# 356 Prescot Road, Old Swan, Liverpool (car showroom plus 9 flats)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- **Authority:** Liverpool (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008534
- **Application reference:** 25F/1573
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of car showroom and erection of four-storey building with ground-floor showroom and 9 apartments
- **Homes:** 9
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S4, L2, DP3, P3
- **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 UD1, UD2, UD5, H7, H13, R1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of neighbours
- **Tags:** design-refusal, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-building-upwards, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A four-storey showroom-and-flats redevelopment on a prominent Old Swan corner was dismissed. The inspector found it incongruous in form and roofscape, and overbearing to two terraced rear yards. The letter tests the new L2 support for homes above commercial premises and corner buildings, and finds that support qualified. The S4 balance was then "substantially outweighed".

## Issues and findings
- **L2: qualified support.** "I acknowledge that Policy L2 of the Framework supports the creation of homes above commercial premises and recognises that larger buildings may, in some circumstances, be appropriate at street corners. However, that support is not unqualified. The policy also requires such development to be consistent with the overall street scene and, where building upwards is proposed, to avoid substantial harm to the character of a building and its surroundings" (DL ¶13).
- **Character: HARM.** The building "would compress four storeys into a broadly comparable overall height. This would produce a noticeably different rhythm of openings, floor levels and proportions" (DL ¶10). The flat-roofed top floor "would maintain substantial built volume at roof level" (DL ¶11).
- **Living conditions: HARM to outlook.** It would be "dominant and imposing when experienced from the rear yards" (DL ¶18). Overlooking of yards is normal in dense urban areas (DL ¶20).
- **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶29).

## Planning balance
An S4 within-settlement balance. Nine homes on PDL above commercial space: moderate weight (HO7, L2). Business support and street trees: limited. Character and outlook harms, conflicting with the plan and the Framework: significant weight (DL ¶26-29).

## What made the difference
The compressed four-storey form and flat roof were at odds with a two-storey-proportioned pitched-roof townscape, on a corner made more visible by open land opposite. A pitched-roof three-storey form with commercial floor-to-floor proportions might have fitted L2's "consistent with the overall street scene" test.

## Transferable points
- L2's support for homes above shops and for corner buildings is "not unqualified". Consistency with the street scene is part of the policy (DL ¶13).
- Subservience is not about height alone. Floor rhythm, massing and roofscape matter (DL ¶9-11).
- Nine homes on PDL got moderate weight and were "substantially outweighed" by significant design and amenity harm under S4 (DL ¶26-29).

## Policy findings
- **L2: fail (moderate weight).** support for homes above commercial premises and larger corner buildings is "not unqualified"; must be consistent with street scene and avoid substantial harm to character (DL 13, 26)
- **DP3: harm (significant weight).** four storeys compressed into a two-storey-proportioned envelope with a flat-roofed recessed top floor; incongruous on a prominent open corner (DL 9-16, 28)
- **P3: harm (significant weight).** overbearing loss of outlook to rear yards of 1 Barrymore Road and 2 Aviemore Road; overlooking and noise acceptable (DL 17-23)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 9 homes on PDL in a sustainable location (DL 26)
- **S4: fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 29)

## Key facts
- Prominent corner; open forecourts opposite widen public views (DL 7, 12)
- Roofline just below the adjoining former church hall, but height alone does not make a building subservient (DL 9)
- Street-tree contribution secured by obligation; not decided because the appeal failed (DL 24)
- Parties consulted on the revised Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008534
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a34b9219-97b8-4fe8-8313-158e0797ac3a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008534.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.