Appeal 6002341

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01303, subject to the following conditions:

The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Existing plans and elevations – 2025 065 001 Rev 02 • Proposed plans and elevations – 2025 065 002 Rev 02

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials detailed on the approved drawing “Proposed plans and elevations – 2025 065 002 Rev 02”

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the tree protection measures detailed within the submitted Tree Survey (Treesure – [name] 18, 2025) and as shown on the accompanying Tree Protection Plan (TS_TPP_18_8_25 Rev 1).

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the proposed first-floor window in the rear elevation of the two-storey side extension has been fitted with obscured glazing to a minimum level 4 (where 1 is the lowest and 5 is the greatest level of obscurity), and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed. The duly installed window shall be retained as such thereafter.

A Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (DSA) has been submitted with the appeal. The procedural guidance1 explains that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. However, in this case, the submitted DSA does not alter the proposal, and I find it is reasonable for the appellant to provide evidence to address the reason for refusal. I have therefore taken the DSA into consideration in my determination of this appeal. The Council and interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the DSA, and I have taken any comments received into account in my decision.

Having regard to the reasons for refusal on the Council’s Decision Notice and comments made by interested parties, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of number [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight, daylight and privacy.

The appeal relates to a two-storey dwelling within a predominantly residential area characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties of varying design and style. I observed that a number of properties in this area, including the appeal property, have been extended and altered.

The appeal property occupies a plot close to the roundabout junction of [address] and [address] and has an existing two-storey side extension set very close to the neighbouring property at no. [address] (no. 3). On the opposite side, the appeal property shares a side boundary with the dwelling at no. [address] (no. 312). However, no. 312 is orientated with its front elevation facing towards the roundabout and the front of this property therefore angles away from the side gable elevation of the appeal dwelling.

The proposal seeks consent for a two-storey side extension. [address] Extensions (SPG) advises that where side extensions would fill a gap between the original side wall and the boundary, there is a risk that the extension will create a terracing appearance or appear out of scale with the original dwelling. It states that this is not in the interests of maintaining the character of the street and should be avoided in the interests of visual amenity. It also states that extensions should be set back from the front elevation of the dwelling by 1m; should have a lower ridge height and a 1m gap should be left to the side boundary.

With regard to the guidance within the SPG, the proposed extension would be set flush with the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse at ground floor level, but set back 1m at first-floor level which results in the proposed ridge height of the extension 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) being set below the ridge of the main roof. However, the extension would be set very close to the angled boundary shared with no. 312 and would not therefore retain a 1m gap to this boundary.

Nevertheless, due to the angled relationship between the gable elevations of the appeal property and the neighbour at no. 312, I find that a sufficient visual gap would be retained between the front corners of the proposed extension and this neighbouring dwelling at first-floor level. This gap would ensure that the extended appeal property would not appear as cramped within the plot when viewed from the highway to the front.

Furthermore, during my visit I observed a number of properties within the vicinity of the appeal site currently sit very close to the side boundary shared with their neighbouring property. There were a number of examples of this within the row of houses immediately around the corner on [address], as well as the appeal property’s existing close relationship with no.3 on the other side.

As such, I found that the street scene within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by examples of properties built and / or extended close to their side boundary, with limited space and gaps provided between properties. In this case, I therefore find that the failure to provide a 1m gap to the side boundary would not be visually harmful to the street scene.

In addition, as a result of the proposed extension’s set back at first-floor level, and its ridge height being slightly lower than that of the main dwelling, it would not overbear the original house and would appear as a subordinate extension. In coming to this view, I acknowledge that the extension would result in the built form extending across almost the full width of the plot. However, I observed other examples of properties expanding a similar extent within their plots in this area.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find no conflict with Wirral Local Plan 2022 – 2040 (2025) (Local Plan) Policy WD5 where it seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that the scale and design of extensions are appropriate having regard to the size of the plot, existing buildings and the street scene; that two storey extensions are appropriately set back and have a lower ridge height; and that extensions are subordinate to and complement the character of the original dwelling.

I also find no conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. The proposal would also adhere to the guidance within the SPG where it states that extensions should reflect the existing dwelling and should retain the character, scale, design and materials of the original property.

