Appeal 6006084

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

Development in and around [address] was gradual until the middle of the C19, when the growth in population necessitated a church being established at [address]. This church was later replaced in 1874, when the continually growing community required a larger place of worship. At a similar time, the railway connected [address] to surrounding areas and importantly to [name], with the aim of connecting the city to [name]. This prompted an increase in residential development, including the core of present day [address] by [name], the first builder and developer who began by constructing the parades of ground floor shops and apartments on [address] Broadway, before radiating outwards and constructing domestic properties. [address], and the appeal property, were subsequently developed in the 1890s. The present-day street pattern of [address] was largely in place by 1913.

The CA therefore derives much of its significance from the survival of the preserved street scene and the quality of the built environment. The materials palette is overall consistent throughout; red brick construction and stucco, pargetting, and terracotta detailing. There is also a strong horizontal emphasis throughout the streetscape, creating a sense of uniformity between the houses. Interest is also created through the extensive use of forward projections, gables and bay windows, and decorative render panels. [address], the terraces have corbelled party walls between the roofs of the houses. Along with the chimneys, the bracketed eaves, the capped bays, and the decorative detailing this creates a pattern of repetition along the terraces. Whilst there have been some alterations to some houses these are few in number and limited in their impact on the townscape of the terrace as a whole. Indeed, [address] overall is a well-preserved example of an Edwardian planned street of considerable architectural coherence and quality. No 59 is an important part of the whole terrace, the townscape integrity of which relies on the architectural coherence between the houses. The terrace is a key element of the significance of the CA, and in turn, the house is a key element of the terrace.

Basements and basement windows and access are a common feature throughout the CA and indeed of properties of this age. Whilst they do not feature on every property, they are present along the opposite side of [address]. However, the houses on that side are set down lower. Where they are present, the basement windows and accesses are discreet, hardly visible within the wider street scene. However, this side of [address], including No.59, is positioned at a higher level, requiring a short set of steps to access the main entrances. Whilst basements may be present on this side of the road, windows and accesses appear not to be a feature of the houses on this side, and there is no evidence put before me to suggest otherwise.

When considering this appeal, I am required by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The introduction of a basement level window would unbalance the hierarchy of fenestration and introduce a vertical emphasis to the front elevation of the house where there is presently none. It would diminish the coherent, horizontal rhythm and the architectural unity across the terrace, as well as the typological distinction between the houses on the different sides of the street. It would thus diminish the significance of the CA. Furthermore, and despite the modest scale of the proposed development, it would appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene, which would be highly visible in views from the public realm.

I note that there are other basement windows and accesses present on [address]. However, I understand that these form an original part of the design of the terraces and there is no evidence before me to suggest otherwise. As above, these are also set down below street level and are thus discreet within the street scene; the proposed new basement window would be situated in an elevated position and prominent. Indeed, the appellants have noted that where basement windows had been included in the original construction of a house, they were often obscured by design or other objects within the property’s frontage; no such obfuscation has been included in the proposed drawings.

The appellants have also mentioned recently installed basement windows at nearby Windermere and [name]; however, where these are not part of the buildings original design, I do not have any evidence to determine the circumstances under which this may have been granted planning permission.

Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the CA would be at the lower end of less than substantial, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. The proposal would allow for natural light to enter the basement room, the benefit of which is essentially private in nature. I find, therefore, that there are no public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA.

Overall, the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would therefore fail to comply with Policies DM1, DM9 and DM12 of the Haringey London Development Management Development Planning Document (2017) which require alterations to be sensitive and to respect or complement the architectural characteristics of the original building, and for developments to contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area, and where they are within a conservation area, to complement the architectural style, scale and details of the host building. It would further fail to comply with Policies SP11 and SP12 of the Haringey Local Plan: [name] 2013-2026 (2013) which require development to enhance and enrich the built environment and ensure the conservation of Haringey’s heritage assets. It would also conflict with the aims of Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) stating that development proposals affecting heritage assets should conserve their significance.

The appellants have drawn my attention to a lightwell, a front bay window, and balustrading on a house in a different street; however, there is no evidence about the circumstances which may have led to their approval, nor do they justify the harm which would arise from this proposal.

They have further indicated that granting planning permission for a basement to be added to the property without the benefit of natural light is ‘perverse’ and contrary to the provision of the Mayor of London’s Housing Design Standards Local Planning Guidance Policy C4.7. However, the submitted plans indicate that the proposed development would serve a gym, which is not considered a habitable room. This does not alter my findings above.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.