Appeal 6006125

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbours.

The appeal property is an ‘L’ shaped suburban bungalow with rooms in the roof located along [address]. [address] is a suburban residential street that skirts around the edges of [address]. As a result, the topography of the street changes quite dramatically over its course and some far reaching views can be obtained over and between houses. For the most part there is a mix of architectural styles but I saw on my site visit that there was a predominance of suburban chalet type bungalows with rooms within the roof. These together with larger detached or semi detached houses would appear to make up much of the character of the area.

The appeal property is one such mid twentieth century bungalow with rooms in the roof. The house is of red brick with stone and timber cladding. It appears to be constructed upon the local red bedrock some of which is visible and forms the front boundary of the property. The existing house has a large, mature garden to the rear and presents a gable to the front with attached garage.

Due to the bedrock and topography the house is set higher than the street and the adjoining garage. This would appear to be around a half a storey higher than the pavement outside the building. Being at the top of the hill here other houses along [address] cascade down the hill, making this site all the more prominent.

The proposal before me seeks to heavily alter the existing bungalow into a large two storey, double gabled house positioned upon the same level. The proposed house would more of less double the height and massing of the existing property Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6006125 through extending upwards. It would also extrude forwards with a jettied gable and extend also to the rear.

The overall design aesthetic of the scheme would create two large glazed gable features which would be framed with cladding panels around their edges. Presumably this would also create a deep reveal and shadow line. This design would be similar, albeit likely larger, than an example nearby on [address].

Much of the justification for this scheme is to help accommodate the needs of a disabled child who lives in the property. In this respect the proposal would contain a physio and sensory room to the ground floor along with a carer/guest bedroom from the entrance hall and wider stairs to accommodate future needs. This ground level would also contain a generous kitchen, dining and living area extending over the rear of the property. Upstairs there would be three bedrooms, all of which would contain a generous dressing area and en suite bathroom, one of which would be a DDA compliant wet room.

In assessing this scheme, I am aware of the Council’s policies UD1 and UD7 of the Liverpool Local Plan that reflect the Framework in their aspiration to achieve good design and well designed places. They also reflect the Framework in the fact that good design reflects places that function well and schemes that reflect an area’s character and context. Similarly, Policy H8 also requires that schemes should not cause detriment to neighbouring properties through overdominance, overlooking or overshadowing. These policy recommendations are reflected in the SPG1 concerned with household extensions1.

Whilst balancing the requirements of the above policies I also give great weight to the need to ensure a comfortable home life for the child whose needs are obviously so paramount in the Appellant’s mind.

Ultimately it seems to me that much of this scheme accommodates the needs of the child living here without the need for such a high scale or mass. For instance, much of the roof form of this proposal is void space and there is much space devoted to large rooms that I see would have no direct benefit to the child. As such I consider that much of the design of this scheme has been dictated by a personal desire for improved space.

Whilst there is nothing untoward about such an approach, I do consider that, in this case, the design brings the proposal into conflict with other important matters, most notably that of the living conditions of neighbours and the effect of the proposal upon the streetscene.

[name] agree that the proposed modern gable interpretation could be made to work in such a context, in this respect the overall scale and massing of the proposal is onerous and would bear little relationship to either the character of the street nor the living conditions of neighbours.

For instance, the scheme would introduce a large double storey wall right against the boundary of number [address] and would then lead up to a high roof form which would dominate this plot. The overall result would be very harmful to the 1 [address] [name] 2001. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6006125 living conditions of the neighbour here who does not benefit from the large garden that the appeal site has.

Coming to the effect of the scheme upon the streetscene, the topography here is important as it makes buildings appear larger or smaller depending on where such structures are situated. In this case, the scheme would already be set high upon a plinth of bedrock to the top of the hill, to such an extent that the existing bungalow already has a striking impact upon the streetscene.

The mass of these proposed extensions would be considerable and made more dominant by the double gable form. As such, this proposal would dominate the streetscene here and would bear little or no contextual relationship to the historic evolution of this street where buildings respond to the topography of the area and are designed more sympathetically as a result.

[name] see the benefits in evolving an architectural language here that reflects both modern design and traditional forms, I consider that the scheme before me would fail to represent good design through its relative ignorance of the context of this site. Due to this there would be harm to the streetscene and the character of the area aswell as to the living conditions of immediate neighbours. I can moreover see no reason why the needs of the child living in this property could not be accommodated within a more sensitive design.

Ultimately therefore this proposal is in conflict with the requirements of Policies H8, UD1 and UD7 of the Liverpool Local Plan as well as that of the Council’s SPD on [name] and the aspirations for good design as contained within the Framework itself. As such this appeal must fail.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area aswell as the living conditions of neighbours. As such, for the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I must dismiss this appeal.