# 1 Bronington Avenue, Eastham, Wirral (first-floor side extension)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood
- **Authority:** Wirral (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6013310
- **Application reference:** APPH/26/00185
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** First-floor side extension (two-storey gable to boundary)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** L2, P3, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan WD5, WD23, Householder Extensions SPD 2026
- **Main issues:** living conditions - outlook
- **Tags:** householder, l2-effective-use, living-conditions-outlook, s4-substantially-outweighed

## Summary
A first-floor side extension in Wirral was dismissed on loss of outlook to the neighbour behind. The appellant relied on L2 and S4. The inspector accepted that the L2 effective-use benefit weighed in favour, but held that L2 itself requires acceptable living standards for neighbours. Under S4 the outlook harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits".

## Issues and findings
- **Outlook: HARM.** The 10 m separation was well short of the SPD's 14 m norm. The gable "would loom over and dominate close range views from the rear windows and garden of No 25" (DL ¶8).
- **L2 cuts both ways.** "The appellant aptly refers to policies L2 and S4 of the new Framework … the proposal would make efficient use of an existing site within a settlement to provide improved family accommodation. This weighs in favour" (DL ¶10). "Framework policy L2 also says that developments should maintain acceptable living standards for neighbours … In the terms of Framework policy S4, this harm would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶11).

## Planning balance
S4(1): the L2 benefit was substantially outweighed by the neighbour outlook harm and the conflict with WD5/WD23.

## What made the difference
The separation distance to the rear windows behind. The hipped-roof alternative might have helped, but it was not formally submitted.

## Transferable points
- L2's support for extra floorspace is conditional on maintaining acceptable living standards for neighbours. Harm to outlook can substantially outweigh the L2 benefit under S4 (DL ¶10-11).
- Amendments offered informally at application stage are not considered at appeal (DL ¶5).

## Policy findings
- **L2: benefit.** efficient use of an existing site within a settlement for improved family accommodation "weighs in favour" (DL 10)
- **L2: fail.** L2 also requires acceptable living standards for neighbours; gable 10 m from rear windows of 25 Bettisfield Avenue against a 14 m SPD norm (DL 8, 11)
- **S4(1): fail.** outlook harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 11)

## Key facts
- Two-storey blank gable would sit about 10 m from neighbour's main rear windows (SPD norm 14 m)
- New SPD adopted after refusal; parties consulted on it and the Framework (DL 4)
- Offer of hipped roof not formally submitted, so not considered (DL 5)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013310
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d7ca0a29-7955-4d7f-ac97-c0e0c95a13d9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013310.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.