Appeal 6003078

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/2025/01779 for erection of a single storey extension to the side and rear elevations following the demolition of outbuilding and the erection of a timber shed in the rear garden at [site address] , Sefton [postcode] granted on 15 December 2025 by Sefton Council, is varied by deleting conditions 2 and 4 and substituting for them the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: • Location Plan; • 3FC.01 Existing & [name] 2025; • 3FC.02 Existing & [name] 2025; • 3FC.03 Existing & Proposed Site Plans November 2025.

Permission was granted for a single storey extension ([name]/2025/01779). A condition was imposed, which requires the installation of obscured glazing to the rear window and for it to be non-opening for any part less than 1.7m above floor level. The reason for the condition states that this is in order to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring properties. At the time of my site visit, the extension had not been constructed.

My attention has been drawn to a previous extension that has been approved ([name]/2025/00731), which did not include a condition requiring obscured glazing. I have not been provided with any further information regarding this alternative scheme and can therefore draw no comparisons with the appeal scheme before me. I have therefore assessed this appeal on the basis of its own merits.

Deleting condition 4 would result in a conflict with condition 2 (approved plans), as the proposed floor plan annotates that the rear window would have obscure glazing. A replacement condition would therefore be required to specify that the permitted development shall be carried out in accordance with the original plans submitted with the planning application, which do not detail obscured glazing to the rear window.

The main issue is whether the disputed condition is necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site is a detached bungalow in a predominantly residential area. The condition in dispute relates to a single window in the rear elevation of the proposed rear and side extension, facing towards the rear elevations of neighbouring properties at Nos 27 and [address] (Nos 27 and 29). These are detached dwellings sited in spacious gardens and a timber fence defines their shared boundary with the appeal site.

[address] Extensions (2018) (SPD) requires proposals for extensions to ensure that neighbouring homes and gardens have a reasonable level of privacy. It recommends a distance of at least 21 metres between overlooking habitable rooms. Should a proposal not meet this distance, the SPD states that an assessment of the character of the area and present levels of privacy will be made when deciding applications.

Whilst the parties appear to disagree on the separation distance that would be provided to the rears of Nos 27 and 29, in assessing this appeal I have relied upon my planning judgement of the evidence before me, including that gathered from my site visit.

Based on my observations on site, I found that the distance between the proposed window and the rear elevations of Nos 27 and 29 would ensure that privacy of occupiers within these properties would not be unacceptably impacted should the rear window be fitted with clear glazing. In addition, the existing fence along the shared boundary would screen views from this window towards these neighbouring properties and their rear garden areas. On this basis, the fence and the distances involved are sufficient to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

I accept that the main outlook for the room would be from the patio doors, which would allow light. I also accept that obscure glazing would still allow light. Nevertheless, this does not alter my findings above regarding the acceptable relationship between this window and the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 27 and 29.

To conclude, the disputed condition is not necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The development without the disputed condition would therefore comply with Sefton Local Plan 2030 (adopted April 2017) Policy HC4 which, amongst other things, states extensions must not result in a significant loss of privacy for neighbouring residents.

The Council raises that the appellant was given the opportunity to show that the existing boundary treatment was adequate as an alternative to obscure glazing the window in question. Be that as it may, I have determined this appeal based on the information before me and my observations on site.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the disputed condition is not necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I therefore allow the appeal and vary the planning permission as set out in the formal decision above.