Appeal 3268979

The appeal is dismissed.

On 20 July 2021 a revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘the

However, it does not change design policy in relation to the proposal.

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

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling in an area characterised by a range of dwelling types and styles. A number have modest extensions to the front. [address] is relatively straight, but it rises and curves gradually near to No 34. Although not universal, properties in the road do have open plan frontages and are set back from the road. Properties also have off-street parking and/or front gardens. Several trees populate the front garden of [address].

The adjacent dwelling at [address] has a single-storey front extension that abuts and extends forward of the appeal property’s existing garage. This relationship reflects the slight variation between the front building lines of the semi-detached pairings at 30 and 32 and 34 and [address] and other properties on the south-eastern side of the road. This is in response to the curvature of the road.

Despite this variation, the proposed garage would project a considerable distance beyond the appeal property’s front elevation and the extension at No 32. Given the depth of the proposed extension, the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) explains that this type of development will only be permitted provided that it does not cause harm to, among other things, the existing building and the character of the area. Extensions should also reflect the consistent line of buildings and the character of other properties in the area, including the design and depth of any front extensions on neighbouring properties. They should also be of a size compatible with the existing building.

The height, massing and appearance of the proposed garage would harmonise with the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would also retain adequate parking and garden provision to the front. However, the size of the proposed extension’s forward projection would not be in keeping with the host dwelling and it would not respond to the slight variation in the line of buildings that characterises the street. The effect from the south west would not be particularly harmful owing to the extension at No 32 but when the site is viewed from the north and from the area close to the junction of [address] and [address] the proposal would be especially noticeable and cause a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the street scene even with the screening afforded by several trees.

It is commonplace for residents on the road to have a view of neighbouring properties. I also note the intention to render the flank wall of the extension to No 32. Even so, house extensions do need to be of a size and scale that is in keeping with the original dwelling. The proposal would not achieve this.

The submitted plan shows that the extension would be used as a garage, and it may allow larger vehicles to be parked inside thereby affording protection against prospective crime. I am mindful of the appellant’s potential longer-term plan to adapt his home to form a downstairs bedroom which could allow a long-standing resident, to remain in his home whilst making efficient use of the house. Both matters weigh in favour of the appeal scheme, but they do not outweigh the significant harm that the proposal would cause especially as there is no substantive evidence to indicate whether the home could still be adapted by using either the current footprint or a smaller extension.

I conclude that the proposed extension would cause a significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would not accord with Policy HC4 of A Local Plan for Sefton, Policy MAG 4 of the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan 2017 – 2037 and the SPD. Jointly, these seek, house extensions to be of high-quality design which is of a size and scale that is in keeping with the original dwelling and respects the general layout of the area.

The proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of the loss of light or outlook. However, the proposed development would not accord with the Development Plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should take a different decision other than in accordance with this.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.