I note that the Council’s reason for refusal in relation to the impact of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area refers to conflict with Local Plan Policy WD23. Whilst this policy is titled ‘[name] it covers matters relating to neighbouring living conditions; energy efficiency; overheating and cooling; water usage and tall buildings. I find that these matters are not relevant to the main issue of the effect of this proposed house extension on the character and appearance of the area.

I note that Policy WD23 does also have a section on ‘[name]. However, this refers to residential development meeting the national space standards and compliance with water efficiency standards, as well as new build dwellings achieving Part M4(2) of Building Regulations. There is no evidence or case before me that the design of the appeal proposal conflicts with any of these requirements.

As such, I find that Policy WD23 does not specifically relate to the effect of a two-storey house extension on the character and appearance of an area. This policy is therefore of less relevance than the other policies and guidance I have referred to above in respect of this main issue.

As detailed, the proposed extension would be set close to the shared boundary with the neighbouring property at no. 312 and due to the existing street layout the rear of the extension would be set further back than the rear elevation of this neighbouring property.

I observed on site that no. 312 has a side garage set close to this shared boundary and therefore the nearest windows to the proposed extension would be the ground floor dining room window and the first-floor bedroom window situated in the rear elevation of the main part of the dwelling. These windows are set away from the shared boundary and look out into no. 312’s rear garden area.

As such, whilst the proposed extension would be visible when looking out at an angle sideways out of these windows, I find the proposal would not result in an unnacceptable increase in the sense of enclosure, loss of outlook, overbearing impact, or loss of daylight, from the rooms served by these openings.

The extension would also be clearly visible from the rear garden and patio area of no. 312. However, again when viewed from these external areas I find the extension would not result in a significantly greater overbearing impact, or visual intrusion, when compared to the existing two-storey appeal dwelling.

Furthermore, as a result of the siting of the appeal property to the north of no. 312, the submitted DSA concludes that the proposal could not cast any shadow over this neighbouring property and its rear garden area. The Council’s submission does not appear to raise any issues with the findings and conclusions of the DSA in respect of the impact of the proposal on the levels of sunlight that would be received at this neighbouring property. Based on my own observations on site I have no reason to disagree with this submitted DSA’s conclusion.

With regard to overlooking, the proposed two-storey extension would not include any windows in its side elevation facing towards no. 312. It would however include a window in the rear elevation, set close to the shared boundary, and this would provide elevated views into the rear garden area of no.312.

I observed that the existing rear garden area of no. 312 is already somewhat overlooked by the existing first-floor windows in the rear elevation of the appeal property, as well as the first-floor windows in the rear elevation of the neighbour on the other side. Nevertheless, the provision of a first-floor window in the rear elevation of the extension, closer to the shared boundary, would afford greater levels of overlooking into this rear garden area, resulting in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of no. 312.

However, this proposed first-floor window would serve a landing area and not a habitable room. As such, I find it both reasonable and necessary to impose a condition requiring this proposed first-floor window to be obscurely glazed and non-opening, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed. This condition will ensure that acceptable levels of privacy for the occupiers of no. 312 are retained.

In view of all the above, and subject to the condition requiring the proposed first-floor window to be obscurely glazed, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have an unnacceptable impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore complies with Local Plan Policies WD5 and WD23, where they together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that developments provide adequate sunlight and daylight; avoid direct overlooking and loss of privacy; do not result in an overbearing or overly enclosed form of development which materially harms the outlook of neighbouring occupiers and do not impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

I also find no conflict with the provisions of the Framework where it seeks to ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. The proposal also complies with the recommendations of the SPG where it states that extensions should not result in a significant loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties, nor be visually overbearing or dominant when viewed from adjoining houses.

The Council has provided a list of suggested planning conditions, which I have considered against paragraph 57 of the Framework, and the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance, and I have edited to improve precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2).

Whilst not requested by the Council, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed a condition which requires the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted to be constructed in the materials detailed on the approved drawing (3).

A condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the measures detailed within the submitted Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan has been included to ensure that the retained trees are adequately protected during the construction of the development (4).

As detailed earlier, to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at no. 312 a condition has been imposed requiring the proposed first-floor window in the rear elevation of the extension to be obscurely glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window that can be opened are more than 1.7m above floor level (5).

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the proposed development would accord with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate it should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.