Appeal 3278128

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a porch on front of house at [site address] , Bromborough [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/20/01292, dated 11 September 2020.

The porch has been erected in accordance with the submitted plans. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

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 proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling within an area predominately characterised by residential properties with some variation in their type, style and design. [address] is a long road. The appeal property lies between the junctions of the road with [address]/[address] and [address]. There are examples of porches to nearby properties.

The porch serves the front door to the property and it has a pitched roof which is below the first-floor window above. The porch maybe around 0.2 metres deeper than the depth set out in the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), but the scale of the porch does not dominate the existing property or the plot having regard to saved Policy HS11 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

The design of the porch differs from the host dwelling. This is emphasised by the timber frame and the use of glass. Thus, the porch is not of a design or finish that matches the character and design of the dwelling. However, the criteria in the SPG are more restrictive than saved UDP Policy HS11 which allows for ‘materials matching or complementing those of the existing building’ and ‘design features...matching or complementing those of the existing building’.

The pitched roof design of the porch responds to the host property and neighbouring properties, whilst the use of glass complements the host property’s windows in its front elevation. Notably, other porches in the road do use glass in their elevations. The use of a timber frame is a departure from the established palate of materials locally, and although it contrasts with the rendered finish to the dwelling, I consider that it is complementary. Overall, the porch is not incongruous in the road and despite the conflict with the SPG, I consider its scale is appropriate for the plot, and its design and the use of materials complement the existing building.

I conclude that the porch does not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with saved UDP Policy HS11 and paragraphs 126 and 130 of the Framework. My findings in respect of these outweigh the conflict identified with the SPG.

As the porch is in situ and the development carried out in accordance with the submitted plan, the standard time period condition and an approved plan condition are not necessary.

The proposal accords 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 allowed.