Erection of two storey extensions to the both sides and rear, alterations to the roof, rear dormer extension, incorporating a balcony, a living green wall to form part of rear dormer, and alterations to the rear boundary and landscaping of the dwellinghouse (part retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 13 April 2021 by Sarah Manchester BSc MSc PhD MIEnvSc an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/D/20/3266008 34 St Andrews Road, Crosby, Liverpool, L23 8UB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Sophie Hartley against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2020/01866, dated 17 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 18 November 2020. • The development proposed is erection of two storey extensions to the both sides and rear, alterations to the roof, rear dormer extension, incorporating a balcony, a living green wall to form part of rear dormer, and alterations to the rear boundary and landscaping of the dwellinghouse (part retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two storey extensions to the both sides and rear, alterations to the roof, rear dormer extension, incorporating a balcony, a living green wall to form part of rear dormer, and alterations to the rear boundary and landscaping of the dwellinghouse (part retrospective) in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/2020/01866, dated 17 September 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Ref A001 Rev P01 - Existing Location Plan, 25.01.2019; Ref A301 Rev 14 - Proposed Ground Floor, 18.08.2020; Ref A302 Rev 13 - Proposed Upper Floors, 18.08.2020; Ref A401 Rev 14 - Proposed Front & Rear Elevations, 16.11.2020; Ref A402 Rev 13 - Proposed Side Elevations, 18.08.2020; Ref A004 Rev P06 - Proposed Site Plan, 27.10.2020; Ref A006 Rev P02 - Proposed Boundary Treatments, 27.10.2020; HYVERT - IWantPlants – living wall system specification document, 08.10.2020. 2) The roof area of the extensions at first floor level shall not be used as a balcony, roof terrace, roof garden or other outdoor amenity area. 3) Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the first floor rear Juliet balcony balustrades and the Green Wall (shown on plan Refs A401 Rev 14 - Proposed Front & Rear Elevations and A402 Rev 13 - Proposed Side Elevations) shall be installed and once installed the Juliet balcony balustrades and the Green Wall shall be retained thereafter. 4) The second floor rear terrace shall not be brought into use until the side facing glass balustrades (shown on plan Refs A401 Rev 14 - Proposed Front & Rear Elevations and A402 Rev 13 - Proposed Side Elevations) have been Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/20/3266008 2 fitted with obscure glazing. Once installed, the obscure glazing shall be retained thereafter. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Sophie Hartley against Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matters and Background 3. Planning permission Ref DC/2019/00263 was granted in April 2019 for erection of two-storey extensions to both sides and rear of the property and alterations to the roof incorporating 3 roof lights to the front and dormer extension to the rear with balcony. The permission has been implemented, but the works have not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The appellant sought to address this by application Ref DC/2020/00542 for a non-material amendment, refused in March 2020 on grounds that the amendments were material. A subsequent application Ref DC/2020/00697 for variation of condition 2 pursuant to planning permission DC/2019/00263 to allow alterations and modifications to the original approved design was withdrawn following a resolution by the Council in July 2020 to refuse it. 4. The application subject of the appeal is a resubmission of the withdrawn scheme. It differs from the extant permission in a number of ways including changes to the set back of the side extensions, increase in the size of the rear dormer and the first floor extension, alterations to windows and an extension of the roof area at first floor level to overhang the rear ground floor elevation. The amended plans reflect the development that has been constructed and which the appellant is seeking to retain. I have determined the appeal accordingly. 5. The Council’s reasons for refusal include grounds relating to impacts on the living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers. An attempt was made to arrange access to the neighbouring property to assess the impact, but no response was received and No 36 was unoccupied at the time of my visit. Consequently, I was unable to view the appeal scheme from the neighbouring land. The third party representation includes photographs of the development taken from the neighbouring land and I was able to view the development from near to the shared boundary within the appeal site. I am therefore satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my determination of the appeal on the basis of the representations and what I saw during my visit. Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effects of the development on: i) The character and appearance of the property; and ii) The living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers. Reasons Character and appearance 7. The appeal property is a large 2 storey detached dwelling. It is in a residential area comprising dwellings in a range of sizes and styles, including single storey and 2 storey semi-detached and detached dwellings. The similar palette of Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/20/3266008 3 materials, the set back of properties from the street, and the verdant plots with mature planting result in a relatively harmonious character and appearance. 8. No 34 has a long front elevation facing the street, consisting of the original dwelling with subservient 2 storey side extensions at either end finished in materials to match. Although the side extensions have resulted in a significant increase in the width of the property, nevertheless they relate well to the main front elevation. Therefore, viewed from the front, the development is not discordant and it is not out of keeping with the original dwellinghouse. 9. The rear of the property is overtly contemporary and imposing, being extensively glazed and modular in appearance with the first floor and dormer extensions each set back from the extension below. The extensions are substantially large and they are not finished in materials to match the host property. The development does not respect and it overwhelms the original rear of the property and its roof. However, the individual elements of the development relate well to one another and the high quality design has resulted in a coherent rear elevation. 10. The rear of the property is not visible from St Andrews Road, with only limited oblique views afforded from the public domain. Glimpsed between No 34 and No 36, the rear ground floor extension is hidden behind the tall wall between the properties and the successively smaller rear first floor and dormer extensions appear subservient and they are not prominent. Viewed from locations to the front of No 32 and the intervening open land, the large ground floor extension is partially screened by the close-boarded boundary fence. The side elevation of the first floor extension can be seen, but the materials match the 2 storey gable end of the side extension. Viewed from the side, the development is not prominent or visually obtrusive. Consequently, when viewed from the public domain the development does not appear out of keeping and it does not detract from the appeal property. 11. Therefore, on balance, and taking into account the high quality design and the substantially similar development previously approved, I find that the appeal scheme does not conflict with the design and visual amenity aims of Policies EQ2(3) and HC4 of A Local Plan for Sefton Adopted April 2017 (the LP). These require, among other things, that development should be high quality and it should make a positive contribution to its surroundings. Living conditions 12. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the excessive bulk, scale and massing of the proposal being harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring properties. However, there is little substantive evidence in relation to the particular harm that would arise. Policy HC4 of the LP requires development to avoid a significant reduction in the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to loss of outlook from main windows of neighbouring habitable rooms, loss of light and overshadowing, overbearing effects on habitable rooms and loss of privacy. I will consider each of these in turn. 13. The side elevation of the neighbouring property, No 36, includes a kitchen door and what appears to be a secondary bedroom window. On this basis, although the sideways extension to No 34 reduces the separation distance between the neighbouring gable ends, it does not result in a loss of outlook from the principle windows of habitable rooms. Moreover, even if the neighbouring first Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/20/3266008 4 floor window was a main bedroom window, the extension does not closely approach it such that there would be no significant loss of outlook. 14. By virtue of the orientation of the properties, the increase in 2 storey built development close to the shared boundary will result in an increase in shading to the side of No 36, including its patio area. While the garden of No 36 is large, nevertheless the loss of sunlight to the neighbours’ sitting out area would be detrimental to their living conditions. However, I consider that the original appeal property would already have resulted in some shading to the neighbouring patio, such that the development does not result in significant cumulative detrimental impacts. 15. The submitted photographs illustrate that the development is clearly visible from the patio and rear garden of No 36. Moreover, by virtue of its large size and design, the development is undoubtedly conspicuous. However, No 36 is itself a large detached property in a generous plot and the increase in scale and massing of the appeal property is not overbearing to the neighbouring occupiers. Moreover, the introduction of a green living wall to the side elevation of the first floor extension and boundary treatments would soften the appearance and help mitigate the visual increase in the bulk of the building. 16. The development includes extensive glazing at first and second floor levels. There would be a second floor balcony and the protruding flat roof of the ground floor extension could be used as an outdoor space. Irrespective that there would be no overlooking between neighbouring windows, there would be opportunities to overlook the garden of No 36. However, the balcony would be surrounded by a glass balustrade obscurely glazed to the side to prevent close overlooking into the garden. Juliet balconies would be fitted to the first floor sliding doors in the side extensions to prevent access to the adjoining flat roof. The use of the roof of the ground floor extension as an outdoor area could be controlled by condition. Consequently, there would be no significant increase in overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers of No 36. 17. Therefore, the proposal would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. It would not conflict with the residential amenity aims of Policies EQ2 or HC4 of the LP. Other Matters 18. The detailed third party representation made on behalf of the occupier of No 36 raises concerns including in relation to the development not being built in accordance with the approved plans, the accuracy of the plans and the visual representations, disruption during construction, and the removal of garden planting and the pond. While I understand neighbour’s concerns, the development that has been built is substantially the same as the scheme illustrated on the submitted plans. While I have had regard to the other matters raised, they do not alter my findings in relation to the main issues. Conditions 19. The Council has suggested planning conditions in the event that the appeal was allowed. I have assessed these against the tests set out in Paragraph 55 of the Framework. The development has been carried out such that the standard condition limiting the lifespan of the planning permission is not necessary. However, I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/20/3266008 5 Conditions restricting the use of the ground floor extension roof and securing the Juliet balconies and obscure balustrade glazing are necessary to protect the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. A condition relating to the living green wall is necessary in the interests of visual amenity. Conclusion 20. For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would not conflict with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions. Sarah Manchester INSPECTOR