Appeal 6004976

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for raised skywell to front elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. P2025/2654/FUL, subject to the following conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Design and [name], [name] and [name], [name] dated 17.09.2025 (06), [name] dated 17.09.2025 (07), [name] dated 17.09.2025 (08), [name] dated 17.09.2025 (09), [name] dated 17.09.2025 (10), Site Location and Block Plan dated 17.09.2025 (11).

The description of development is taken from the application form, with the word retrospective removed as it does not describe development. As the works have already been carried out, the appeal is retrospective in nature. In the interests of clarity, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issue is the effect of the raised skywell on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey plus basement mid‐terrace dwelling located on the eastern side of [address]. It forms part of a cohesive Victorian terrace characterised by a consistent building line, regular plot widths, and a strong rhythm of repeated architectural elements including front bays, entrance steps and modest front gardens. The appeal property contributes positively to this established character through its alignment with the terrace, retention of the uniform frontage, Appeal Ref: 6004976 and continuation of the pattern of enclosed front gardens which provide a buffer to the public realm. This consistent arrangement of built form and open space is a defining feature of the street scene, and the appeal property plays a direct role in maintaining that rhythm, spatial structure and visual continuity.

The proposal involves a raised skywell positioned within the front garden, projecting over an existing basement lightwell. The structure is visible from the public realm by virtue of views through the pedestrian access to the property and by projecting slightly above the front boundary wall.

The Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted January 2017 (UDG), advises that, where a front garden is characteristic of a street, the majority, if not all, of that space should be retained. In this case, although the raised skywell alters the form and reduces the functional use of the front garden, the garden area itself is retained and continues to provide a visual setback between the dwelling and the public realm.

The UDG does not require front lightwells to be wholly concealed from public view or restricted to a single design approach. In this case, the raised skywell introduces a built element within the front garden, but it is accommodated within that space without undermining its role as a visual setback between the dwelling and the public realm.

The Council relies on guidance within the Basement Development Supplementary Planning Document, as summarised in the officer’s report. While the Basement Development Supplementary Planning Document, adopted January 2016 (BD), itself is not before me, the Council has identified relevant provisions which indicate that lightwells should generally be located to the rear where possible, be modest in scale, integrate sympathetically with the host building where located to the front, and retain the majority, if not all, of an established front garden where this is characteristic of the street.

A rear lightwell would not provide light to the front basement accommodation, and a side lightwell is not feasible given the mid‐terrace position of the property. The lightwell is therefore located to the front. As set out above, the front garden is retained and continues to perform its role as a visual setback between the dwelling and the public realm. Although the guidance referred to by the Council indicates that flush grilles can provide a more discreet intervention, this is expressed as guidance rather than a requirement. In these particular circumstances having regard to the provisions of the BD as summarised by the Council, I do not find that they indicate that the proposal is unacceptable in design terms.

The raised skywell has a limited footprint and height and appears clearly subordinate to the host building. Its shallow pitch and modest scale ensure that it does not obscure or compete with the principal elevation, and when viewed from the limited public vantage points available, it would not disrupt the established rhythm of the terrace or the architectural character of the host dwelling. Consequently, its visual impact would be localised and largely confined to the immediate frontage of the property and would not result in material harm to the wider street scene. While the Council’s guidance envisages a more discreet solution, this does not of itself render alternative approaches unacceptable in planning terms, and in this instance the proposal would not give rise to harm having regard to the aims of the UDG. Appeal Ref: 6004976

I have found that the individual characteristics of this particular site would enable the proposal to be accommodated without harm. However, I see no reason to suppose that my decision in this case would set a precedent. Differing circumstances would represent matters to be considered, were other similar proposals to be advanced elsewhere in the future.

For the reasons set out above, I find that it would not dominate the streetscape, disrupt the rhythm of the terrace, or result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The Council has confirmed that the development would not give rise to harmful overlooking or loss of residential amenity, and I see no reason to disagree with that conclusion. Each planning application must be determined on its own merits, and the approval of this proposal would not establish a precedent for development that would be unacceptable in different circumstances. The objection therefore does not alter my overall conclusions.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. The development therefore accords with Policy PLAN1 of [name] and Development Management Policies (adopted 2023), which seeks high quality design that responds appropriately to local context, and with Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (adopted 2021), which require development to respect local character and deliver good design.

I also note that the Council raises no concerns in respect of neighbouring amenity. There would be no harm to daylight, sunlight, privacy or outlook, and no evidence before me suggests any wider adverse effects arising from the development.

In imposing the conditions, I have had regard to the tests for planning conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is also necessary in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan as a whole and to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.