Case 3287056

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE

Liverpool City Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
23 March 2022
Authority
Liverpool City Council
Inspector
Bayliss G
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor retail and services
Appellant
RSM Properties
Agent
Greyside Planning
LPA reference
21F/0746
ONS LPA code
E08000012
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
20 January 2022

Summary AI

The appeal for a first floor extension on an existing flat roof was dismissed due to its negative impact on the building's character and appearance. The proposal was found to be unsympathetic and would disrupt the existing design, causing a jarring contrast with the surrounding area. The inspector considered the proposal's conflict with policies UD1 and UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022) and the high-quality design expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2022 by G Bayliss BA (Hons) MA MA MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/W/21/3287056 1 Melling Road, Liverpool L9 0LE • 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 Joe Rooney of RSM Properties, against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref 21F/0746, dated 10 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2021. • The development proposed is a first floor acoustically glazed extension on an existing flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Since the Council refused planning permission, the Liverpool Local Plan (2022) has been adopted. The policies referred to in the refusal notice as being from the Local Plan are now adopted and supersede those policies quoted from the City of Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (2002). As both sets of policies were quoted in the decision notice and the aims of both are similar, neither party has been prejudiced by this change in policy circumstances.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has also had the opportunity in their comments to respond to this change in the development plan. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a distinctive, three storey building on the corner of Melling Road and Warbreck Moor. Despite not being a designated heritage asset and having previously been altered, the building has retained many original features. Its height and architectural detailing make the building stand out and it currently contributes positively to the streetscene. 5. While not forward of the ground floor extension, the appeal proposal would occupy a substantial part of the ground floor extension fronting Warbreck Moor, lining up with the northern gable of the main, three storey building but then extending beyond its southern gable so that the glass extension would jut out from the main building and be visible on all three sides, being readily viewed from the road junction and the approach along Melling Road. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/W/21/3287056 6. Although using materials already present at the building, the shallow roof pitch, unbroken form, expanse of glazing, and its projection beyond the three storey building would make a jarring contrast to the design of the existing building and unlike any other structures in the immediate streetscape. It would not be a sympathetic modern addition. The height of the proposal would exceed the eaves height of the terrace buildings alongside, visually dominating them and disrupting the tapering form of the building towards the road junction. 7. The proposal would also be likely to result in the concealment or obscuring of existing architectural detailing which currently contributes to its distinctive appearance. The proposal would be both alien and visually harmful to the building, significantly detracting from its architectural appearance, as well as a dominant and discordant feature in the wider area. 8.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — Appeal Decision Whilst the extension could be removed in future without harming the overall built form of the property and the original chimneystack would be retained and remain visible, the appeal proposal is seeking permanent permission and I must consider the impact that the proposal would currently have on the building and the wider area. 9. The appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with policies UD1 and UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022) which together seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development relates well to existing structures, respects scale, and takes account of local character and distinctiveness. It would also be contrary to the high-quality design expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework also requires that proposals are sympathetic to local character and advises that distinctiveness arises from both designated assets and other buildings of significance. Other Matters 10. I appreciate that this proposal follows an earlier application where a roof terrace was omitted due to concerns regarding residential amenity.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — Appeal Decision However, I have found the scheme before me would result in harm and even if I were to agree that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable harm to living conditions of nearby residents, this would be a neutral factor. The level of third party objection is not a reason in itself to allow a development. I also recognise that the proposal will allow the restaurant to expand and remain economically viable, as well as contributing to the local economy. However, whilst the proposal will provide some economic benefits, these do not outweigh the significant harm that I have found to character and appearance, and as a result the environmental role of sustainable development is not achieved. Conclusion 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan and material considerations do not lead me to decide otherwise. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 G Bayliss

1 Melling Road, LIVERPOOL, L9 0LE — Liverpool City Council — G Bayliss INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶6

The proposal's design would not be a sympathetic modern addition and would disrupt the tapering form of the building towards the road junction.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶7

The proposal would conceal or obscure existing architectural detailing and be a dominant and discordant feature in the wider area.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶9

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area, conflicting with policies UD1 and UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
UD1, UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan (2022)
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 23 March 2022 under the Open Government Licence.