Erection of a single-storey extension to side and rear following the demolition of the existing rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2026 by J D Westbrook BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005427 78 Victoria Road, Aigburth, Liverpool, L17 6DJ • 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 Paul Symons against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref is 25H/3135 • The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey extension to side and rear following the demolition of the existing rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The appellant has provided alternative descriptions of the proposed development. I have taken the one used in the Council’s decision notice as the most accurate description of the proposal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 76 Victoria Road by way of outlook. Reasons 4. No 78 is an end-terraced house situated on the eastern side of Victoria Road. It is the northernmost house in a terrace of three. In common with the other houses in the terrace, it has a two-storey outrigger nearly 4 metres in length. It also has a flat- roofed rear extension, beyond the outrigger, some 3 metres long and set in around 0.5 metres from the side elevation of the outrigger. The existing rear extension is around 1.5 metres from the side boundary with the neighbouring No 76. 5. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing rear extension and the construction of a new side and rear extension, to wrap around the two-storey outrigger, thereby infilling the existing space to the side of the outrigger and projecting 3 metres beyond its rear elevation. 6. The Council contends that the proposed extension, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, height, and siting in close proximity to the shared boundary, would give rise to an overbearing and enclosing impact on ground-floor habitable room windows and rear amenity space at No 76 Victoria Road, resulting in a restricted outlook, and introducing an unacceptable sense of enclosure, harmful to the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6005427 2 7. Policy H8 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) indicates that extensions to dwellings will be approved where, amongst other things, they are designed so that there shall be no significant reduction in the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In particular, extensions must not result in an overbearing or over- dominant effect on the habitable rooms or outdoor amenity space of neighbouring properties. 8. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No 1 on House Extensions (SPG) requires that house extensions should not overshadow or have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties. In particular, to ensure that extensions do not have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties to the detriment of residential amenity, planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions which project in excess of 3 metres from the original rear main wall of the dwelling where it abuts the party boundary. 9. The appellant claims that the extension would project only 3 metres from the original rear wall of the house and that it would be only 3 metres high at the side boundary. On this basis he contends that it would not give rise to significant or unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential amenity. 10. The terrace of three houses, of which the appeal property is a part, all have long two-storey rear outriggers around 4 metres in depth. The plots are narrow, and the rear outriggers at No 78 and 76 combine to leave a space little more than 2 metres wide between the houses. Both houses have a ground-floor habitable room window in the main rear elevation, each of which has an outlook constrained by the narrow channel between the outriggers. In addition, No 76 appears also to have a kitchen window in the side elevation of the rear outrigger which looks out directly onto the neighbouring outrigger at No 78. 11. The proposed extension would result in a blank wall, 3 metres high and almost 7 metres deep projecting along the boundary with No 76. This would have a significant adverse impact on the outlook from both ground-floor windows in No 76. In addition, the direct outlook from the window in the rear elevation of the main part of the house at No 76, is currently somewhat curtailed by the gable wall of the house at the rear. The extra light and perception of space obtained by virtue of the current situation, with the outrigger at No 78 being set away from the boundary and the rear extension set further away still, would effectively be lost, thereby exacerbating the existing limited outlook from No 76. 12. The appellant contends that the extension would be little higher than would be the case with a 2 metre high boundary wall. However, given the current situation with regard to prospect, I consider that a 1 metre increase, sited along the boundary, would be significantly harmful to outlook and would appear as overbearing and over-dominant, particularly when combined with its length. 13. The appellant also contends that the proposal only extends 3 metres beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling, and that it closely reflects development that could ordinarily be carried out under Schedule 2, of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). However, Technical Guidance to the Permitted Development Rights for Householders states that where the original rear wall of a house is stepped, then each of these walls will form ‘the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse’. On this basis, the proposed extension would extend some 7 metres beyond the original Appeal Decision 6005427 3 wall and, even if reduced in size, might still be subject to prior approval measures. In any case, I have considered this case on its own merits, as submitted. Conclusion 14. I find that the proposed extension, by reason of its position, height and length, would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 76 Victoria Road, by way of outlook. On this basis, it would conflict with Policy H8 of the LP and with guidance in the SPG. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR