Appeal 6004842

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing dormer window, removal of existing roof light, erection of a two-storey extension and single-storey extension and installation of dormer window to rear and installation of two conservation-style roof lights to the front at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25H/1958, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DG15/86/03: Site Plan, DG15/86/04: Proposed Block Plan and DG15/86/02: [name] & Elevations.

Prior to their implementation and use on site, samples or specifications of all materials to be used in the external construction of this development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be completed using the approved materials before the development is occupied / brought into use.

Notwithstanding any indicative details shown on the approved drawings, prior to their implementation and use on site, details of the proposed roof lights shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the roof lights shall sit flush with the roof slope. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The existing chimney above the roofline shall be retained.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against Liverpool City Council. This application is subject to a separate decision.

The proposed development is for a series of physical works to the property at [site address] . The Council and the appellant dispute whether the lawful use of the property is a C3 Dwellinghouse or a C4 House of [name] (HMO).

The description of development does not seek to establish a change to its lawful use. The appeal property is located within an area where an Article 4 Direction has been issued to remove the permitted development rights of C3 dwellings to convert into small HMOs under Use Class C4. The Article 4 Direction came into force in this area in June 2021.

The appellant has provided some evidence, in the form of tenancy agreements, to suggest that the property has been operating as an HMO since March 2021. However, the evidence before me is limited both in terms of satisfactorily demonstrating continuity of use since March 2021 and the levels of occupation which have occurred within the property over that time. Therefore, on the balance of probability, I cannot be certain that the lawful use of the property is an C4 HMO. Consequently, I have considered this appeal on the basis that the lawful planning status of the appeal property is that of a C3 dwellinghouse.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Kensington Fields Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is within the (CA) and in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA occupies a residential area to the east of Liverpool City Centre and is characterised by tightly packed residential terraces set out in a grid pattern. The significance of the CA, relevant to this appeal, relates to the architectural character of properties, particularly their frontages. This includes Victorian detailing, bay windows at both ground and first floor levels and traditional buff brickwork. The design and layout of the residential terrace along [address] creates a strong rhythm and uniformity when viewed from the street. However, whilst there is a notable uniformity to the frontage of properties, such character is not present to their rear elevations where a wide range of more modern additions can be observed, including single and two-storey flat roofed extensions and dormers to rear roof spaces.

The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling. Its features are reflective of the characteristics previously described and it therefore makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. The front elevations of the appeal property and the terrace in general have not been substantially altered over time which further emphasises this positive contribution and the broader rhythm of the street scene.

The proposed development involves a series of physical works to the property, including a single and two-storey extension to the rear, a dormer addition to the roof and the installation of two roof lights within the front elevation. I have noted the response from the Council’s Heritage team in regard to the impacts of the proposal, particularly the cumulative effects of overextending the property and the visual impacts of individual elements of the proposal on the wider character of the CA. Whilst the Council’s reason for refusal specifically relates to the impact of the rear dormer, in fulfilling my statutory duty I have considered the impacts of all elements of the proposed scheme, both individually and cumulatively.

[name] have already noted, there is a distinct lack of uniformity to the character of the rear elevation of properties in the terrace which has been caused by more modern additions. This includes a range of both single and two-storey extensions to properties along the terrace and, notably, the presence of a rear dormer extension to the adjacent property of [address] (N0.60) which is similar in its positioning and scale to the proposed dormer element. The scale of the dormer and the flat roof design of it and the extensions do not reflect the pitched roof form of the dwelling. However, given the existing eclectic mix of additions, the physical works which are proposed to the rear elevation of the appeal property, including the extensions and rear dormer additions, would not appear out of character to the host property. As such, they would not constitute an excessive amount of extension when considered either individually or cumulatively with that at No.60.

The proposals would not be visible from [address]. However, to the rear of the terrace there is a narrow alleyway which affords views of the rear elevation of the appeal property from both [address] and [address]. Nevertheless, the position and orientation of the adjacent end-of-terrace property of [address] limits some views of the proposed extensions and dormer. In any case, given my findings above the proposed development would not be out of character, in terms of scale and massing, to the existing built form when seen from these adjacent roads.

Notwithstanding the above, matters of detail would need to be controlled to ensure that the development is complementary to the CA. With this in mind, details of external materials, roof lights and the retention of key features such as the chimney would need to be secured by means of a planning condition.

Consequently, I conclude that there would be no adverse impact on the key features and detailing to the front elevation of the appeal property which contribute to its significance within the CA, nor would the proposed development be unduly prominent or intrusive when viewed from [address] or [address]. I consider that the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the significance of the CA and would not result in harm to its character. The proposal is therefore consistent with Policies UD1 and H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (LLP) which states that development proposals should consider the local grain and pattern of development and that extensions are of a high quality of design which complement the style of the dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal also accords with Policy HD1 of the LLP which states that proposals affecting a Conservation Area should preserve or enhance those elements which contribute to its character and appearance. There is no conflict with the statutory test set out in the Act.

To provide certainty, I shall impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings. Conditions are also necessary in regard to materials, details of rooflights and the retention of the chimney above the roofline to preserve the special architectural or historic character or appearance of the CA.

The Council has provided suggested conditions in regard to the future use of the property as an HMO. However, for the reasons given I have determined this appeal on the basis of its lawful use as a C3 Dwellinghouse and consequently the imposition of such conditions is not required.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development does not conflict with the development plan and therefore should be allowed.