Demolition of a garage, rear extension and conservatory, and the erection of a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension with no.2 roof lanterns

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: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005709 3 Watergate Lane, Liverpool, L25 8QH • 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 Stephen Harthan against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref is 25H/2626. • The development proposed is the demolition of a garage, rear extension and conservatory, and the erection of a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension with no.2 roof lanterns. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of garage, rear extension and conservatory, and the erection of a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension with no.2 roof lanterns at 3 Watergate Lane, Liverpool, L25 8QH, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25H/2626, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 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 following approved plan: Drawing 02 Rev D. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposed side extension on: • The character and appearance of the Woolton Village Conservation Area, and • The living conditions of the occupiers of No 7 Speke Road by way of outlook. Reasons 3. No 3 Watergate Lane is a detached house situated at the western end of the road, and on its northern side. It has an attached garage on its western side and single- storey extensions at the rear. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the rear extensions and most of the garage, and the construction of a new single-storey rear/side extension with, at the side of the house, a first-floor bedroom above. From the submitted drawing 02 Rev D, it would appear that the western side wall of the garage, which is also the boundary wall with the neighbouring property at No 7 Speke Road, would remain, with the new side extension built up against this wall. Appeal Decision 6005709 2 4. The Council’s decision notice states that the proposed two-storey side extension would result in a loss of light and outlook from the rear elevation windows of No 7 Speke Road (No 7), and would also have an overbearing impact upon its rear amenity space. Concern has also been expressed by neighbours regarding the impact of the proposal on the boundary wall and boundary trees. The boundary between the appeal property and No 7 also marks the boundary of the Woolton Village Conservation Area (CA), with No 7 lying within the CA. 5. 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 either overshadowing or a significant loss of light for neighbours, or an overbearing or over-dominant effect on the habitable rooms or outdoor amenity space of neighbouring properties. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 on New Residential Development (SPG) includes guidance on space around buildings. In this it indicates, with regard to window to wall separation distances, that to avoid excessive overshadowing of main windowed elevations and rear garden elevations, habitable room windowed elevations facing single and two-storey flanked walls should be a minimum distance of 15m apart, with a further 1m for each additional 1m change in level between affected walls. Non-habitable room windows facing a two-storey gable end should be a minimum distance of 7m apart. Character and appearance. 7. The Council considers that the design of the extensions would cause no harm to the setting of the CA since the development entirely affects a property within a twentieth century housing estate which lies outside the Conservation Area. Moreover, the proposed extensions would not affect views within or into the Conservation Area or otherwise impinge on its setting. I concur with that view. 8. With regard to the impact on trees within the rear garden of No 7, which overhang into the appeal property, I note that the rear garden of No 7 is around 1 metre above the level of the appeal property, and that the proposed development would be highly unlikely to impact upon the root systems of the trees which, as acknowledged by a tree specialist, show no indication of encroachment into the appeal site. I acknowledge that the proposed development would appear to necessitate some cutting back of those branches of boundary trees which overhang the appeal property. However, the trees are protected by virtue of being located within the CA and so separate permission would be required for any works to the trees, and the Council would have control over how this should be done. 9. On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposal would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the CA, and would not conflict with national policy on heritage assets as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Living conditions 10. No 7 is located to the west of the appeal site. Watergate Lane slopes down significantly from west to east such that No 7 would appear to be at a level of around 1 metre above the appeal site at the joint boundary. The house itself is further elevated above the rear garden and so the difference in levels between the houses at No 7 and the appeal property would likely be approaching 2 metres. Appeal Decision 6005709 3 11. There is a row of trees along the rear boundary of No 7, with a height of around 4 metres. These effectively form a solid visual barrier between the two properties above the boundary wall. The result is that there is little view of the appeal property from the ground floor of No 7, and a view only of its roof from the first-floor. From my site visit, those first-floor windows in No 7 that would be affected most directly by the proposed side extension, by way of overshadowing and outlook, would serve a landing. Views from the ground-floor would remain largely obscured by the boundary trees, as at present. 12. The window to wall distance between the properties at first-floor level is currently a little over 15 metres. Construction of the proposed first-floor extension at the appeal property would reduce this to around 12.3 metres which would be substandard according to the guidance contained in the SPG. However, I note that the SPG also indicates that a further 1 metre separation will be required for each additional 1 metre change in level between affected walls. I take this to refer to an increase in the level. By way of corollary, it would seem reasonable to assume that for every decrease in level by 1 metre the separation distance could be reduced by 1 metre. In addition, the SPG indicates that non-habitable room windows facing a two-storey gable end should be a minimum distance of 7 metres apart. 13. In the light of the above, I note that the separation distances between the windowed rear elevation in No 7 and the side wall of the proposed extension at the appeal property would be substandard in regard to the guidance in the SPG but, since the appeal property lies substantially below the level of No 7, this would only be by a very small degree. Moreover, with regard to the non-habitable room windows in the first-floor at No 7, the separation distance would be more than adequate. Finally, the existence of the substantial screening effect of the boundary trees would ensure that the proposed extension would be barely visible from No 7. Only the hipped roof of the extension would effectively be visible, and this would be relatively low and sloping away from the boundary. It would not appear oppressive and would not result in any significant overshadowing. Conclusion 14. I find that the proposed side extension would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the CA. In addition, there would not be a significant reduction in the living conditions of the occupiers of No 7, by way of overshadowing or significant loss of light nor, because of the substantial tree screen, the differences in levels, and the separation distances, would the extension have an overbearing or over- dominant effect on the habitable rooms or outdoor amenity space of the neighbouring property. It would not, on this basis, conflict with Policy H8 of the LP or with guidance in the SPG. Accordingly I allow this appeal. Conditions 15. I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR