Basement and ground floor level infill extension with associated amendment to roof profile
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Trees & Landscape
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 1 September 2025
by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 16 September 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/D/25/3369667
Three Stumps, Old Chester Road, Helsby, Frodsham, WA6 9PL
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Simon Fagan against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council.
• The application Ref is 24/03550/FUL.
• The development proposed is a basement and ground floor level infill extension with associated
amendment to roof profile.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a basement and
ground floor level infill extension with associated amendment to the roof profile at
Three Stumps, Old Chester Road, Helsby, Frodsham WA6 9PL in accordance with
the terms of the application, Ref 24/03550/FUL, and the plans submitted with it,
subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plan: Drawing - Location, Existing and Proposed Plan
and Elevations.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Main Issue
2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
Reasons
3. The appeal property, (Three Stumps), is a large detached property sited along the
northern edge of the cliffside of Helsby Hill. It is set back from and in an elevated
position, above Old Chester Road, well screened by extensive shrubbery and trees.
The properties along Old Chester Road vary in style, design and age and as a
result there is no particular symmetry or uniformity between them in this location.
4. Due to the topography of the site, the property is designed so that it is split across
three levels and the proposal would see the infilling of the existing dwelling with the
Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/25/3369667
2
extension elements of the proposal located on the inner side of the existing ‘L’
shaped property within the site and set back from its existing northwest facing part.
The new roof would not increase the height of the property and the resultant front
elevation would be largely symmetrical with the middle gable clearly subservient to
two outer gables thus providing balance. The particular circumstances of the design
and siting of the existing property and the manner in which the extensions have
been designed to relate to the existing front gable and land levels mean that the
extensions would appear as a modern addition of good design to the property.
Given the land levels, the character of the property would not be overwhelmed by
the proposal, nor would the alterations be negatively perceived as incongruous.
5. Owing to the extensive tree screening and elevated position of Three Stumps, its
front elevation cannot be readily seen in public views. The visual impact of the
proposal would be limited to within the site itself and glimpsed views of the upper
parts of the western elevation obtained from vantage points to the west along Old
Chester Road. The Council raise concerns as to an increased visibility of the
resultant dwelling alongside the cliffside. However, due to its elevated and well
screened position, it would have, in my view, a very limited visual impact on the
cliffside, the streetscene and the wider area.
6. Whilst the proposal would incorporate large areas of floor to ceiling glazing, large
picture windows are a common feature amongst several properties in the
surrounding area. The proposed glazing would create a more contemporary style in
fenestration details to that of neighbouring properties. Given the varied character of
the streetscene, the elevated position of Three Stumps and its limited visibility, I
find no harm with this approach.
7. I note that the Council does not raise any concerns with regard to the amenity of
the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and that no concerns are raised with
regard to parking and highway issues. Nor are any issues raised in respect of any
unacceptable impact in relation to trees within the site. I agree with these
assessments.
8. The design of the resulting dwelling is individual and would be a departure from the
existing L shaped footprint. However it would not be harmful to the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such I find no conflict with Policy
ENV6 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) and Policies DM3
and DM21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two). Together
these policies require development to respect and be in keeping with the character
and visual amenity of the area. The development would not also conflict with the
overall aims of the Council’s House Extensions and Outbuildings Supplemental
Planning Document SPD which allows for proposals to be considered on a case by
case basis taking account of local circumstances. Nor would it conflict with Policy
HNPH5 of the Helsby Neighbourhood Plan which requires the scale, height and
form of development to sit unobtrusively within the character of the streetscene.
Conditions and Conclusion
9. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have specified the approved plan
as this provides certainty. To ensure a satisfactory appearance I have included a
condition requiring matching materials.
Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/25/3369667
3
10. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in
the formal decision notice above.
K Winnard
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.