Appeal 6002101

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 effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and sunlight.

[site address] sits within a residential street characterised by long rear gardens, and a pattern of single-storey rear projections close to the dwelling line. [name] 240, the main rear-facing habitable rooms look directly onto their rear garden. While their existing single-storey rear projection and boundary fence provide some limitations, the rear rooms and immediate patio currently retain a reasonably open outlook across the garden at ground floor level.

The proposal would replace the rear existing projection at No 238 with a deeper single-storey extension positioned along the shared boundary. Although it would have a flat roof, this extension would present a continuous stretch of walling considerably higher than the existing relatively low boundary fence. The depth and height of the proposed extension and its proximity to the boundary would therefore notably alter the relationship between the two properties compared with the existing situation. When experienced from the adjacent rear ground floor window in No 240 and the patio area of its garden, the proposed rear extension would appear dominant and visually overbearing, creating a significantly more enclosed and Appeal Planning Officer 6002101 restrictive outlook. For these reasons, the proposal would result in a harmful reduction in outlook, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 240.

The orientation of the gardens and the scale of the single-storey part of the rear extension mean that the proposal would not result in a harmful loss of sunlight to the rear rooms or wider garden of No 240. Any additional overshadowing from the proposal would be of limited duration and affect only a small area, and therefore would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 240. However, the absence of harm with respect to sunlight does not mitigate or outweigh the substantive harm I have identified in relation to outlook.

Accordingly, the section of the proposed rear extension adjacent to No 240 would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 240 in relation to outlook but not sunlight. Nevertheless, it would conflict with Policy H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (adopted 2022), which requires that extensions are of high quality and do not result in an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties.

The proposal also conflicts with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for extensions, which also seeks to ensure that extensions do not have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties. Whilst the SPG does allow for some flexibility, in this case the proposal would conflict with the aims of the SPG for the reasons set out above.

The appellant has referred to a potential fallback option under permitted development legislation, which allows up to 6m deep single-storey rear extensions subject to a prior notification process. A deeper extension than the appeal scheme could result in a more substantial degree of enclosure along the shared boundary and therefore greater harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 240. However, for extensions deeper than 3m, the process requires neighbour consultation. Where objections are received, the local planning authority must assess amenity impacts on all neighbouring properties. It can then refuse the scheme on those grounds.

Although there have been no objections to the appeal scheme, this does not imply an absence of concern as there could be many reasons why no representations were made. Given the harmful neighbour relationship identified in this appeal, I cannot be sure that no objections would be received to an alternative scheme for a deeper rear extension. Therefore, I cannot conclude that there is a realistic prospect that prior approval would be granted and, consequently, it has not been demonstrated that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback would be deliverable. Accordingly, I give limited weight to the prospect of a more harmful extension being built under permitted development rights, and this does not outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan.

Although other single-storey extensions in the wider street have been referenced, there is no substantiated evidence before me that these represent comparable circumstances in terms of neighbour relationships or were assessed against the same policy context as the appeal scheme. They therefore attract limited weight and do not justify allowing the appeal. Appeal Planning Officer 6002101

The proposal would improve accommodation for the occupiers of No 238, however it has not been demonstrated that this cannot be achieved through a less harmful design. Consequently, the benefit to the appellant does not outweigh the harm that would result from this proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, Framework Paragraph 131 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and its design policies require that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The proposal would generate economic and social benefits however they would be of very limited scope. As it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 240, it would not achieve the high design standards required by the Framework and is not therefore sustainable development.

For the reasons given above, and having taken all other matters into account, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations sufficient to justify a decision other than in accordance with the plan.

I therefore 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.