Appeal 6005242

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for development described as to erect single storey rear extension - the extension will extend 4.79m beyond the original house - the maximum height of the extension will be 3.0m - the height of the extension to the eaves will be 3.0m at [site address] , [address] Liverpool [postcode] in accordance with the application 25PH/2779 and the details submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. Part 1 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 this appeal has been made in the same manner.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the amenity of No. [address], with specific regard to outlook.

The appeal property, No. [site address] , together with its neighbouring property, No. [address], form a pair of semi-detached dwellings characterised by an [name] design. When viewed from public vantage points, both properties appear predominantly as two-storey, flat-roofed buildings, which contribute to a sense of vertical emphasis. To the rear, each property features a single-storey outrigger, with windows located at the ground floor level within the rear elevations.

The proposed development comprises two distinct elements. The first element is a single-storey extension incorporating a curved bay window, reflecting the [name] style of the host property, to the centre of the appeal site. The Council’s officer report raises no concerns regarding this element, particularly due to its separation from the boundary with No. 77. Accordingly, my assessment focuses on the second element of the proposed development. The second element consists of a single-storey rear extension positioned along the boundary shared with No. 77, set slightly behind the bay window projection associated with the first element. Both elements are proposed with flat roofs and would be finished in render to match the existing property, as indicated by the proposed plans.

Near to the boundary with the appeal site, No. 77 contains a rear-facing window. The projection of the proposed extension nearest to this window of No. 77 would extend only a limited distance along the shared boundary, comparable in length to the existing rear outrigger at No. 77. At present, the two properties are separated by a fence. While the proposed development would exceed the height of this existing boundary treatment, the increase in height would not be significantly different overall. I am also drawn to the relatively open nature of the garden of No. 77 and beyond, where the front gardens of the properties located on [address] create an area of openness to the end of this garden space. When collectively considered, these matters would have a limited effect upon the outlook when viewed from within the closest ground floor window of No. 77.

I am also cognisant of the case presented by the appellant which includes a fallback position to construct a similar development, under the permitted development regime. Owing to their similarity of depth, I consider that there is a highly realistic prospect that this alternative scheme would be carried out should this appeal fail. Whilst the fallback scheme would result in a marginally reduced projection compared to the appeal proposal, the difference in overall depth would be negligible, and the resulting impacts would be broadly similar. In this context, I find that there would be little meaningful distinction between the appeal proposal and the fallback position in terms of their effect on outlook from, and the resultant sense of enclosure experienced at the rear of No. 77. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not give rise to materially greater harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 77 than would arise under the identified fallback position.

Therefore, when these abovementioned reasons are collectively considered, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, No. [address]. While there is no statutory requirement to determine the application in accordance with the development plan, in coming to this conclusion I have taken into account Policy H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. This policy seeks for development proposals to be designed so that there shall be no significant reduction in the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, amongst other things.

[name] have described in the Preliminary Matters section above, whilst I note the representations made in response to this application, some of these matters fall outside the scope of which can be considered when determining a proposal under Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Nevertheless, my decision does not remove the burden which falls on the appellant to ensure that, not only does the development comply with all relevant limitations and restrictions set out in the GPDO, it is also carried out in full compliance with other legislation and regulatory regimes such as the Building Regulations and the Party Wall Act.

A representation did suggest the imposition of planning conditions relating to certain matters. However, I do not consider the suggested conditions to be reasonable or necessary in this instance. The use of a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of a [name] would not be justified, having regard to the limited scale of the proposed development. Similarly, a pre-commencement condition preventing the use of the roof area as external amenity space is not considered necessary. There is no readily accessible point of access to the roof of the proposed extension, and the submitted plans contain no indication that the roof would be used for such purposes. Accordingly, any use of this area as amenity space would not accord with the approved plans. Furthermore, a post-completion verification condition would also be unnecessary. The appellant is required to carry out the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any diversion from these plans would result in the development of a scheme which is not in accordance with the approved plans.

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to the conditions in sections A.3 and A.4. This includes the requirement for the exterior materials to be similar to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse and that the development is carried out in accordance with the details and plans submitted as part of the application to the local planning authority. In my view, no further conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of No. [address]. As such, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.