# 297 Frankby Road, Frankby

- **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood
- **Authority:** Wirral (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012026
- **Application reference:** APPH/26/00073
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Retrospective first-floor side extension above a PD ground-floor extension
- **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan WS1, Householder Extensions SPD 2026
- **Main issues:** disproportionate extension, openness, VSC
- **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, householder, retrospective

## Summary
A retrospective first-floor side extension on a 1980s house at the fringe of Frankby. Together with other recent extensions it brought the cumulative increase to 73%, against a new SPD guide of 50%. It was dismissed as disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with significant openness harm.

## Issues and findings
- **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the SPD says that increases of more than 50% of the floorspace of the original dwelling … will be considered disproportionate … the overall floorspace increase is about 73% … strongly suggesting that the scale of extensions here has become disproportionate" (DL ¶9-10).
- **Openness:** raising a low-profile PD extension to two storeys "makes this structure much taller and more prominent … significant harm is caused to the openness" (DL ¶13-14).
- **Other considerations:** good design and the house's proportion to its plot were neutral. Improved family accommodation weighed in favour but was insufficient (DL ¶16-17).

## Planning balance
GB6(2). Substantial weight to inappropriateness plus significant openness harm; no VSC (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
A cumulative increase well over the local percentage guide, and the vertical increase over a PD ground floor.

## Transferable points
- Local SPD percentage thresholds (here 50%) are used as a strong indicator of "disproportionate" under GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶9-10).
- Building upward over a PD extension increases visual openness harm even with no footprint increase (DL ¶13).
- Good design is neutral in the VSC balance (DL ¶16).

## Policy findings
- **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 73% cumulative increase over original house plus garage vs new SPD 50% guide; two-storey spread across plot width (DL 9-11)
- **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** significant openness harm — raises a low PD extension to two storeys, prominent; design and family accommodation neutral/limited (DL 12-17)

## Key facts
- New Wirral Householder Extensions SPD (2026) sets 50% cumulative floorspace guide; proposal 73% (undisputed)
- Ground floor built under PD (LDC); first floor built without permission
- Parties consulted on both the 2026 Framework and new SPD

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012026
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e52d990b-c4c6-4d8b-9c50-7d71e7802ace

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012026.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.