Appeal 6007573

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. I have had due regard to this duty within my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [address] Conservation Area.

[address] Conservation Area (CA) is characterised by substantial properties, predominantly 18th and 19th century villa-style residences, set within generous landscaped plots, enclosed by high stone boundary walls and arranged along mature, tree-lined streets. The significance of the CA is therefore derived from the architectural form of these villas and their spacious, verdant setting.

The appeal property forms an extension to one such villa. This relationship is evident through its physical attachment to the host building and the absence of any boundary treatment separating the two structures. The elevation subject to this appeal features archway details above the doorway, a hipped roof, and brickwork that closely matches the colour and character of the original villa. Although clearly a later addition, the extension incorporates design elements that are sympathetic to the host property. On this basis, the existing extension neither adds to or detracts from the significance of the CA. I consider that the appeal site makes a neutral contribution to the overall character and appearance of the CA.

The host building adjoining the appeal site contains a notable number of windows, in contrast to the more limited fenestration of the appeal property. Although the windows vary in size according to their position and storey, they share a consistent design language, including similarly detailed white framing and a uniform alignment across the elevation. The proposed development would be experienced within this established visual context.

The two proposed patio doors would each be noticeably wider than the ground‐floor openings of the host villa. Their vertical divisions would not correspond with the established alignment of the arched detailing above the principal entrance, resulting in a discordant relationship with this key architectural feature. The large size of the glazing would further accentuate this imbalance when read against the proportions of the host building. In addition, the proposed use of grey powder‐coated aluminium would contrast starkly with the white windows that characterise the villa’s existing fenestration. This material choice would therefore heighten the visual disparity between the extension and the host property. The use of materials, including their colour, make a notable difference to the appearance of a property.

Taken together, the scale, detailing, and materiality of the proposed patio doors would create an awkward and visually intrusive adjunct when viewed from the rear car park and garden area serving the wider site, undermining the coherent appearance of the host villa and the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed entrance door would adopt a distinctly contemporary appearance, characterised by a single, narrow, full‐length glazed panel. This design would be at odds with the traditional doors found on the host villa, which typically incorporate solid decorative panelling to the lower section with multi‐paned glazing above. As a result, the proposed door would fail to reflect the established architectural language of the host property. Its incongruous form would further contribute to the perception of an awkward and visually discordant relationship when viewed from the rear.

It is asserted that the elevation subject to this appeal would not be visible from the public realm or the wider CA. [name] accept that public views are limited, the rear elevation would nevertheless be clearly visible from the car park located to the rear of the site, as well as from the rear garden area serving the wider appeal property. The proposed design would therefore be readily experienced by users of these spaces. A reduced level of visibility from the public realm would not justify or mitigate the impact of the harmful design proposed either.

It is further suggested that grey aluminium windows and doors are not uncommon within the CA, with particular reference made to an example close to the appeal site. However, the evidence provided is limited to a small selection of photographs. No officer report or decision notice has been submitted to explain the rationale for that scheme or to confirm whether the details in question were granted planning permission. Even if full details were available, the existence of a single example would not, in itself, justify replicating a design approach that would otherwise be harmful.

The appellant has proposed several conditions intended to control the detailed design of the development. However, specifying a particular RAL colour for the powder-coated finish would not address the fundamental harm arising from the design itself, nor would it resolve the departure from the white fenestration that characterises the host building. I also note that Condition 2 of the previous permission was sought to be varied through the substitution of approved plans. The use of further conditions requiring the later approval of final window and door details would not overcome the inherent design shortcomings evident in the submitted drawings, which would form the basis of any permission if this appeal were to be allowed.

Comments have been made regarding procurement difficulties in obtaining the previously approved door design. However, given its simplicity and standard form, consistent with the fenestration of the host villa, I am not persuaded by this anecdotal claim. On the evidence before me, there is nothing to indicate that a door of this specification could not reasonably be sourced.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policies UD1, UD7, H7 and HD1 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. These policies seek to ensure that development is of an appropriate design which conserves Liverpool’s historic environment.

The harm to the CA would be less than substantial, at the lower end of that scale, as set out in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework is clear that great weight should be afforded to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that such harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I am cognisant that the proposed development would create a degree of employment for a local tradesman to undertake the proposed development. However, this benefit would be notably limited in both scale and in terms of being a benefit to the public. The changes to the living environment of the appeal site would be a private benefit. In this case, the possible public benefits are extremely limited. They do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character or appearance of the CA. In the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the scheme conflicts with the approach to heritage assets set out in Section 16 of the Framework. As such, the Framework does not lend support to the proposal through the application of the public benefits to this heritage balance.

Furthermore, I consider that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. A decision should therefore be taken in accordance with the

For the reasons given above and in taking all of the material considerations of the proposal into account, the appeal should be dismissed.