To remove existing uPVC conservatory to rear and construct a single storey rear / side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 November 2025 by E Fawcett BA (Jt Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000993 56 Vyner Road, Liscard, Wirral CH45 6TF • 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 Colin Hardy against the decision of Wirral Council. • The application Ref is APPH/25/01114. • The development proposed is described as “to remove existing uPVC conservatory to rear and construct a single storey rear / side extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the existing rear conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, re-roofing of existing side extension including parapet wall and insertion of window to side elevation at 56 Vyner Road, Liscard, Wirral CH45 6TF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APPH/25/01114, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LP1 (Location Plan); SP1 (Existing and Proposed Site Plans); EL1/PL1 (Existing and Proposed Layouts); and PS1 (Proposed Section Details). Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development on the application form does not include the re-roofing of the existing side extension, a parapet wall, and the insertion of a window to the side elevation. The Council revised the description of development to include these elements. These are clearly shown on the plans before me and the appellant has acknowledged these on the appeal form. Therefore, I consider the development to be as described in the decision, and I am satisfied that the cases of the main parties would not be prejudiced by using this description. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupants of 54 Vyner Road, with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision 6000993 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling which adjoins 54 Vyner Road (No 54). The rear gardens of these properties are divided by a timber fence, and No 54 has a large ground floor window in the rear wall close to the shared boundary. The proposal seeks to replace the existing conservatory with a larger rear extension. This extension would sit closer to the boundary, project slightly further from the rear wall, and would be higher than the current conservatory. Its roof would slope downwards, away from the dwelling, from just below the upper‑floor window. 5. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions (2004) states that single storey rear extensions should not project more than 3 metres from the original rear wall where they are within 1 metre of the boundary. This is intended to ensure that extensions do not dominate or significantly alter the existing levels of sunlight, privacy and daylight to adjoining properties. 6. The Council refused the application on the grounds of harm to the outlook from No 54. Whilst the proposed extension would be higher and of a more solid construction than the conservatory, its sloping roof design would minimise its impact on outlook from both the dwelling and rear garden of the neighbouring property. Furthermore, due to the width of the nearest window and the size of the garden at No 54, the extension would not appear overbearing or visually intrusive. Although the depth of the extension exceeds the 3-metre guideline, for the reasons above, it would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 54. 7. I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 54, with particular regard to outlook. As such, it would not conflict with Policies WD5 and WD23 of the Wirral Local Plan 2022 - 2040, which collectively seek to ensure that the scale and design of proposals is appropriate having regard to the amenity of neighbouring properties and they do not result in overbearing or overly enclosed development which materially harms the outlook of neighbouring properties. Conditions 8. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. E Fawcett INSPECTOR