Two storey side extension, single storey front/porch extension. Hip to gable conversion and rear dormer conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2026 by P Hatch BA (Hons) Ad. Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008002 30 Bower Road, Liverpool, L25 4RQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Will Holt against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref is 26H/0114. • The development proposed is a two storey side extension, single storey front/porch extension. Hip to gable conversion and rear dormer conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property, particularly in regard to the proposed side extension and rear dormer; • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in regard to privacy; and • highway safety, with particular regard to the provision of off-street car parking. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on Bower Road. The semi-detached pair has retained a number of original features, including bay windows to both ground and first floor levels, brick and render external finishing and a distinctive hipped roof which provides a positive rhythm and consistency between both properties. The appeal property originally included a single storey, flat-roofed garage which was connected to the original dwelling, however I noted during my site visit that the garage had been demolished as part of the on-going renovation works at the property. 4. The appeal site occupies an elevated position on the street, sitting above Bower Road and the residential properties opposite. This elevation, coupled with the appeal property being the first house on that side of Bower Road gives it a strong prominence and openness when viewed from the street. The character of properties within Bower Road is generally mixed both in terms of size and design and includes a number of single storey and two-storey detached properties, semi- detached dwellings and bungalows. I observed that many properties on the street Appeal Decision 6008002 2 have been remodelled over time in terms of extensions and finishing materials. Consequently, there is little in the way of uniformity to property styles when viewed from the street. 5. The proposed side extension would represent a sizeable addition to the existing dwelling. It would involve altering the roofscape of the property to include an additional pitched roof element, extending sidewards from the existing hipped roof to form a new gable end. At a ground floor level, the original frontage to the property included not only the dwelling but the attached single storey, flat-roofed garage and, as a result, the differences in width of the dwelling at this level would be minor in comparison. The massing and scale of the proposed extension, being two-storey in height, would result in significant enlargement in the amount of built form of the property at these higher levels. 6. The proposed extension would therefore create additional massing at a first-floor level and as part of the roof space which, by virtue of its scale and visual prominence, would significantly alter the appearance of the original dwelling when viewed from the street. This additional prominence would be particularly noticeable due to the plot’s elevation above the street, the openness of the side elevation onto which is being extended and the limited degree of setback which is being proposed from the original front elevation of the property. Whilst I note that there would be some separation between the proposed extension and the adjoining common boundary, it would nevertheless not appear subordinate to the original property when viewed from the street, thereby detracting from its existing character. 7. Moreover, the proposed side extension would include an extended roofline which would be gable-ended. Whilst this would be set down from the original roofline of the property, the extent of its projection and the gable-end design would result in the loss of the symmetrical hipped roof shape of the original semi-detached pair. Whilst I would acknowledge the presence of the two-storey side extension at No.28, its flat roof design which sits below the roof eaves has ensured that the broader roof shape of the semi-detached pair has been retained and its character remains intact. By virtue of the design and scale of the proposed extension at No.30, it would substantially unbalance the current roof form of the semi-detached pair which, as a consequence, would appear incongruous when viewed from the street. 8. I note the wide variety of roof styles within the broad area of the appeal property, however many of these additions have occurred within detached properties which have been able to accommodate these variations more comfortably within their design or are more modest in their scale when compared to the original dwelling. With this in mind I have had regard to the appeal decision1 provided by the appellant, however the scale of the development proposed and the site-specific circumstances of that case to be materially different to this proposal. 9. The proposed development also includes the creation of dormers to the rear elevation of the appeal property. The inclusion of dormer windows would, in principle, not be out of keeping with other properties on Bower Road which already have dormer additions to their rear elevations. The proposed dormers would run across the rear roof space of the appeal property and would be set down from the existing height of the roof. Furthermore, the proposed dormers would be split into 1 APP/Z4310/D/21/3274561 Appeal Decision 6008002 3 two separate elements through the creation of a visual break so as to prevent it running the continuous length of the roof. 10. However, because of its proximity to the chimney breast, the larger dormer would result in a cramped and intrusive addition to the rear elevation of the property which would be harmful to its overall appearance. Furthermore, the proximity of the flank of the outward dormer to the proposed side elevation would further exacerbate the visual impacts of its broader massing when viewed from the street. 