Appeal 6005372

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of their submission, the appellant has provided amended plans which include the provision of a full-length window opening in the proposed west facing elevation, to serve a bedroom. This opening would face towards the rear elevations of the adjacent properties on [address].

The procedural guidance1 explains that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same proposal that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. However, I have considered whether to accept the amended plans.

Having regard to case law, I am mindful that the interested parties most likely to be affected by the amended proposal may not be aware that amended plans have been submitted with the appeal. Consequently, they may not have had the opportunity to make representations on any potential impacts arising from the amended scheme. I therefore cannot be certain that accepting these amended plans as part of this appeal would not be prejudicial to interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal against the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; • whether the development would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight; 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) • the effect of the proposal on protected species; • whether the development would deliver an appropriate level of open space and outdoor sports provision; and • whether the development would provide adequate access.

The proposed single-storey dwelling would be sited within the rear garden area of the property at no.[address] (no. 30). It would represent a backland development situated between the rears of the dwellings fronting onto [address] and [address].

The Council have referred to Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 Backland Development (SPG), which is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal. In particular my attention has been drawn to criterion (ii) within the general guidelines for backland development which details how “...dwellings should be erected on plots generally larger than prevailing plot sizes for similar development (e.g. detached, semi-detached) in the immediate vicinity.” The SPG does not however provide any specific justification or reason as to why backland dwellings should be erected on plots generally larger than the prevailing plot sizes for similar development in the vicinity.

Nevertheless, I observed on site that the residential streets of [address] and [address] are generally characterised by two-storey detached and semi-detached properties, although [address] does include some detached bungalows, including the dwelling at no.30. The pattern of development in this area is characterised by the linear arrangement of houses fronting onto the street, with long rear gardens creating a significant separation distance between the rear elevations of the properties. Furthermore, these long rear garden areas also result in the plots having a low building footprint to plot size ratio, which contributes to the spacious character of the area.

The proposed dwelling would be sited on a more confined plot than other detached dwellings in the area. I acknowledge that the appellant has provided information in respect of similar plot sizes to that of the appeal proposal within the vicinity. However, these comparable plot sizes mainly relate to semi-detached dwellings rather than detached properties.

In any case, I find the footprint of the proposed dwelling would occupy a significant proportion of the appeal plot and therefore the building footprint to plot size ratio would not reflect that of the nearby properties. Furthermore, the proposed short rear garden depth for the proposed dwelling would be at odds with the long rear garden lengths of other properties on [address] and [address].

In addition, very limited space would be provided to the sides of the proposed dwelling, with the northern side elevation in particular being sited very close to the shared side boundary. This would result in the dwelling appearing visually cramped within the appeal plot.

In coming to this view, I acknowledge that there are examples of properties in the area which have limited gaps to their side boundary. However, they do still provide a gap, whereas the proposed northern elevation would be sited very close to its side boundary. I am also aware that views of the appeal dwelling from public vantage points would be limited given its proposed position behind existing dwellings. Nevertheless, the proposed dwelling would be visible from the rears of a number of nearby residential properties and would also be partially visible from [address] through the gap provided by the access.

In view of all the above, I find that this proposed backland development would not reflect the existing grain and linear pattern of development in this area. Furthermore, the confined layout and nature of the proposal would be at odds with the spacious character of the surrounding development.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Wirral Local Plan 2022 – 2040 (2025) (Local Plan) Policy WS 7, where it seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development positively enhances the character, appearance and setting of the surrounding area. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where it seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and maintains a strong sense of place, using spaces to create attractive places.

The plans considered by the Council at the planning application stage do not include any windows or external openings serving one of the proposed bedrooms. Consequently, the occupants of this bedroom would not be provided with an outlook, or any sunlight or daylight.

I therefore find that the proposed development, as shown on the plans considered by the Council, would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight received within one of the proposed bedrooms. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with Local Plan Policy WD 23, where it seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that proposals provide adequate sunlight, daylight and open aspects to all parts of the development. The proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of the Framework where it seeks to ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal relates to the rear garden area of a residential dwelling, largely consisting of lawned grass, trees and flowers.

The appeal proposal is supported by a [name] Appraisal2 (PEA) which recorded no evidence of protected species during the site walkover. However, at Section 5, the submitted PEA does state that there is some evidence of protected species on the site, which could be affected by the development. This section of the PEA goes on to explain that the extent of protected species requires additional surveys to be completed before mitigation can be proposed to support this development and that upon completion of these surveys’ mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures can be provided and confirmed. 2 [name] ([name]) – [name]. 05.12.2012 – Prepared by AMENITYTREE

With regard to these additional works and surveys recommended within the PEA, I consider it reasonable that the prestart walkover to confirm if any recent excavations are classed as badger setts, as well as the precautionary bird breeding appraisal prior to the removal of any trees, could be secured by way of suitably worded planning conditions should I be minded to allow the appeal. The provision of [name] in respect of amphibians and reptiles could also be secured via conditions.

However, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitat Regulations) impose a duty on me to consider whether [name] (EPS) would be affected by the development. All bat species are designated and protected as EPS and are protected under the Habitat Regulations.

I acknowledge the PEA recorded no evidence of bats during the site walkover. It does however recommend a Ground Level Tree Inspection is undertaken to assess the bat roost suitability of the trees to be removed and that further aerial inspections may also be required to examine [name] within these trees, with subsequent bat emergence surveys potentially required after these inspections.

As such, in the absence of these additional bat inspection works recommended within the PEA being undertaken prior to determination of this appeal, I cannot rule out that the trees to be felled do not have the potential to be used as a habitat or roost by bats. Therefore, on the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the proposed development would not cause harm to an EPS, or whether any such harm could be appropriately mitigated.

I note the appellant has suggested that a condition could be used to ensure that these inspections are undertaken prior to commencing any works on site. However, such an approach would fail to ensure that all relevant material considerations are addressed in making a decision. Furthermore, the presence of bats within these trees could impact on the ability to undertake the proposed development.

As such, I conclude there is insufficient information before me to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm to protected species, specifically bats. The proposal therefore conflicts with [name] 5 and WD 3 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that impacts to protected species are avoided, mitigated or compensated where appropriate. Furthermore, in the absence of this information I cannot be sure the proposal accords with paragraph 193 (a) of the Framework, which states that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

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, 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 contribution3 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 expressed a willingness to make this financial contribution and enter into a legal agreement to secure its provision. However, the planning obligations section of the procedural guidance 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.

The Council’s reason for refusal in respect of this main issue includes Local Plan Policy WD 10, which relates to development in primarily residential areas. However, the Council’s submissions do not draw my attention to any specific part of this policy that the proposal would conflict with, and I note that this policy does not specifically refer to the provision of open space and appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. On the information before me, I therefore find that this policy is not determinative in respect of this main issue.

The Council’s first reason for refusal on the decision notice refers to the failure of the proposal to provide adequate access. The Council’s submissions do not however appear to identify any specific harm arising from this, other than that the proposal would fail to comply with the guidance at criterion (vii) of the SPG which seeks to ensure a minimum distance of 4m should be provided between the access strip and the blank gable or windows to non-habitable rooms of the frontage dwelling. The SPG states that this is to ensure the access must not significantly affect the amenity of existing dwellings through noise, general disturbance and loss of privacy.

Whilst acknowledging that the proposed access would not adhere to this guidance in the SPG in relation to the neighbouring properties either side at no.29 and no.[address], the Council’s Officer Report details that the windows in the side elevations of these properties are obscurely glazed. The Council go onto state that the number of vehicle movements associated with one dwelling would be low, before concluding that the appeal proposal would not be sufficiently detrimental to neighbouring occupiers.

Moreover, I saw that this is an existing access serving the rear of no.30 and vehicles were parked on it during my visit. It is therefore currently in use, and it is not uncommon for residential properties to have an access or driveway serving a neighbouring property adjacent to their side boundary. I therefore find that use of the access to serve one 3 [name] - £2,756 and [name] - £228.75 dwelling would not have a harmful impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers through noise, general disturbance and loss of privacy. In addition, I note that the Council’s Highway Officer raised no objection to the suitability of the use of this existing access to serve the proposed dwelling from a highway safety perspective.

As such, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I conclude that the access for the proposed dwelling would be adequate and complies with the relevant sections of Local Plan Policies WS 7 and WD 23, where they seek to ensure, amongst other things, that developments provide an appropriate standard of highway access and avoid unnacceptable nuisance and disturbance for neighbouring uses.

For the reasons given above, I have found that the proposed development would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area and would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers. Furthermore, there is insufficient information before me to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause harm to protected species, specifically bats, and in the absence of the secured financial contribution the proposed development would fail to deliver 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. However, I attribute limited weight to the provision of one additional dwelling.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction 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.

The proposal would also provide the opportunity to increase biodiversity on the appeal site. However, given the scale of the development site, I attribute the environmental benefits limited weight in favour of the proposal.

In view of the above, whilst I have found that there would be some limited 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.