Appeal 6004574

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of residents both nearby and those who may live in the new dwellinghouse.

The appeal site is an area of land that is related to [address] having once contained an adjoining annexe and garage related to this building that has since been demolished. [address] is a substantial Victorian house that occupies the corner of [address] and [address] and has, in 2023, obtained planning permission for conversion of the building into four flats1. As part of this application the attached annexe and garage were shown to be demolished.

The site in question concerns this site to the rear of number 19. Although the Appellant contends that this site is a separate address it was seemingly related to this property both physically and historically up until the 2023 application.

The site is now physically separated from number 19 by a timber fence and the original brick wall continues up until brick pier gateposts give access into the site. I saw on my site visit that there is a protruding oriel type bay window upon the rear elevation of number 19 that immediately bounds this site as do some steel frame balconies. To the back of the site there is a higher brick wall that extends along the opposite side of the plot adjacent to number [address] which is a 20 th century infill development. The wall lowers as it forms the boundary wall between 1 Planning Ref: DC/2023/01129 Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004574 this house and number 1 has three windows and a door facing onto the plot, one of which appears to be a single aspect kitchen window2.

The scheme before me is a revised scheme following an attempt to construct a larger dwelling onto this plot. Whereas the previous scheme was of two storeys this proposal restricts its height considerably through creating partially subterranean living spaces and utilising a flat roof which would appear to bring the overall height of the structure to somewhere below the previous annexe.

The accommodation would comprise of three bedrooms and two bathrooms to the lower ground floor with the bedrooms being lit through high level horizontal windows. The upper level, the ground floor, would contain the principal living spaces including an open plan living, dining and kitchen area aswell as hallway, store and wc. The dining area would have bifold type doors onto a rear terrace that would oversail the lower ground floor rooms and measure around [address] metres in area.

The proposed building would be constructed in red brick with red aluminium details and would sport a ‘green roof’ of sorts with two skylights to its upper level. Alongside the rear terrace there would be a sunken rear garden and an area of front garden alongside tandem parking for two vehicles.

The site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) which, together with the Birkdale Park Conservation Area epitomises the later 19th century suburban expansion of the Southport area based upon a plan devised by [name] in 1848 as a very smart, self contained suburb. The Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) sets out some of the character of the area including the fact that most buildings maintain around a 7 or 8m distance between them and that most gardens contribute in a positive manner to the character of the area. Number [address] appears to have been an early building in the area and is recognised as making a positive contribution to the CA.

The CAA specifically cites that negative effects to the CA can come from the accumulative effect of houses grouped together or poor spacing and landscaping between buildings. This is reinforced where the CAA suggests properties divided into flats can erode the character through the use of gardens for surface car parking and the loss of setting to buildings.

In considering whether to grant planning permission I am required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give ‘Special Attention’ to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The statutory duties within the Act are reflected in The Framework, which states that ‘[name] should be given to a heritage assets’ conservation and also illustrates the positive contribution that heritage assets can make to the creation of sustainable and economically viable communities. This approach is reflected in the Policies NH9, NH12 and EQ3 of the Sefton Local Plan 2017 which echo the above Act and The Framework in requiring great weight to be given to heritage assets and their settings. 2 This window appeared to contain a kitchen mixer tap on my site visit thereby suggesting it was a kitchen with single aspect. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004574

The proposal before me, although creating a single, separate, dwellinghouse intends to recreate an element of development to this rear of number [address] that had previously been agreed to be removed. In so doing it would re create development here that would echo something of the past annexe and garage. In doing so it would deprive the flats within number 19 of an area of potential amenity space and setting that appears to have been a pertinent issue affecting the 2023 application. I see in the plans from this application that the area of the appeal site was included within the red line boundary with seemingly no intention advanced that this would become a plot for a separate dwellinghouse within the approved landscape scheme for this development3.

I see from the evidence provided by the Council that this area was seemingly important in order to compensate for the loss of garden space elsewhere that was required to provide car parking for the proposed flats. In this respect it seems likely to me that the Council believed that this area would become garden area. This seems to be why the landscape plan was conditioned accordingly.

This proposal would effectively divorce this site from that of number 19. As such there would be no such opportunity to compensate for the effect of the surface car parking within the front garden of number 19 either visually or in terms of amenity for the flat residents. Instead, the proposal would reinstate development to the rear of number 19 and any perceived benefit to the character of the CA through removing the former annexe would be lost.

In light of this it is worth assessing what actual harm would occur here for myself. In this case, I find that, currently, the appeal site detracts from the character of the CA but this is only due to its unkempt nature and appearance as an unoccupied site. It is also to the rear of the principal building of number 19. As such it is a potentially less sensitive area for development.

That being said number 19 does present a fine symmetrical frontage towards [address] from its side elevation that I consider was an intentional design feature. This elevation would be better framed without development to this site. Moreover, when considering the character and appearance of the CA and ways to manage it, then this space would certainly provide an enhancement of this site through providing compensatory garden space and repairing something of the historic character of the CA.

Although the Appellant’s advance the case that the character of the CA has been altered by later infill development so as to justify dwellings to be closer to each other, I do not consider that this later character is something desirable for the CA as it has clearly been harmful to the essential qualities that make the area special. As such the example of the modest gap between numbers 3 and [address] is simply no justification for further such harmful development in the form of buildings being closer together.

In assessing the effect of the proposals upon the CA therefore I find that development here would lose any opportunity to reinstate appropriate landscape around [address]. It would also, despite being detached from number 19, reinstate something of the historic erosion of the spaces between dwellings here and would, as a result, represent a harmful further subdivision of plots. Although the 3 Application reference [name]/2025/00071 granted February 2025. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004574 proposed dwelling would be low in scale and of an interesting modern design, it would still introduce development to an area which would not be desirable. As such the important spaces between and around dwellings would be undermined.

Ultimately, I find that the CA would suffer some less than substantial harm through the development of this plot that would bring it into conflict with the above policies of the Local Plan.

Coming to the issues of living conditions. The site is immediately adjacent to several balconies and a protruding oriel window belonging to [address], all of which have a direct and immediate aspect onto this site. Whilst the proposed scheme would be set back from the balconies, anybody sitting or standing here would still be easily able to gaze down into the sunken garden or onto the terrace of the proposed dwelling. The same could be said of the oriel bay window which protrudes allowing a person to be able to see into the plot. As a result, anybody using this space would feel overlooked and on view which I consider would be harmful for their living

Coming to the living conditions of those living in the proposed house, the high level horizontal slit windows would be contained to the lower ground floor but, even as bedrooms, I consider that such spaces would feel oppressive and absent of much daylight or sunlight. As such, despite the much lighter living spaces above, these rooms would not be conducive to quality living spaces for much of the time.

Coming to the living conditions of those at number [address], the previous garage extension appears from photographs to have been set farther back into the plot than that of the proposed dwelling. As such it avoided being overly close to the side window that appears to be a kitchen. Although this relationship could work in some contexts, in this context it would be at odds with the more spacious character of the area and as such the effect of dominance would be all the more great.

Ultimately there would be an adverse effect through this proposal upon both the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and upon the living conditions of existing and future residents. As a result, the proposed scheme would be contrary to the Development Plan in this regard.

Ultimately, this proposal would renege upon seemingly agreed benefits of the previously approved application and would remove an important part of proposed amenity space for the flats within number [address]. Moreover, it would re-introduce development here that would undermine any previous benefits to the character and appearance of the CA as a result. Although the proposed new dwelling would be more modest and sensitively designed in many respects, it would still represent a physical development upon this plot which would contribute to a further erosion of the important spaces between buildings that make such an important characteristic of the CA.

Further to this there would be serious issues of overlooking from those flats in [address], inparticularly from those residents looking from the existing oriel window and the metal balconies farther to the rear. In this respect the rear gardens areas would be anything but private. Further to this the constraints to the site have resulted in subterranean bedrooms with only high level windows giving daylight into them. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004574

The Appellant have suggested that the Council are unable to meet their five year housing land supply (5YHLS). The Council have subsequently confirmed that they have provision for around 3.34 years supply.

I give the potential of a new dwelling significant weight in accordance with The Framework, however this benefit of a single dwelling is relatively modest and is unable to outweigh the tangible and permanent harm that would be sustained to the character and appearance of the CA. As such the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of this scheme.

[name] conclude that the protection of the historic environment, as supported through the Framework polices should take precedence over the provision of a new dwelling here in this instance.

Although the identified harm would be less than substantial, and although this dwelling would add a single new house to the area, along with other indirect public benefits such as the economic benefit obtained through construction, this would not be sufficient to outweigh the harms to both the historic environment and the living conditions of future residents would live here.

In summary this proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would introduce harmful change in this respect. It would therefore fail to meet the Policy requirements of the Local Plan, most notably policies NH9 and NH12. It would also fall short of the requirements of Policies HC3 and EQ2 aswell as guidance for new build homes within the associated Supplementarty Planning Document4.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area and the living conditions of future residents and these harms are not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, for the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I must dismiss this appeal.