Appeal 3315465

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension, single-storey front and rear extensions at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22H/0161, dated 20 January 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: ‘Proposed two storey side and single storey front and rear extensions at 76 [name] dated January 2022.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the ‘Proposed two storey side and single storey front and rear extensions at 76 [name] plan dated January 2022.

The main issue in this appeal is the proposed development’s effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings.

The appeal property is one of a pair of two-storey semi-detached dwellings with a hipped roof, situated in a part of [address] characterised by semi-detached dwellings some with gabled roofs, and others with hips. As described in the banner heading above, the appeal proposal would see alterations to No 76, including a two-storey element to the side, stepped back from the dwelling’s front elevation, with a roof ridge stepped down from that of the existing roof. The proposed extension would mirror the proportions of the gable ended side element of No 78, to which it would be attached.

Roof designs present on [address]’s semi-detached houses vary between hips and gable ends in no readily discernible pattern. Moreover, I saw roof alterations in properties along the street have introduced further variation, including alterations to hipped roofs. It is also of note that the proposed extension would mirror the overall proportions of the similar extension at No 78. In addition, the appeal scheme’s upper storey would be stepped back from the principal elevation of No 76, and the proposed roof ridge would be lower than the existing one, allowing the existing hip to be clearly appreciated, both in the [address] streetscene, and in views from the rear.

Taken together, these considerations are strongly indicative that the proposed extension would not unduly upset the balance and symmetry of the roof of the host pair of semi-detached dwellings. Nor for these reasons would the proposed development look incongruous either as part of the wider roofscape of Nos 74 to 80, or in the context of the streetscene more generally.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of its surroundings. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies H8 and UD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan insofar as, taken together, and amongst other things they seek to ensure that the scale, size and materials of extensions are in keeping with original dwellings and their surrounding areas; and that they take into account the local grain and pattern of development.

Amongst other matters, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary. In the current case it is necessary to attach a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also attached a condition relating to the materials to be used in the external facing of the proposed development to ensure that it would be in keeping with the character and appearance of its host property.

For the reasons set out above, and taking fully into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.