Appeal 6003105

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1. (g) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GDPO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].4 (7) to Part 1 Class A of the GPDO requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of the appeal has been made on the same basis.

The reason for refusal cites Liverpool Local Plan Policy H81 which seeks to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the GPDO, and I am required to assess the proposal as a prior approval application as set out within the parameters of the GPDO. Regard can be given to development plan policies insofar as they are material considerations, however they are not in themselves determinative.

The question as to whether the proposal would be permitted development due to the amount of development exceeding 50% of the curtilage has been raised. This comes under Part 1 Class A1 (b) of the GDPO. The Council state that the 50% threshold is not exceeded and in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to dispute the Council’s assessment on this point.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025 but given that this is at the consultation 1 Liverpool City Council – Liverpool Local Plan 2013 – 2033 [name] 2022. stage I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties at this time.

I consider that the main issue in this appeal is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the adjoining premises, No [address], with regard to outlook and overshadowing.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house, a small front garden and a long narrow rear garden. There is an existing conservatory and a number of outbuildings in the rear garden. No 42 lies to the south of No 44 which also has a long narrow rear garden. A timber fence with trellis above it runs along the boundary between the two properties.

The existing conservatory would be removed and a larger single storey extension would project 4 metres from the rear wall of the house. It would extend for most of the width of the house, close to the boundary with the adjoining property No 44.

Although the fence and trellis along the boundary are fairly high, the height and extent of the rearward projection would appear overbearing and have a negative impact on the outlook from the rear ground floor window of No 44. Also, as No 44’s garden is fairly narrow, the proposal would also have an overbearing effect on the area of garden closest to the house. Due to the overall height and length of a solid wall close to the boundary, overshadowing would also have a harmful effect on both the ground floor window and the garden.

I am mindful that the existing fence causes some overshadowing to No 44’s garden but the upper part is open trellis allowing some light through. Also, whilst the extension would be set back 150mm from the shared boundary, this would be insufficient to overcome the harm I have identified. The appellant refers to there being 15 metre high trees along the boundary until last year. However, these are not there now and so this does not justify allowing the proposal.

The proposal includes roof lights to both sides of the roof pitch. One of these would face No 44. It is unlikely that views out of this rooflight would impact on the privacy of the occupiers of No 44 given its height and position. Notwithstanding this, given the size of the proposed extension and its proximity to the boundary with No 44, it would have a harmful impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises, No [address], with regard to outlook and overshadowing.

The appellant states that the proposal would comply with the 45 degree guideline when assessed against the neighbouring habitable room windows thereby ensuring that there is no undue sense of enclosure or loss of outlook. However, the submitted plans do not illustrate this and no policy documents have been submitted which indicate whether Liverpool City Council take this guideline into consideration. The Council do not refer to it but do refer to the SPG2 which states that single storey extensions that exceed 3 metre projections from the original rear main wall of the dwelling would not normally be granted planning permission. This 2 [address] Extensions Supplementary Guidance Note 1 (SPG). is not a proposal for planning permission although I note reference to the SPG as well as Local Plan Policy H8. In any case, neither of these matters alter my conclusions set out above.

The appellant states that the impact on the neighbour would be limited as the occupier does not reside at [address]. Occupancy can vary and any living arrangements that may be the case now may not be long term. In any case, ownership and residents can change over time but the proposal would be a permanent feature. Thus, this is not relevant to my assessment.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.