly cluttered, cramped, or overdeveloped when viewed from the street. Furthermore, the reduced extent of excavation, when compared to the existing works, alongside the retained boundary treatments, would significantly limit the potential for light spill from the basement level, which might otherwise draw undue attention to the lightwell within the frontage from either the street or neighbouring properties.

Taking these factors into account, I find that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area.

There is therefore no conflict with Policy SP11 of the Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2013, consolidated with alterations since 2017), Policies DM1, DM12 and DM18 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017) and Policies D4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seeks to create a strong sense of place and achieve high quality design appropriate to the local context.

The appellant draws attention to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), which requires development to provide high quality residential accommodation that is safe, functional and fit for purpose. It is contended that the proposed stairway would provide a secondary means of escape, thereby enhancing the safety and resilience of the dwelling. However, I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that such a measure is necessary for a single-family dwelling to meet fire safety requirements. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the proposal represents the only means of achieving an acceptable escape route. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

I have attached conditions relating to time limits for implementation of the permission and approved plans in the interests of clarity. The condition relating to the permitted glazed balustrade is included to ensure that the development preserves the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area,

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.