11. The Council’s ‘House Extensions’ Supplementary Guidance Note 1 (SPG) states that extensions should harmonise visually with existing dwellings and should be subordinate in scale to the building which is to be extended. The SPG also highlights that for two-storey extensions on semi-detached properties they should not exceed half the width of the existing house. The proposed development is not consistent with the ambitions of the SPG regarding these matters. The SPG goes on to provide direction on the installation of dormers, indicating that dormers should not exceed the height of the existing roof, be confined to rear elevations and be set- in a minimum of 1m from the main wall of the dwelling. Whilst the dormers are set within the rear elevation and set down from the roofline of the property, their positioning in relation to the main party wall is not consistent with the guidance set out in the SPG. 12. I acknowledge the appellants position that the content and direction of the SPG should be applied as guidance, and flexibility and proportionality should be applied based on the individual merits of each case. This is an approach which is applied in the appeal decision2 supplied by the appellant. Notwithstanding, the SPG and its content remains a material consideration, and I have taken it into account as part of this appeal. 13. As a result, I would conclude that the proposed side extension and rear dormer by virtue of their size, scale, positioning and massing would harm the character and appearance of the host property. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (LLP) which states that extensions will be approved where the size, scale and materials of development are in keeping with the original dwelling. The proposal would also conflict with Policies UD1, UD2 and UD7 of the LLP which seeks to promote high quality design, particularly in regard to form, scale, proportion, frontages, rooflines and roofscapes. Living Conditions 14. The elevated nature of the appeal property is not only apparent when viewed from Bower Road, it also occupies an elevated position when viewed against adjacent residential properties on Woolton Hill Road, this is particularly the case in regard to No.103. 15. The proposed side extension of the appeal property includes a number of windows and, at a second-floor level, the inclusion of a circular window to service a bedroom area. This would be a secondary window into the proposed bedroom space with the primary window to the room being located in the rear elevation. 16. Due to the difference in levels and the proximity of the proposed extension to the boundary and the rear garden area of No.103, the inclusion of a clear-glazed 2 APP/Z4310/D/25/3374878 Appeal Decision 6008002 4 window at a second-floor level would result in overlooking into the rear garden area of the neighbouring property which would have a harmful impact on the privacy of the occupants. 17. Both parties have suggested that this matter could be addressed through the inclusion of privacy glass to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Given the secondary nature of this window, this would be an acceptable approach and details could have been secured by the imposition of an appropriate condition if the development would have been otherwise acceptable. 18. As a result, I would conclude that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is consistent with Policy H8 of the LLP which states that extensions and alterations to dwelling houses will be approved where they are designed so that there will be no significant reduction in the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in particular significant losses of privacy for neighbouring residents. The proposal is also consistent with Policy UD7 of the LLP which states that extensions to existing buildings should ensure that any impact is minimised on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and overlooking. Highway Safety 19. The appeal property includes a single driveway which is approximately 4.3m in length and can accommodate a single vehicle. The proposal seeks to widen the existing driveway in order to accommodate a second off-street parking space. I noted during my site visit no restrictions to on-street parking along Bower Road. 20. I note the Council’s view that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how extending the driveway will be achieved. However, there appears to be no dispute in principle that such works could be carried out subject to further matters of detail being provided. Moreover, I have no evidence before me that the existing or proposed parking arrangements are inconsistent with the development plan, in particular Policy UD2 (j) of the LLP. 21. Both parties have suggested that this issue could be addressed through the imposition of conditions which would provide greater detail on matters such as surfacing, kerb details and drainage to satisfy any outstanding concerns. This would have been an acceptable approach should the development have been otherwise acceptable. 22. I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions the proposal is consistent with Policy UD2 (j) of the LLP which states that car parking should be designed in a positive manner and be integrated into the development. Other Matters 23. I have considered the appeal on its merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling or interpretation of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here. Appeal Decision 6008002 5 Conclusion 24. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. P Hatch INSPECTOR