Appeal 6004466

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. The Council has provided a statement explaining the reasons why it would have refused planning permission should it have made a decision on the development.

From the evidence before me, the main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers at numbers 9 and [address] and numbers 8 and [address], with regard to privacy; • whether the proposed development would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance; and • whether the proposed development would deliver an appropriate level of open space and outdoor sports provision.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, red brick building, and its associated front yard area, set behind the properties fronting onto [address]. The evidence before me details that whilst the appeal building stopped being used in early 2026 and is currently vacant, it has an established use as a vehicle repair garage and for motor trade. The appeal proposal seeks to convert this property into a 3no. bedroom dwelling.

The Council’s submission confirms that they raise no objection in respect of the impact of any proposed ground floor windows on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Based on my observations on site I see no reason to disagree.

However, the Council raises concerns in respect of the first-floor windows for the proposed dwelling creating overlooking and loss of privacy issues in relation to the neighbouring residential properties at numbers 9 and [address] (nos. 9 and 11) and numbers 8 and [address] (nos. 8 and 10).

In this respect, the Council has drawn my attention to the [address] Extensions (SPG), and in particular the recommended separation distance of 21m to be provided between windows serving habitable rooms where principal elevations face each other. [name] acknowledge that the appeal proposal does not relate to a “[name]”, I nevertheless find this SPG provides a useful guide for assessing the relationship between residential properties.

The proposed conversion would make use of the existing window openings at first-floor level to serve the proposed dwelling. The appellant therefore contends that neighbouring residents would not be subject to any greater levels of overlooking, or loss of privacy, than that which is currently experienced from these existing openings.

Whilst this point is acknowledged, the proposed use as a residential dwelling would likely result in an increase in use of these first-floor windows in comparison to the building’s existing use as a vehicle repair garage and for motor trade, particularly in the evenings and weekends when neighbouring residential occupiers are more likely to be at home and using habitable rooms or outdoor areas. I therefore find that the proposed residential use would result in greater levels of overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers from these first-floor windows, when compared to the existing commercial use of the building. Nevertheless, an assessment must still be made as to whether this impact would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council’s submission details that the first-floor windows in the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling would be set 16.3m from the habitable windows in the rear elevations of the properties directly to the rear at nos. 9 and 11. The appellant has not contested this separation distance and consequently these rear facing windows would not meet the recommended 21m contained within the SPG.

Nonetheless, having observed the outlook from these rear windows during my visit, I found that some views towards the windows in the rear elevations of the properties at nos. 9 and 11 were obscured by existing vegetation. Furthermore, where these neighbouring habitable rear windows were visible from the first-floor windows in the rear of the appeal property, I found the separation distance was sufficient to ensure that there would be no harmful impact by way of overlooking or loss of privacy.

Additionally, whilst I noted that the first-floor windows in the rear of the appeal property did provide elevated views into the rear garden areas of a number of adjacent properties, I found that these rear garden areas were already overlooked by first and second-floor windows in other neighbouring properties. As such, I do not find the appeal proposal would have a significantly greater overlooking impact on these garden areas than that currently experienced from existing windows in other neighbouring properties.

In terms of the properties at nos. 8 and 10, the front elevation of the proposed dwelling would face towards the rear elevations of these properties. The Council state that a separation distance of 18m would be provided between the front facing first-floor window (serving bedroom 2) in the proposed dwelling and the habitable windows in the rear of no. 8, and a distance of 19.7m would be provided from this same window to the habitable windows in the rear of no.10.

Whilst acknowledging that these distances also fall below the recommendation of the SPG, I observed that the window in the front of the proposed dwelling was not directly in line with the windows in the rears of nos. 8 and 10. Additionally, based on my experience on site, I again found the separation distance to be sufficient to ensure that there would be no harmful impact by way of overlooking or loss of privacy towards these neighbouring windows and properties.

