Appeal 6001131

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 scheme, which seeks retrospective planning permission. I am satisfied that the plans accurately depict the works on site. The main issue in regard to which is their effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a substantial Edwardian style building, now operating as a residential care home. Situated on the western side of [site address] , this part of the street is characterised by similarly large buildings set back within mature landscaped plots, accommodating a mix of private residential properties and commercial premises. The site occupies an elevated position overlooking residential development to the rear. The building’s architectural integrity and historic character make an important contribution to the visual quality of the area.

The original roofscape is traditional and consistent with Edwardian design principles, featuring steeply pitched roofs and intersecting gables without significant interruptions, creating a balanced and coherent appearance. The appellant contends that the principle of dormers is already established on this site due to previous additions and other flat-roofed elements. However, the original dormers were significantly smaller and therefore integrated in a way that complemented the building’s character. In contrast, the addition of a large and wide, flat-roofed dormer introduces a starkly modern and utilitarian element. Its box-like form contrasts sharply with the original pitched roof and gabled arrangement, spanning a significant portion of the roof slope and appearing bulky and visually dominant.

The dormer, by virtue of its scale, flat roof, and incongruous design, fails to respect the building’s established proportions and detailing. It disrupts the original roof form and erodes the traditional roofscape, diminishing the architectural coherence and historic qualities of the property. This results in harm to the character and appearance of the host building. Although not obvious from public vantage points, the affected elevation remains an important component of the building’s overall character and is clearly visible from numerous neighbouring properties to the rear.

Consequently, the development conflicts with [name] 5 and WS 7 of the Wirral Local Plan (2022–2040) 2025, and guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that extensions are subordinate, relate well to the design and scale of the host property, and positively enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The dormer provides two additional bedrooms which, it is suggested, ensures the financial viability of the care home which delivers benefits through additional accommodation and employment. However, no evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims, nor is there any indication that the addition of two bedrooms would necessitate more staff. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to whether the provision of two new bedrooms could not have been achieved through a more appropriate and sympathetic design. I therefore afford these matters limited weight. The absence of neighbour objections is a neutral matter.

The works followed a period of investment in the building, including roof repairs and enhancements, and rotten joists prompted the decision to add the dormer. While routine repair and maintenance are welcomed, they are expected as part of responsible stewardship and building upkeep. They do not therefore, in and of themselves, necessitate or justify a development such as the appeal scheme, given the harm it causes.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed.

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