Proposed two storey side extension to existing dwelling, following a previous House Holder Planning Application Ref: 25H/0361

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 June 2026 by S. Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:01 July 2026 Appeal Reference: 6009811 17, 3 Monks Way, Liverpool L25 5HP • 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. Luke Collister against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application reference is 25H/3315. • The development proposed is proposed two storey side extension to existing dwelling, following a previous House Holder Planning Application Ref: 25H/0361. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension to the existing dwelling, following a previous House Holder Planning Application Ref: 25H/0361 at 3 Monks Way, Liverpool, L25 5HP in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25H/3315, subject to the following condition2: (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: - 2449-PO1 Rev A (proposed site plan); 2449-PO2 Rev D (proposed floor plans); 2449-PO3 Rev D (proposed elevations) and 2449-LO1 (location plan). Procedural Matters 2. A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision- making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal. 3. The application forms describe the proposed development as a first floor extension to the side. A previous householder planning application reference No. 25H/0361 was approved on 28 August 2025 for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear, to extend the garage at the side, carry out alterations to the front canopy, Appeal Decision 6009811 2 alterations to the front fenestration and a new door to provide access to the side elevation. The development now proposed is for a first floor side extension above the previously approved side extension. 4. On my site visit, I noted that foundations to the footings to approval 25H/0361 have been dug and that the single storey side garage has been demolished, Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. No. 3 Monks Way is a detached, two-storey, brick-built dwelling with a double pitched roof, a landscaped front garden, and located in a development of comparable dwellings. However, the property designs are not entirely uniform, with many having integral garage canopies, whereas the host property had a single storey, attached garage to its side and is on a plot larger than most. 7. There are gaps between the houses which add positively and distinctively to the character and appearance of the area. 8. The proposed side extension would have a blank wall facing the adjoining property at No. 5 Monks Way and which has a first floor window in its own side wall, though the LPA considers that it does not serve a habitable room, being obscurely glazed. The LPA considers that while there may be some limited loss of light to the windows, this would not be significant enough to justify refusal of planning permission. I have no reason to disagree. I note that no objections have been received from neighbouring occupiers, including any from those at No.5 Monks Way. 9. The proposed first floor side extension would reduce the spaciousness between the dwellings. Nevertheless, space of a comparable amount between other properties would still remain. 10. In addition, its height would be comparable to the adjoining properties as would the window design and the roof pitch and the use of external materials. While the LPA is concerned that the regular pattern of dwellings would not be maintained, the host property is already different in this respect. 11. The LPA considers that the first floor side extension, by not being set back from the existing front elevation of the house and by not having a lower ridge height, would not be subservient to the existing dwelling and would unbalance its appearance. However, the proposed first floor side extension would have a double height front facing pitched gable which would reflect a similar, if somewhat larger front facing two storey gable on the other end of the front elevation to the property. I consider that the effect would be to give a far more balanced appearance to the dwelling than currently exists. 12. Overall, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in an unduly incongruous, obtrusive or unduly prominent feature within the street scene. Appeal Decision 6009811 3 13. The LPA has referred to other developments, though with few details, but some which appear to suggest are supportive of the appeal proposal, but in particular, it refers to an appeal dismissal for a side extension in another part of the city.1 However, that appeal site is within a different character area, and involved an addition to one of a pair of semi-detached properties and where its unbalancing effect was a consideration. I do not find any similarities with the current appeal proposal to be overwhelming, but in any case, I have determined the appeal based upon its individual planning merits and in the context of the surrounding area. 14. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policies H8, UD1 and UD7 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022) and chapter 12 of the Framework. Conditions 15. I have imposed the standard time condition and, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, a condition relating to the approved plans. Conclusion 16. There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed. S. Hartley INSPECTOR 1 APP/Z4310/D/21/3287087