Erection of additional storey to create first floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2026 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005141 52 Hertford Drive, Wallasey, CH45 7PX • 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. Stephen Walker against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is APPH/25/01123. • The development proposed is erection of additional storey to create first floor. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed for the erection of additional storey to create first floor at 52 Hertford Drive, Wallasey, CH45 7PX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APPH/25/01123 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out below: 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 approved plans: Location Plan; Site Location Plan Drawing No: W01- E3C-04-00G-DR-B-001; Ground Floor Proposed Plan Drawing No: SW01- E3C-20-00L-DR-B-2001; Frist Floor Proposed Plan Drawing No; SW01-E3C- 20-01L-DR-B-2002; Proposed Elevation A/B Drawing No: SW01-E3C-20- ELA-DR-B-2004; Proposed Elevation C/D Drawing No: W01-E3C-20-ELC- DR-B-2005; Existing and Proposed Windows Improved Daylight Conditions Drawing No: SW01-E3C-20-ELC-DR-B-2006; and Roof Proposed Plan Drawing No: SW01-E3C-20-RFL-DR-B-2003. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the hereby approved development shall match that of the existing built form. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property occupies a prominent position within the streetscene and benefits from views across the Mersey. It is a distinctive single-storey dwelling Appeal Decision 6005141 2 featuring a castellated roof form which differs from many of the surrounding properties. The area is predominantly residential in character, although there is considerable variation in the age, design, scale and appearance of dwellings. As a result, there is no strong or consistent architectural theme which dictates a uniform approach to extensions and alterations. 4. Whilst the proposal would introduce additional first-floor accommodation, I note that the majority of surrounding properties are already of two-storey form. Accordingly, the principle of a first-floor addition would not appear out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed upper floor would be set back from the principal elevation, reducing its visual prominence when viewed from the public vantage points. 5. Given the varied architectural character of the locality, I do not consider that the proposed first-floor addition would appear incongruous or discordant within its surroundings. The castellated form is an established feature of the host dwelling and would provide continuity in its architectural expression. Whilst the property occupies a visually prominent location, the proposed development would be read as an extension of the existing building which does not distract from the existing building. 6. Taking these matters together, I find that the proposal would respond satisfactorily to the varied character of the area and would not result in harm to the appearance of the street scene or wider locality. 7. I conclude that the proposed development does not harm the character and appearance of host property and surrounding area in general. There is no conflict with Policies WD 5 and WD 23 of the Wirral Local Plan 2022-2040 (2025) (the Local Plan) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments are of good design and appropriate to character of the area. 8. There is also no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings. Living Conditions 9. No. 51 Radnor Drive lies adjacent to the appeal property and is currently dominated by the presence of a substantial wall hard up to the shared boundary associated with the appeal site. Due to its height and proximity, the existing wall already forms a dominant feature when viewed from parts of the neighbouring property. 10. The proposal would alter this relationship. Rather than retaining the existing vertical form, the development would introduce a single-pitch roof which would slope away from the shared boundary. As a consequence, the height of built development closest to No. 51 would be reduced in comparison to the existing wall structure, thereby lessening its visual mass and dominance. 11. Having regard to the reduction in height adjacent to the boundary and the sloping roof design, I find that the proposal would not create an undue sense of enclosure or an overbearing effect. Indeed, the development would improve aspects of the existing relationship by reducing the extent of the vertical built form facing the neighbouring property. Appeal Decision 6005141 3 12. I have also considered the potential effects on daylight and outlook. Given the reduced height adjacent to the boundary and the roof's angled profile, I am satisfied that any impact would be limited and would not materially diminish the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No. 51. 13. I have also considered the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of other neighbouring properties. Whilst the additional storey would inevitably be visible from a number of surrounding dwellings, visibility alone does not equate to harm. Owing to the separation distances between the appeal property and neighbouring dwellings, together with the scale and design of the proposed extension, I am satisfied that it would not give rise to an undue sense of enclosure, unacceptable overlooking or a material loss of daylight or outlook. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties generally. 14. There is no conflict with Policies WD 5 and WD 23 of the Local Plan which amongst other things seek to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 15. There is no conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users. Conclusion and conditions 16. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. 17. I have imposed a standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area I have imposed a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Chris Pipe INSPECTOR