Appeal 3284470

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s Decision Notice rather than the Application Form as it is more concise.

Since the application was determined, the Liverpool Local Plan has been formally adopted and supersedes the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan. My decision takes this into account.

The main issues in this case are as follows: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene; • its effect on the living conditions of the occupier(s) of No. [address] with particular regard to outlook; and • whether adequate private car parking would remain.

The appeal relates to semi-detached bungalow. It sits within a modern cul-de-sac which is home to dwellings of a range of sizes and styles. The proposal seeks to add a single storey extension to the side and rear of the host dwelling along with a porch to the front elevation. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

The proposed side extension would continue the existing ridge and eaves of the bungalow. It would be set slightly off the side boundary and it would be finished in matching external materials. The proposed porch would project some 1250mm from the main front elevation of the dwelling. It would have a gable feature with a ridge that would sit much lower than the main ridge.

The proposed side extension would connect with the rear extension, effectively ‘wrapping around the bungalow’. The plot is a reasonable size and could comfortably accommodate this addition. However, the Council asserts that the proposed side extension and porch would erode the current symmetry with the attached bungalow, No. [address].

This pair of semi-detached dwellings exhibit symmetry in terms of their overall form and scale. However, they are not symmetrical in terms of their fenestration. No. 16 has a door and a standard window to the front elevation whereas the appeal dwelling has a door and an elongated window which spans from eaves to floor. The proposal would change this elongated window to a standard window and change the door to a standard window, bricking up the space below. The proposed porch would have two doors to the front elevation with one serving a bin store and the other serving a newly created hallway within the side extension.

I consider that the design and scale of the proposed side extension and porch would sit comfortably alongside the host dwelling. I accept that the proposed extension would lead to a loss of symmetry in terms of the overall form of this pair of semi-detached bungalows. However, many of the pairs of semi-detached dwellings within [address] have been extended and altered on an individual basis, with similar losses of symmetry. This is quite a noticeable feature of the overall character and appearance of [address] and it leads me to the view that the loss of symmetry as a result of the appeal proposal would be acceptable in this particular context.

I therefore find that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or that of the street scene within which it sits. In such terms, I find no conflict with the overall aims of policies H8, UD1 and UD7 of the adopted Liverpool Local Plan (LP).

The proposed single storey rear section of the extension would run close along the boundary with the attached dwelling, No. [address] and it would project some 4.8 metres from their main rear elevations. Although the pitched roof of the proposed extension would rise away from the shared boundary, the eaves of the extension would be much taller than the existing boundary fence.

The extent of rearward projection would be considerable and would significantly exceed the maximum 3 metres recommended by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 titled ‘[name] (SPG). When combined with the overall height of the proposed extension and its position running close along the boundary, I am of the opinion that it would appear overly dominant and unduly oppressive when viewed from the nearest 2 room at the rear of No. 16 which I understand is used as a bedroom and from its patio area.

I therefore find that the proposal would unacceptably harm the outlook from No [address], contrary to policy H8 of the LP and the SPD.

The proposed side extension would result in the loss of the garage and car parking space at the side of the dwelling. However, kerbside car parking within the cul-de-sac was in plentiful supply at the time of my visit. Furthermore, the Appellant has suggested that the front garden would be put to hardstanding in order to provide private car parking. As other properties within the immediate vicinity have done this, it would not appear out of keeping. I am also satisfied that it could be secured by a suitably worded planning condition in the event that the appeal was successful.

On this basis, I find that adequate private car parking space could be retained therefore the development need not conflict with policy TP8 of the LP.

The Appellant argues that the proposal would create a home for life, future proofing the property for old age. [name] appreciate the benefits of this, nothing I have seen or read persuades me that it could not be achieved without unduly compromising the outlook from the attached dwelling.

I conclude that although the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene and need not lead to an unacceptable loss of private parking, it would have an unacceptable impact on the outlook from the rear of No. [address].

The arguments advanced by the Appellant do not outweigh this harm and the associated policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed.