A planning application was submitted for the erection of single-storey extensions to the side and rear and two-storey extensions to the side and rear of the dwelling at 51 Eshe Road North, Crosby, following demolition of the existing garage. Planning Voice was instructed by the resident at 12 St Michaels Road, whose property sat at a right angle to the rear of the application site. The client was concerned that the extended building would introduce direct overlooking from new first-floor bedroom windows into their garden and rear rooms. The application was refused by Sefton Council on design and character grounds.
The client lived at 12 St Michaels Road, positioned at ninety degrees to the rear of 51 Eshe Road North. At present, the combination of the existing garage roof and the separation distance to the main dwelling provided the client with a reasonable degree of privacy in their rear garden and rear-facing rooms. The client was concerned that once the proposed extensions were built, the two new rear bedroom windows at first-floor level would look directly into their garden and the back windows of their home. The existing garage, which acted as a visual buffer and reduced the sense of enclosure, would be demolished and replaced with a much larger built form closer to the shared boundary, fundamentally changing the private and secluded character of the client’s outdoor space.
Our assessment revealed that the two-storey rear extension would bring the rear elevation significantly closer to neighbouring properties, particularly No. 12 St Michaels Road and No. 53 Eshe Road North, projecting beyond the established rear building line and closer to the side boundary. The proposed ridge height matched the existing roofline rather than being subordinate, as recommended by Sefton’s House Extensions SPD. This created an overbearing and visually dominant side elevation, particularly when viewed from No. 12’s rear garden and rear-facing windows. The scale and massing of the two-storey extension, combined with its proximity to the shared boundary, would produce an oppressive and dominant structure, creating a marked sense of enclosure that would make the neighbouring garden feel considerably smaller and less usable. The height and proximity of the extension would also cause substantial morning overshadowing of gardens to the north. Additionally, the introduction of first-floor windows closer to the boundary would result in direct overlooking of both the rear garden and rear-facing rooms of No. 12.
The objection was structured around residential amenity and character. On residential amenity, Policy HC4 of the Sefton Local Plan 2017 requires extensions to be designed so there is no significant reduction in the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, specifically protecting against loss of outlook from habitable rooms, significant loss of light and overshadowing, overbearing or over-dominant effects, and significant loss of privacy. The proposed two-storey extension failed on every one of these criteria. The massing created an oppressive relationship with No. 12, the height caused substantial overshadowing, the first-floor windows introduced direct overlooking, and the projection beyond the rear building line disrupted the established pattern of development.
On character and design, Policy EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan requires development to respond positively to the character, local distinctiveness and form of its surroundings. The existing properties on Eshe Road North benefited from sizable gaps between adjacent buildings, contributing to a spacious layout with a consistent rhythm along the street scene. The proposal sought to remove the garage and infill the gap with a two-storey extension to the north while also extending to the south, constituting an overdevelopment of the site. This significantly reduced the space between buildings, eroding the sense of openness that characterised the area. The infilling disrupted the visual rhythm of the street scene, creating a cramped and incongruous appearance. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF further reinforced that development must be sympathetic to local character and establish a strong sense of place.
Sefton Council refused the application on 21 November 2024. The decision notice confirmed that the proposed extensions to the side, particularly the two-storey extension, would be harmful and inappropriate additions to the existing dwelling and to the character and appearance of the area by reason of their design, style, form and appearance. The proposal was found to be contrary to Policies HC4 and EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan, the NPPF, and the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document. The cumulative effect of the extensions was assessed as disrupting the established character of the street scene and causing unacceptable harm.
Extensions that infill the gaps between properties on streets with a spacious, well-spaced character are vulnerable to refusal where they erode the visual rhythm and openness of the street scene. When the two-storey element also fails to be subordinate to the original roof and introduces overlooking and overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties at right angles, the case for refusal strengthens considerably.
Related guidance: Extension Objections · Loss of Privacy · Overshadowing · Visual Amenity
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →