To erect a porch to front of property and demolition of front wall to enlarge existing driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2026 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010862 25 Larkfield Road, Liverpool L17 9PR • 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 Marc Murray against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref is 25H/3563. • The development proposed is to erect a porch to front of property and demolition of front wall to enlarge existing driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene, and the effect on highway and pedestrian safety. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal building is a two-storey semi-detached property located in a residential area. Dwellings in Larkfield Road have some repetition in their forms of design. This includes buildings with upper and lower bay windows and front roof gables, as in the case of the appeal building and its semi-detached neighbour at number 27. 4. Front porches to dwellings in the road vary in their size, form, and design. The proposed porch would replace a previously demolished structure. It has been designed with a pitched roof to harmonise with the existing front porch at number 27. In this respect it would in principle add to the symmetry in appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. The Council considers that the proposed porch would cause no harm to the living conditions of neighbours in terms of outlook, loss of light or privacy. I see no reason to disagree having regard to its proposed fenestration and position in relation to the neighbouring properties at either side. 5. The porch at number 27 has a forward projection of around 1.3 metres from the front wall of the house. That proposed at the appeal building would project forward by around 1.54 metres, which would be greater that the depth of 1.25 metres set out in the Council’s supplementary guidance: SPG1 Household Extensions. Appeal Decision 6010862 2 6. Number 23 Larkfield Road has a 1.5-metre-deep front canopy. The appellant considers that because number 23 is at a higher level than the appeal site the resultant staggered effect would heavily soften the visual massing of the proposed porch. However, the proposed depth of 1.54 metres would provide the proposed porch with greater size, scale, and bulk than the canopy at number 23 and the porch at number 27. For those reasons it would appear unduly prominent and would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the streetscene. It would fail to comply with Liverpool Local Plan policy H8: House Extensions, and Local Plan policy UD1: Local character and distinctiveness. 7. The appellant has indicated that he is willing to accept a planning condition restricting the porch depth projection to 1.25 metres, which would be in compliance with SPG1. However, I must determine this appeal on the basis of the plans as refused by the Council. Such a change would also require the submission of amended drawings, and therefore a new planning application. Highway and pedestrian safety 8. An updated site plan photograph was received by the Council, indicating that if the front wall was removed, it would provide a driveway around 7.7 metres wide, and around 2.59 metres in length in front of the proposed porch and steps. Local Plan policy TP6 seeks to ensure that proposals demonstrate best practice in design for pedestrians and ensure that the layout is fully accessible for pedestrians. Local plan policy TP8 indicates that proposals for development will be expected to have regard to road safety considerations and the Council's parking standards. Paragraph 41 of SPG1 indicates that front extensions will require the provision of a parking space 5.5 metres in length in front of an extension and at a right angle to the building and clear of the highway. 9. The appellant advises that demolition of the front wall would allow vehicles to park at an angle to the building, or parallel to it, utilising the 4.5 metres deep section in front of the bay window and with no overhang to the footway. The Council has not commented upon the revised parking proposals. Whilst the revision would allow different parking arrangements, no details have been provided for the treatment of the space in front of the building, which is currently partly hard surfaced and partly grassed. The Council’s guidance in SPG1 only refers to parking vehicles at a right angle in front of porches and front house extensions. In that respect the proposed parking arrangements fronting the porch would be liable to result in vehicles overhanging part of the footway in conflict with that guidance, restricting the space for pedestrians to pass. There would also be conflict with Local Plan policies TP6 and TP8 having regard to pedestrian safety. Conclusion 10. The proposed porch would harm the character and appearance of the street scene because of its size and scale. The proposal would also potentially harm pedestrian safety if a vehicle was parked at a right angle in front of the proposed porch. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and should be refused. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR