Two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by Carol Evans MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000904 83 Brookdale Avenue South, Greasby CH49 1SP • 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 Carly Hughes against the decision of Wirral Council. • The application Ref is APPH/25/00401. • The development proposed is two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The appellant has submitted amended plans with the appeal. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve proposals. Revisions to overcome reasons for refusal should normally be tested through the planning application process. 3. The amendments to the plans include a smaller footprint to the proposal, lower ridge height, hipped roof and removal of a balcony. This is supported by a new Daylight and Sunlight Report. Collectively, these result in a scheme which is materially different from that determined by the Council. Interested parties have not been given an opportunity to make representations on these amendments. As a result, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans on which the Council made its decision. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area; and • living conditions of the residents of Raines Close. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located in a predominantly residential area, characterised mostly by detached dwellings. These are relatively uniform in appearance, with some alterations visible. The appeal dwelling occupies an end plot of Brookdale Avenue South. Adjoining properties on Raines Close, which back onto the appeal property are semi-detached. Appeal Decision 6000904 2 6. The proposal is for a two-storey side extension, which would largely fill the full width of the plot. The significant mass and bulky appearance of the proposal would be an obtrusive and over-dominant addition to the host dwelling. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to the size of the plot or relate well with the street scene. 7. The ground floor of the proposed extension would not be setback from the front of the property. As a result, it would not appear subordinate to or complement the character of the host dwelling. This would be an incongruous addition, which would be at odds with other properties in the area. 8. The proposal would meet some guidelines outlined in the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), including matching materials to the host dwelling and a lower ridgeline. These features, however, do not overcome the harm to the character and appearance of the area, as outlined above. 9. For the reasons highlighted above, I conclude that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. It conflicts with Policy WD5 of the Wirral Local Plan (Local Plan) criteria, which require proposals for residential extensions to demonstrate that the scale and design is appropriate within the street scene. Other criteria include for proposals to be subordinate and complement the character of the existing building and be set back from the street frontage. Living conditions 10. At the rear of the property, the proposed extension would project out beyond the current build line of the host dwelling and would be located in close proximity to the boundary line of adjoining properties. As a result, there would be a substantial block of development, that would be overbearing and cause a sense of enclosure for adjoining dwellings. This would harm the outlook from adjoining properties of 4 and 6 Raines Close. Whilst the existing garage is located close to the boundary wall, this is single storey in height and so has a less dominant visual impact when viewed from neighbouring properties. 11. The proposed extension features a balcony with a substantial amount of glazing on the first floor of the rear elevation. The proximity of the proposal to the boundary line would result in a significant loss of privacy from the resultant overlooking for residents of 6, 8 and 10 Raines Close. 12. The proposed extension would be located to the southeast of the properties on Raines Close. The proposed height and mass of the extension would have an adverse effect on the levels of daylight and sunlight in the gardens and habitable rooms of adjoining properties. Whilst the appellant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight Report, it is for an amended proposal of smaller scale and mass and consequently does not accurately assess the impact the proposal which I have considered in respect of this appeal. 13. The House Extensions SPG advises that proposals for extensions should not be visually overbearing or dominant or cause significant levels of visual intrusion. Existing levels of sunlight, daylight and privacy should not be significantly altered. Balconies are not acceptable if they result in an increase in overlooking to an unacceptable degree. The proposal achieves the recommended distance of 14m between habitable room windows and blank walls; however, this does not overcome the harm to outlook identified above. Appeal Decision 6000904 3 14. On this basis, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the living conditions of the residents of Raines Close. On this basis, the proposal conflicts with policies WD5 and WD23 of the Local Plan, which requires proposals to have regard to impact on amenity of neighbouring properties, provide adequate sunlight and daylight, avoid overlooking and loss of privacy and not result in overbearing or overly enclosed development. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Carol Evans INSPECTOR