Provision of first floor balcony to the rear elevation of the property with access via existing french doors with 1.8 m high privacy screens to both sides so as to reduce overlooking and improve privacy

` Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 December 2025 by Kim Vo MPLAN Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6001168 65 Warren Drive, New Brighton, Wirral CH45 0JP • 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 Ms. Carla Lee against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is APPH/25/00920. • The development proposed is described as the “provision of first floor balcony to the rear elevation of the property with access via existing french doors with 1.8 m high privacy screens to both sides so as to reduce overlooking and improve privacy”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 63 Warren Drive (No. 63) and Number 67 Warren Drive (No. 67), with specific regard to privacy and outlook respectively. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached property, with accommodation in its roof space. To the rear elevation, it includes an existing flat roof, single storey extension, a bay window with French doors at first floor, and a dormer opening onto a balcony above the bay window at second floor. The adjoining property (No. 63) also has a single storey rear extension, with both dwellings sharing long, narrow rear gardens with raised patio areas extending from their respective extensions. No. 63 also has a decked seating area towards the end of the garden. The adjacent dwelling (No. 67) projects significantly further to the rear than the appeal property, resulting in its side elevation windows being visible from the appeal site. It also has a rear patio area. 5. The proposal would create a new first floor rear balcony, positioned close to the shared boundary with No. 63. It would extend across the full footprint of the existing single storey rear extension, with the whole frontage incorporating a glass balustrade. As such, given its proximity, size and design, the proposal would allow the occupiers of the appeal property to have direct views, from an elevated Appeal Decision 6001168 2 position, into No. 63’s rear outdoor areas. This would result in a significant loss of privacy and unacceptably reduce the quality of experience for users of the space. Whilst some overlooking already occurs from the existing rear windows on the appeal property, the proposed balcony would project further forward of these and intensify the degree of overlooking. It would also increase the perception of overlooking towards this neighbour when using their rear patio, garden or decked seating area. 6. The identified harm in terms of loss of privacy could be extended to No. 67’s rear patio and garden, albeit to a lesser degree. This is due to their existing single storey side extension which would provide screening of the proposed balcony. The proposed privacy screens along the side boundaries would be visible from No. 67’s side windows. However, the outlook from these windows is already limited by their position on the side elevation. Some are also obscure glazed, and views from the ground floor side windows are constrained by the high boundary wall. Views from the clear glazed, first floor side windows are similarly restricted, being largely confined to the rear elevations of adjacent properties. As such, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 67, in respect of outlook. 7. The proposed privacy screens, which are limited to the sides only, would not entirely prevent intrusive sightlines from the proposed balcony. Whilst the first floor French doors are an existing feature, they are not currently used as an access due to the difference in floor levels and do not go on to justify the appeal scheme. I saw on my site visit that a balcony has been installed above the bay window and is accessed from the second floor. However, I have no information as to whether this has received planning permission. Whether it does or does not, this would not lessen the identified harm which would be caused by the proposal. 8. For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 63, with specific regard to privacy. Consequently, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policies WD 23 and WD 5 of the Wirral Local Plan 2025; Supplementary Planning Guidance House Extensions 2004; and the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these policies and guidance require all development proposals to take account of the amenity of neighbouring properties. Other Matters 9. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. I am aware that disability is a protected characteristic thereunder. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is also engaged as the proposal could affect the health, wellbeing or quality of life of persons within their home. I am aware of the appellant’s health issues and recognise that the proposal would improve their existing accommodation to support their comfort and care needs. In this regard, the proposal would be beneficial to the appellant’s living conditions. This is a personal circumstance to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal. 10. However, there is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s requirements cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. As such, dismissing this appeal would be proportionate and justified as it would protect the wider public interest in terms of Appeal Decision 6001168 3 the living conditions of the occupiers at No. 63. The personal circumstances put forward in this instance do not outweigh the unacceptable effects of the proposal. 11. The Council’s lack of discussion for amendments to make the appeal scheme acceptable are matters that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here. Whilst some projecting balconies exist nearby, these are not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme, given their positioning, distance away from neighbouring properties and adjacent tall boundary treatments. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. Kim Vo APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR