Conversion and extension of an existing dwelling to create usable second storey space, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/2021/00751, dated 14 May 2021

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by J Smith MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Thursday 4 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006963 24 Poplar Avenue, Crosby L23 2SU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Steven Bolger against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/2025/01624. • The application sought planning permission for conversion and extension of an existing dwelling to create usable second storey space, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/2021/00751, dated 14 May 2021. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 110 Rev 3 - Location plan and site plan 111 - Existing plans 112 Rev 3 - Proposed floor plans 113 Rev 3 - Proposed elevations • The reason given for the condition is: For the avoidance of doubt. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion and extension of an existing dwelling to create usable second storey space at 24 Poplar Avenue, Crosby L23 2SU in accordance with the application Ref DC/2025/01624, without compliance with condition No. 2, previously imposed on planning permission Ref DC/2021/00751 dated 14 May 2021 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: • Drawing 110 REV 5 (Proposed Site, Block and Location Plan) • Drawing 112 REV 5 (Proposed Plans) • Drawing 113 REV 5 (Proposed Elevations) 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development must be of similar appearance to those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form states that the development had commenced but was not yet complete. However, during my site visit, the extension subject to this appeal appeared to be fully constructed and broadly consistent with the submitted plans. I have therefore considered the appeal on a retrospective basis. Appeal Decision 6006963 2 3. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to development already carried out, including development carried out without complying with a condition subject to which planning permission was granted, as is the case for this appeal. An approval of a S73A application effectively creates a new planning permission, with the extant approval remaining intact. 4. The appeal site is located within the Moor Park Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. I have had due regard to this duty within my decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the revised design upon the character and appearance of the Moor Park Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 6. The Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the defining characteristics of the CA, noting strong evidence of Garden Suburb principles in its planning and layout. This is reflected in the informal, winding street pattern, broad grass verges without kerbs, and the abundance of trees and hedges, with buildings set well back within generous plots. Collectively, these features create a sense of openness. The Appraisal also highlights that buildings are predominantly individually designed or form part of small, coherent groups. Taken together, the significance of the CA is derived from its spacious layout, its verdant character, and the individuality of the properties within it. 7. When viewed from Poplar Avenue, No. 24 presents as a detached bungalow set well back from the highway and enclosed by trees and hedging. From public vantage points, it appears as an unassuming building due to its single-storey form, its set back position among larger two-storey properties and established boundary planting. As a result, the appeal property makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA overall. 8. The development under consideration comprises a two‑storey rear extension with a mansard‑style roof. Given that the host property is predominantly single‑storey, the increased height and massing mean that the extension cannot be regarded as subservient. However, its impact is mitigated by its position to the rear, where visibility is limited. Although Poplar Avenue curves around the side of the appeal site, views of the extension are substantially screened by the dense, leafy boundary planting in this location. I am also mindful that, as these trees lie within the CA, they benefit from a degree of protection and are therefore likely to remain in place, continuing to restrict visibility. 9. Nevertheless, I recognise that the boundary planting will not provide the same level of screening throughout the year, particularly during the winter months when it is not in leaf. During these periods, a side-on view of the extension would be available, and its height and form would be more readily perceived. It is also relevant that the rear boundary of the appeal site adjoins The Tithebarn Retirement Home, from where the development, particularly when viewed from the car park area, would be more visible. However, these viewpoints are not among the most publicly accessible within the CA overall. Appeal Decision 6006963 3 10. During my site visit, I observed that the CA contains a wide variety of architectural designs and roof forms, as noted in the Appraisal. While gabled and hipped roofs are the most prevalent, other forms, including mansard, flat, catslide and dome roofs, are also present alongside taller tower strictures. In most cases, these neighbouring properties are more visually prominent from within the CA than the appeal proposal. The appellant has provided several examples of mansard roofs within the CA. Although most of these are single-storey and therefore less visually pronounced than the appeal scheme, their presence, alongside other atypical roof forms such as catslide and dome roofs, contributes to an environment in which such variations in roof design and a change in the heights of one building are not unexpected. 11. Taking the above factors into account, I conclude that, on balance, the development preserves the significance of the CA. The limited degree of visibility, combined with the strong variation in architectural design and roof forms within the CA, means that the proposal does not undermine its character or appearance, where it is seen. The scheme therefore satisfies the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework, and does not conflict with Policies EQ2, NH9 and NH12 of the Sefton Local Plan 2017, which collectively seek development that responds positively to local character and distinctiveness and is sympathetic to established patterns of development within conservation areas. Other Matters 12. An interested party has suggested that the property could be subdivided into two residential units. However, this appeal, and the planning application from which it arises, relates solely to an amended design to a previously approved scheme. No permission has been sought for the subdivision of the property, and such a proposal would require a separate application. Conditions 13. A revised plans condition [1] has been included for the avoidance of doubt. The PPG makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under Section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. I have therefore imposed a materials condition [2] to ensure that the appropriate materials are retained for the lifetime of the development. As the appeal has evidently commenced, I have omitted the time condition. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would not be in conflict with the development plan. I therefore grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition, and a time condition which is no longer applicable, but with a revised condition which identifies the approved plans and a materials compliance condition. J Smith INSPECTOR