In view of all the above, and based on my observations on site, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have an unnacceptable impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant section of Policy WD 23 of the Wirral Local Plan 2022 – 2040 (2025) (Local Plan), where it requires that proposals avoid direct overlooking and loss of privacy, detrimental to living conditions of neighbouring residents. I also find no conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it seeks to ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. Living conditions of future occupants

For the same reasons as those set out above, I find the separation distances between the habitable windows in the proposed dwelling and the habitable windows in the properties on [address] and Park Road would be sufficient to ensure that future occupants of the appeal dwelling would not be overlooked by neighbouring occupiers.

However, the proposed dwelling would be accessed via an access road shared with a neighbouring auto repair garage and neighbouring residential garages. At ground floor level the proposal includes the provision of a relatively large window, consisting of three panes, in the front elevation. This window would directly face towards the access road and would be sited close to the external area associated with the neighbouring auto repair garage. This window would serve a shared kitchen and dining area.

The appeal proposal includes no details of any physical separation or delineation between this window and the access road, or the external area in front of the neighbouring auto repair garage. As such, I find that activities associated with the use of this access and activities taking place outside the neighbouring auto repair garage, including customers dropping off vehicles, would be potentially uncomfortable for any occupiers of the proposed dwelling when using this shared kitchen/dining area.

This is because people and vehicles moving along the access road, accessing the residential garages or using parts of the area outside the adjacent auto repair garage, would have a direct view towards the shared kitchen and dining area of the proposed dwelling through the proposed window in the front elevation.

In view of the above, given the close relationship, I find that future occupiers would not be provided with an acceptable level of privacy from persons associated with, and accessing, the neighbouring auto repair garage, the access road and the residential garages.

[name] acknowledge that no objection was received from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, I find that noise and disturbance associated with activities taking place at the adjacent auto repair garage has the potential to negatively impact upon the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. Such activities include, but would not be limited to, noise arising from the opening and closing of vehicle doors and bonnets; the revving of engines and testing of other car parts; movement of vehicles; use of machinery and equipment; and conversations between staff and customers.

I note the appellant states that the neighbouring use is modest in scale. However, I am not aware of any planning restrictions or conditions to control this neighbouring use, such as the hours of operations or that vehicle repair works must take place inside the building with the doors shut. Furthermore, this auto repair garage is sited directly adjacent to the proposed dwelling and I have not been provided with a noise report to demonstrate the existing noise levels currently generated by this neighbouring commercial use.

Additionally, other than the appellant stating that modern glazing and improvements to the building fabric will further limit any potential noise transition, I have been provided with limited specific details of any required mitigation measures that would need to be incorporated into the proposed dwelling to protect the living conditions of future occupiers.

I am also aware that the appellant has provided information relating to past noise complaints from 2022 and 2023 at both the appeal property and this neighbouring unit. [name] acknowledge that this submission appears to demonstrate that noise complaints have reduced more recently, it also shows that the neighbouring use is capable of generating noise and disturbance which has led to past complaints from other nearby residential properties.

Moreover, and as mentioned, the proposed dwelling would be sited directly adjacent to this existing auto repair garage. Therefore, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling could be even more susceptible to noise and disturbance arising from its use than other existing residential properties in the area.

Furthermore, any potential complaints relating to noise and disturbance from future occupiers of the proposed dwelling could result in unreasonable restrictions being placed on this existing neighbouring business. In such circumstances the Framework details that the applicant should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. As previously mentioned, the submission does not include a noise report, including specific details of any proposed mitigation measures required for the proposed dwelling.

The appellant has referred to other examples of commercial and residential uses adjacent to each other. However, I have limited information before me in respect of these other uses and their exact relationship with any adjacent residential properties. I can therefore draw no direct comparisons between those relationships and that of the appeal scheme before me.

In view of the above, and based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that activities associated with the neighbouring auto repair garage would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling by way of noise and disturbance.

The proposal includes the provision of a new 2m high fence to create an enclosed garden area to the front of part of the proposed dwelling. The submitted plans show that it is the main living space that would face into this garden area and the Council state that approx. 3.45m would be provided between the folding doors serving this living room area and the fence. The Council assert that the proximity of this fence to these habitable room openings would result in an overly enclosed form of development which would harm the outlook afforded from this living room.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed fence would be positioned close to these folding doors, the proposed opening would be large in size and I find that the distance would be sufficient to ensure that future occupiers would benefit from an acceptable outlook above the proposed fenceline. Furthermore, given that this enclosed area would be their private garden area, future occupants would have the opportunity to maintain this outdoor area and erect an alternatively sized fence to improve their outlook should they deem it necessary. As such, I conclude that future occupants would be provided with an acceptable outlook from this living room area.

I have found that future occupants of the proposed dwelling would be provided with an acceptable outlook.

However, I find that given the close relationship between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring auto repair garage, and the access road, future occupiers would not be provided with an acceptable level of privacy. Furthermore, I find that the submitted evidence does not satisfactorily demonstrate that activities at the auto repair garage would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed dwelling by way of noise and disturbance.

In view of all the above, based on the evidence before me, as well as my observations on site, I conclude that the proposed use of the appeal property as a dwelling would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policy WD 23 where it requires that proposals, amongst other things, demonstrate that proposed uses will be harmonious with neighbouring uses, avoiding unnacceptable nuisance and disturbance, and that they avoid direct overlooking and loss of privacy, detrimental to the living conditions of residents of the proposed development. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the Framework where it seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users.

Policy WD 24 of the Local Plan requires that new residential development contributes to the improvement and enhancement of open space and the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. [name] of this policy explains that where on-site provision cannot be achieved, an equivalent financial contribution will be required to secure improvements to existing local facilities and/or access to strategic provision, within the catchment area of the proposed development.

The appeal proposal would result in a net increase of 1no. dwelling and Policy WD 24 therefore applies. Given the limited scale and nature of the development site, it would not be feasible to provide the requisite open space or outdoor sports facilities on-site. In these circumstances, a financial contribution is therefore appropriate and I am satisfied that the level of financial contribution1 sought is both reasonable and proportionate to the development proposed, and that the requirement is supported by adequate evidence.

I acknowledge that the appellant has confirmed that they would be willing to make this financial contribution and enter into a legal agreement to secure its provision, with a draft [name] provided as an appendix to their final comments submission. However, the planning obligations section of the procedural guidance2 states that for appeals following the written representations procedure the appellant must ensure that an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation is received at the time of making their appeal.

As such, in the absence of a signed and completed legal agreement before me to secure this financial contribution, or any evidence that the contribution has been paid directly to the Council, the proposed development would fail to deliver the necessary provision for open space and outdoor sports provision. Furthermore, there is no mechanism available to me to ensure that the financial contribution is paid via a planning condition.

As such, in the absence of the secured financial contribution in lieu of no on-site provision being provided, the proposal would conflict with Policy WD 24 of the Local Plan which requires new residential development to provide improved and enhanced open space and appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.

Interested parties have raised concerns over how the proposed development would affect their legal right of access. Whilst the appellant has confirmed that any rights of access would remain unaffected by the appeal proposal, this is a private legal issue and not a matter I can take into account in the determination of this appeal.

My attention has been drawn to a recently granted planning permission3 for alterations to the appeal building. However, this approved permission did not seek to alter the use of the building and it does not therefore alter my findings in relation to the appeal scheme before me.

For the reasons given above, I have found that the proposed development would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers and in the absence of the secured financial contribution the proposed development would fail to deliver 1 [name] - £4,040 and [name] - £463.68 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) 3 Council Ref: APP/26/001997 the necessary provision for open space and outdoor sports provision. I find the cumulative harm arising from the proposed development to be significant.

With regard to the benefits, the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes and make efficient use of previously developed land. The appellant has also commented that the proposal would reduce the overall intensity of the commercial activity at the site. I therefore attribute moderate weight to the re-use of this existing commercial building to provide one additional dwelling within an existing settlement.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the conversion phase of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the wider area, by future occupants of the dwelling. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

In view of the above, whilst I have found that there would be some benefits arising from the proposal, cumulatively these benefits do not outweigh the significant harm I have identified and the conflict I have found with the development plan.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.