Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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