Case Reference: 3360019

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 1 April 2025 by Kim Vo MPLAN
Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 1 May 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/W4325/D/25/3360019
17 Dudley Road, New Brighton, Wirral, Merseyside CH45 9JP
• 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 Mrs. Wendy Eldridge against the decision of Wirral Metropolitan Borough
Council.
• The application Ref is APPH/24/00838.
• The development proposed is described as “to erect replacement external roof access and fire exit
staircase.”
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Procedure
2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose
recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before
deciding the appeal.
Preliminary Matter
3. Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Wirral Local Plan
2022–2040 (WLP). The main parties were aware of what the emerging policies
were at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed to
the adopted versions. I have had regard to the most up to date development plan.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character
and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number
6 Hamilton Road (No. 6) and Number 15 Dudley Road (No.15) with specific regard
to privacy.
Reasons for the Recommendation
Character and Appearance
5. The appeal building is a substantial detached residential unit arranged over three
floors. Whilst having a rendered exterior, it is one of a number of local examples of
a very similar type in both detached and semi detached forms which have multiple
strong steep gable features, oversailing rooflines and decorative mock Tudor
detailing. Taken together, they exude a pleasant traditional consistency which
contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
6. The proposed staircase would be of an industrial design, large scale and finished in
metal. It would have a rigid, boxy structure which, along with the above elements,
would unacceptably jar against the architectural traditionality of the building’s form.
Whilst the existing gates and fence would provide some concealment, its proposed
height up to the second floor of the building and its prominent corner location,
would make it clearly visible from public vantage points.
7. The other cited examples I saw on my site visit are of different designs and it is
unclear whether they were granted planning permission. They are also evident on a
limited number of properties and do not constitute as an established feature of the
area. Nor do they set any positive design precedent. In addition, the first and
second floor rear doors have since been removed and where they once provided
access, they now exist solely as windows both functionally and aesthetically.
8. For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character
and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies WD 5
and WS 7 of the WLP and the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework). Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure
developments are of high-quality design. They should also positively enhance the
character, appearance and setting of the area, ensuring that its design, scale,
massing and siting has regard to the existing building and is appropriate in context.
Living Conditions
9. The proposed external staircase would create landing areas at first and second
floor, which could be accessed from the existing rear doors. They would be closely
situated to the shared boundaries with Nos 6 and 15. Views towards these
dwellings already occur through the existing rear openings. Nonetheless, the
appeal scheme would create landing areas, forward of these, which could be
feasibly used as projecting balconies. This would allow occupiers of the appeal
building to have wider ranging views, from an elevated position, into the
neighbouring garden areas. This would result in a significant loss of privacy and
thus an unacceptable overlooking impact towards no. 15’s rear garden.
10. No. 6’s side elevation windows do not serve any habitable rooms, and the first-floor
window is obscure glazed. The high boundary fence also obstructs the majority of
views from this neighbour’s ground floor side windows. However, given the height
of the landing areas, views downwards onto all of No. 6’s side elevation windows
would be possible. The appeal scheme would also increase the perception of
overlooking towards this dwelling, due to the landing areas and towards occupiers
of No. 6 when they’re entering or exiting the front entrance, as well as from their
side elevation windows.
11. For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living
conditions of the occupiers of Nos 6 and 15, with specific regard to privacy.
Consequently, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policy WD 5 and WS 7 of
the WLP and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these policies
seek to ensure that development proposals provide a high standard of amenity for
existing and future occupiers, as well as for neighbouring properties.
Other Matters
12. The Council’s alleged lack of engagement, their reasons not to undertake a site
visit or suggestion of conditions to make the appeal scheme acceptable are matters
that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here.
13. I am aware of a need for a means of escape from fire and for it to have landing
areas due to occupants’ mobility requirements. I have had due regard to the Public
Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. I am
aware that disability is a protected characteristic thereunder. However, there is no
sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that fire safety and accessibility
requirements cannot be met through alternative measures, which might have a
lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I remain to be convinced that the proposed
fire exit staircase is therefore the only way to achieve the outcome the appellant
desires.
14. I have not been provided with details of the appeal decisions, case law judgements,
an ombudsman case and other planning approvals cited. Therefore, I cannot be
sure that they represent a sufficient comparison to the appeal scheme such that I
would change my findings. Reference has also been made to the Council’s failure
to accord with The Planning Appeals Procedural Guide. However, this guidance
relates to the planning appeal process and would not be applicable to the Council’s
decision-making at the time.
Conclusion and Recommendation
15. For the reasons given above, the proposals would conflict with the development
plan and the material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made
other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.
Kim Vo
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on
that basis the appeal is dismissed.
John Morrison
INSPECTOR