Appeal 6000854

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site occupies a prominent corner plot within a residential street characterised by open front gardens and low brick boundary walls, which create a sense of openness and continuity along the building line. This prevailing pattern of development contributes to the visual character and appearance of the area, where frontages remain largely unobstructed and boundary treatments are modest in height and design.

The proposed development would introduce a 1.8m high front boundary wall with metal railings and a side timber fence, as well as an external store positioned forward of the established building line. The height and design of the front boundary treatment would fail to reflect the established character and would result in a discordant feature that disrupts the uniformity of the street scene, contrary to the guidance in Sefton Council’s Boundary Treatment Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (BTSPD).

On my site visit, I observed an example of a front boundary treatment similar to that proposed. This was an exception in the street scene and was not representative of Appeal Planning Officer 6000854 the prevailing character and appearance of the area. In any event, the prominent corner plot of the appeal site means that the proposed development would be highly prominent and dominant. The circumstances are not therefore directly comparable; in any event I have assessed the proposed development on its own merits.

The proposal, being closer to the highway than the existing built development, would erode the spacious characteristic of the area. The proposal would be discordant with the character of the area in that it would introduce built form in front of the established building line. It would be visible from the surrounding roads and pavements and would be a prominent feature harming the areas character and appearance. The siting of the store building forward of the building line would conflict with the principles set out in [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (HESPD), which seek to maintain the integrity of building lines to preserve the open character of residential frontages.

For these reasons, the development is considered to have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and does not comply with Policy EQ2 of A Local Plan for Sefton (2017) or the guidance contained within the BTSPD or the HESPD, which together, seek to protect the local character and appearance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.