Appeal 3296340
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
two storey side and single storey front and rear extensions – loft conversion incorporating rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] in respect of outlook.
Section 04
Character and appearance
No. [site address] is a modern two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area. The other part of the semi-detached pair of No.12 has a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. There is a staggered building line which results in the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwelling of No.[address] being set back from the rear elevation of the appeal building by around 6 m.
The Council has raised no objection to the proposed single storey front extension. I see no reason to disagree because it would comply with guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Note 1:[name]. The proposed two-storey side extension would be similar to the side extension at No.12 in terms of its proportions and set back from the front elevation and set down from the ridge line.
The proposed rear extension would project to the rear for the same distance as the rear extension at No.12. The proposed rear dormer would extend across the majority of the rear roof slope, including the rear roof slope of the proposed side extension. The dormer would have minimal set back from the side of the roof and the boundary with No.12 and no set down from the ridgeline. It would appear over-dominant, contrary to advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 1: [name]. The appeal dwelling backs on to an industrial area rather than other dwellings. However, the roofs of immediately adjacent houses on this side of [address] do not have rear dormers and consequently a dormer of the scale and size proposed would appear unduly large and out of character when seen from the rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings.
The elements of the proposed development are not separable and taken as a whole they would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. The proposal would conflict with Liverpool Local Plan policies H7 and H8 which seek to protect the residential character of areas and ensure that the size and scale of extensions are in keeping with the original dwelling and surrounding area. It would also conflict with Local Plan policies UD1 and UD7 concerning local character and extensions to buildings.
Section 05
Living conditions
No.[address] has a rear conservatory. There is a timber fence and shrubs along the boundary between No.8 and No.10 which provide a degree of screening between the rear gardens of the two properties. The outlook from the conservatory at No.8 is already reduced because of the boundary fence and shrubs.
The proposed rear extension would project around a further 3.29 m from the original rear wall of the building and alongside the boundary with No.8. This would only be slightly more than the 3 m limit in the council’s guidance. However, I consider that the rear extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours when using their rear garden and conservatory in respect of increased loss of outlook because of its degree of projection, height and proximity to the boundary, and taking into account that No.8 is sited further back than No.10.
The proposal would therefore conflict with Liverpool Local Plan policies H7 and H8 which seek to protect the residential character of areas and ensure that the size and scale of extensions are in keeping with the original dwelling and surrounding area. It would also conflict with Local Plan policies UD1 and UD7 concerning local character and extensions to buildings which, amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
Section 06
Conclusion
I acknowledge the appellant’s desire for additional accommodation and lack of objections from neighbours. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the National Planning Policy Framework and the appellant’s suggested use of conditions. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 108No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 November 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 May 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3296340
- Application reference
- 20H/2804
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Liverpool City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000012
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 5 April 2022
- Valid date
- 5 April 2022
- Start date
- 25 April 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 16 November 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 23630
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21