Ground floor single storey front infill extension and creation of first floor accommodation including pitched and flat roof extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 August 2026 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013064 6 Pine Way, Heswall, Wirral CH60 6RP • 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 Tom Dooley against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is APPH/26/00074. • The development proposed is a ground floor single storey front infill extension and creation of first floor accommodation including pitched and flat roof extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor single storey front infill extension and creation of first floor accommodation including pitched and flat roof extensions at 6 Pine Way, Heswall, Wirral CH60 6RP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APPH/26/00074, 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 plans: Location plan PP-14630348v1; 2025-019-300-000-Rev 01; 2025-019-300-001-Rev 01; 2025-019-300-002-Rev 01; 2025-019-300-003-Rev 01; 2025-019-300-004-Rev 01; and 2025-019-300-005-Rev 01, with the proposed elevation drawing 2025-019-300-005-Rev 01 taking precedence where there are any discrepancies with the proposed floor plans. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall be as detailed on the application form and approved drawing 2025-019-300-005-Rev 01. 4) All first floor windows on the eastern and northern sides of the extensions hereby permitted shall be obscure glazed and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. Preliminary matter 2. Two significant new documents have been published since the Council’s refusal of the appeal application: (1) a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); and (2) the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Householder Extensions (SPD). The latter of these is based on policies in the Wirral Local Plan (WLP) and supersedes the Council’s previous Appeal Decision 6013064 2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 11, also entitled Householder Extensions. Both the appellant and the Council have had a chance to comment on the implications of these new documents. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of Pine Way; and (ii) neighbours’ living conditions, with particular reference to 7 Pine Way next door. Reasons Character and appearance 4. 6 Pine Way is a flat roofed bungalow, located at the end of a short row of more traditional, pitched roof bungalows on a short suburban cul-de-sac. The proposal is basically to build a first floor over, converting the bungalow to a 1.5 storey house, with a pitched roof and 2 long box dormers. A small ground floor extension at the front would infill an area which is already partly enclosed. 5. The proposal would be much more modern in design than the other, more traditionally designed houses and bungalows on the street. This difference would be accentuated by the proposed external materials which would include aluminium, zinc and timber cladding in addition to the existing brick and render, giving the resulting house a more contemporary feel than the rest of Pine Way. 6. There are situations, however, where a contrasting style can complement existing character. In this case No 6 is already of somewhat modern design. Its existing flat roof form and materials mark it out as being much different to the others on the cul-de-sac. It is also relatively tired and in need of an upgrade. The proposal has been well-designed to improve the building and add accommodation while keeping the roof line reasonably low and not increasing the built footprint. The building’s position, tucked away at the end of the cul-de-sac where it sits partly behind a row of bungalows, means that its visual impact on the street scene would be limited. 7. Concerns have also been raised about overdevelopment of the plot but this is a large plot with garden space to both the east and west sides. It would be able to accommodate the increased size of the building without appearing cramped. 8. I conclude that the proposal would reasonably complement the character and appearance of Pine Way. It accords with WLP policy WD5 and the SPD, which aim to ensure that the scale and design of extensions is appropriate having regard to the size of the plot and the relationship with existing buildings and the street scene. Living conditions 9. One of the proposed box dormer structures would face the back garden of the bungalow at 7 Pine Way next door. Although it would be a taller and bulkier structure than the low, existing bungalow, the proposed design would helpfully minimise that height and bulk. The roof extension would be separated from No 7 by the side garden at No 6 so that it would not be an overly dominant or intrusive feature as seen from the rear garden and rear windows of that property, including a rear conservatory which is set well away from the shared boundary. No 7 has only a high level slit window on its side wall facing No 6, which does not appear to be a primary window to a habitable room. Appeal Decision 6013064 3 10. For the same reasons, there would not be a significant loss of sunlight or daylight to the back of No 7. The proposal would have 4 first floor windows, serving a bathroom and an en suite, facing No 7’s back garden. I agree with the Council that these would need to be obscure glazed to protect the neighbours’ privacy. Another, north facing, first floor window to a dressing room would also need to be obscure glazed to protect privacy at the houses to the north due the window’s close proximity to the boundary. Those houses are otherwise far enough away to reasonably minimise impacts on light and outlook. 11. Subject to a condition requiring obscure glazing of key windows, I conclude that the proposal would not significantly affect neighbours’ living conditions. It also accords in this respect with WLP policy WD5 and the SPD, which aim to ensure that extensions do not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Conditions 12. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. The Heswall Society raises some points regarding possible discrepancies in the submitted drawings. Having looked at these is in detail I am satisfied that the proposed floor plans and elevation drawings are reasonably consistent, except for one point - the proposed first floor plan shows 6 rooflights over a first floor area labelled as ‘void’ but also noted as ‘bathroom’ (though there is no apparent doorway to that space), whereas the proposed elevation drawing appears to show only 4 rooflights (3 on the east side and just 1 on the west side). Condition 2 is worded to deal with this and any other minor discrepancies by giving primacy to the elevation drawing. 13. A condition requiring the use of materials as proposed is needed to protect the character and appearance of the local area. As above, a condition requiring obscure glazing of some first floor windows is needed to protect neighbours’ privacy. Conclusion 14. I find that the proposal accords with the development plan, taken as a whole. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR