Appeal 6003164

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey infill extension to the side, single storey extension to the rear and a balcony on the south facing elevation at [address], [site address] , Blundellsands, Crosby, Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01040, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

There is a minor discrepancy in the site address from the application form to other documentation submitted with the appeal. I have adopted the address as set out on the planning application form but omitting superfluous wording. This is a factual correction and has no bearing on my assessment of the proposal.

There is no dispute between the parties about the acceptability of the following elements of the scheme i) single storey infill extension to the side and ii) the balcony on the south facing elevation. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that these aspects of the appeal proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I have not been made aware that these elements would result in any conflict with any development plan policies. Therefore, I have confined my consideration to the proposed single storey rear extension.

In light of the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the character and appearance of the property and the Blundellsands Park Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a large, detached house on [address]. It is located in an established residential area within the Blundellsands Park Conservation Area (CA) which is notable as a high-quality, planned residential layout built between 1893 and 1908. The area is characterised by straight wide roads lined with bespoke detached villas of individual character, each set in spacious grounds.

The Blundellsands Conservation Area Appraisal (2008) identifies that the vistas within the CA are limited due to density of trees along the pavements and front boundaries, views into the appeal property are consistent with this.

The appeal site is a deep plot, and the appeal building is a 3-storey house set back from the road. Within the curtilage of the dwelling there is substantial soft landscaping; views into the front and side garden are restricted by the planting to the front boundary. The rear garden sits behind the existing dwelling; there is an existing boundary wall to the boundary with the neighbouring property and so it is not visible from [address]. Subservient extensions have been added to the dwelling previously.

The proposed rear extension would project into the garden beyond the existing rear façade of the dwelling. Views of the development from within the CA would be limited, with only brief glimpses available when walking along [address]. With regard to the wider impact on the CA, the proposal’s position to the rear ensures that the established rhythm of the street and the existing separation to the frontage are preserved. Consequently, the characteristic sense of spaciousness that contributes to the area’s significance will be maintained.

The proposed extension incorporates a roof line that sits lower than the existing single-storey elements of the dwelling, ensuring that its size and scale remain clearly subservient to the original building. Accordingly, the extension would preserve the setting of the host property, which forms an important part of its historic context.

During my site visit I observed that over time many dwellings in the CA have introduced various forms of single storey development within their side and rear gardens. This eclectic mix of buildings supports the view that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the established character of the area. In this context, the appeal proposal would not appear as an intrusive addition but rather as a continuation of a pattern of change that is already evident with the area.

The trees within the CA form an intrinsic part of its character and contribute to the area’s established appearance. It is noted that the proposal would require the removal of several trees to the rear of the existing dwelling in order to facilitate the development. The Council’s Tree Officer has assessed this matter and advises that the removal of these trees is acceptable, provided that appropriate replacement planting is secured. I have no evidence before me to disagree with this position.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In considering the effect of the proposal on the CA the impact must be weighed against the harm it would have on the heritage asset.

As set out above, the rear extension would not appear overly bulky, incongruous or out of place in this part of the CA, where single storey garden buildings and extensions are commonplace occurrences. As a result, the proposal would not result in harm to the special interest of the CA as identified above. Its effect on the character and appearance of the CA when considered as a whole would be neutral and therefore the significance of the CA would be preserved.

For these reasons the proposal would not harm and would be sympathetic to the character of the existing dwelling and the positive contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the CA.

Therefore, there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or the CA. The proposal would accord with policies EQ2, NH9 and NH12 of the Sefton Local Plan which together seek to ensure that development proposals are designed to a high quality, sympathetic and protect and conserve the historic environment.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit, plans and materials conditions are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty.

A condition requiring submission of sample materials is necessary and reasonable in the interests of the character and appearance of the CA.

I note the Tree Officer’s professional assessment that the removal of trees on the site should be offset through the planting of three suitable replacement trees. I am satisfied that this measure is both necessary and reasonable in safeguarding the visual amenity of the area, and I have included the conditions accordingly.

I have carefully considered the concerns raised by neighbours regarding the positioning of the extension and its separation distances from existing buildings. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the proposed relationship between the single-storey rear extension and [address] would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or create a sense of enclosure, nor would it materially overshadow this neighbouring dwelling or its usable garden areas. The proposal would also have no impact on the boundary of 134 Serpentine, as the plans were amended during the course of the application.

When considering the proposed balcony, which would face [address] (No. 31), the degree of separation between the existing properties combined with the presence of an established planting, significantly limits any opportunity for overlooking. The balcony would not afford direct or intrusive views into No. 31’s private garden space, nor would it materially diminish the level of privacy currently enjoyed by its occupants. Consequently, based on the evidence before me and my site observations, I do not find that the scheme would give rise to any material harm.

Matters relating to the [name] etc. Act 1996 are a civil matter between the relevant parties. They fall outside the scope of the planning system and do not influence the outcome of this appeal. Any requirements under that legislation would need to be addressed separately by the parties concerned.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • Location Plan Drawing no. 725-01-A • Proposed Block Plan Amended Plan Drawing no. 725-20-B • Proposed Ground Floor Amended Plan Drawing no. 725-05-B • Proposed First Floor Amended Plan Drawing no. 725-06-B • Proposed Elevations Amended Plan Drawing no. 725-08-B

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions and proposed balcony hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No part of the development shall be occupied until a scheme detailing the planting of the three trees has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of their species, size and location.

If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree proposed as part of the landscaping scheme, or any tree planted in replacement of it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size shall be planted at the same place during the next planting season immediately following the death/removal/destruction of that tree. End of Conditions