Appeal 3311420

The appeal is dismissed.

The date of the application is taken from the planning application form. The Council’s decision notice states that the application was validated on 8 October 2021. This is prior to the date on the application form.

On the application form, the appellant states that the original application “seems to have slipped off the radar hence resubmission.”

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Wavertree Village Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a tall, bay-fronted semi-detached period dwelling. It features attractive front dormers providing for living accommodation at roof level. The dwelling is faced with polychromatic brickwork and has a slate roof.

It is situated within the Wavertree Village Conservation Area, which in this location is a residential area characterised by the predominant presence of tall and largely symmetrical pairs of semi-detached Victorian villas. These dwellings are brick-built with slate roofs and a host of period features, including ornate brickwork, bays, sash windows, decorative fenestration and tall chimneys.

Further, dwellings tend to be uniformly set back behind original low stone walls and front gardens and/or driveways and this and the above features, along with a notably uncluttered slate roofscape of largely original appearance, affords a rich sense of heritage and an attractive sense of uniformity.

The proposed development would comprise solar panels that would cover a large area of the uppermost part of the appeal property’s front-facing roof. The panels would be different in colour and texture to the slate roof. As a result, I find that they would stand out from and jar with the appearance of the existing roof to the extent that they would draw attention to themselves as alien features.

During my site visit, I observed the roof of the appeal property from various locations and noted that the panels would appear prominently from various points along [address]. 10.The roofscape of the period properties visible along [address] contributes a significant and attractive sense of rhythm and uniformity and the proposed development would upset this rhythm and jar with this sense of uniformity. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to conserve the appearance of Wavertree Village Conservation Area. 12.Having regard to paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of Wavertree Village Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. 13.In this respect, I am mindful that the proposal would help to reduce energy costs and this is a factor in its favour. However, it is not something that amounts to such public benefits that they would outweigh the harm identified. 14.The proposal would fail to conserve the character and appearance of Wavertree Village Conservation Area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan1 Policies UD1, H7, H8 and HD1; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1: [name], which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.