Appeal 6001737

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/25/01088 for a single storey rear extension to replace previously approved conservatory at [site address] , Hoylake, Wirral [postcode] granted on 7 November 2025 by Wirral Council, is varied by deleting condition No 3.

Permission was granted for a single storey extension to replace the current conservatory, utilising the same footprint (Ref: APPH/25/01088). A condition was imposed requiring the installation of obscured glazing to one window to protect the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. The extension has not yet been constructed.

The reason given for the condition in dispute in the Council’s Notice of Grant of Planning Permission makes reference to Policy WD5 of the Wirral Local Plan (Local Plan) 2022-2040 (adopted 21 March 2025). The Council evidence refers to other Local Plan policies, which have a similar requirement for development proposals to protect living conditions of neighbours. I’ve had regard to these policies in my consideration.

The main issue is whether the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling in a predominantly residential area. The rear elevation of the dwelling currently features a kitchen extension and conservatory. The ground level of the appeal dwelling is elevated above that of the neighbouring properties along [name]. The existing conservatory is fully glazed to three sides and contains no obscure glass. As a result, there are uninterrupted views into the bedroom windows of 36 [name] from the conservatory of the appeal dwelling.

The condition in dispute relates to a single window, which would be located where the conservatory is presently, on the northwestern elevation. The proposed window would be substantially smaller than the existing glazing to this elevation, limiting the potential for views into No 36. Furthermore, the main outlook from the proposed extension would likely be through the larger areas of glazing comprising of the patio doors, which do not face the rear of properties on [name]. As a result, the proposal would improve the current situation in terms of overlooking and privacy into the neighbouring properties on [name], in particular No 36.

I acknowledge that the conservatory has a lower internal floor when compared to the proposed extension. However, an increase in floor height in this case does not equate to an increase in overlooking, as the overall extent of glazing is being considerably reduced. Whilst the proposed kitchen/family room may result in a more intensive use of the space compared to the existing conservatory, any such increase would likely be mitigated by the significant reduction in glazing described above.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 11 [name] advises new extensions should not result in a significant loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. It also advises that the use of side windows in extensions adjacent to boundaries should be avoided where these would result in significant overlooking. [name] am mindful that this is guidance only, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy and would likely reduce the potential for overlooking.

It has been put to me that planning permission for the previous extension included a condition for a new fence, which was not installed. The Council states that this permission dates to 1990. Enforcement lies with the Council and falls outside of the powers available to me under this appeal. Nonetheless, I note that the existing conservatory was granted permission in 1995 and did not require the installation of such a fence. On the basis of the information before me, both the kitchen extension and conservatory appear to have stood with a fence at the current height for a considerable amount of time. I have nonetheless based my decision having regard to the situation on the ground at the time of my site visit and the evidence available to me at appeal.

To conclude, the disputed condition is not reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The development without the disputed condition would therefore comply with Local Plan policies WD5, WD23 and WS7 which collectively, amongst other things, require extensions to have regard to the impact on amenity of neighbouring properties.

I acknowledge the comments regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application. This is not a matter that I can consider under this planning appeal and does not alter my findings, which are founded solely on the planning merits of the appeal.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.