Appeal 3352572
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
4 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
a front porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 24/0128/HHO, subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: Location Plan; and Elevations and [name].
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed porch has already been completed. This dwelling and its neighbours are of a relatively uniform appearance. The new porch, although of greater scale than most in the vicinity, has been designed to reflect the detailing of the relatively new roof and windows with regards to materials and colour. It sits forward of the building line of neighbouring porches and as a result it is more prominent within the street scene, particularly in longer views. However, it complements and uplifts the appearance of the property and adds interest to it, without detracting from the wider area.
As this development complements and uplifts the appearance of the property and does not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area, it does not conflict with the aspiration of achieving quality design, which is a requirement of policy ENV 2 of the Pendle Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2011-2030 (2015). Policy ENV 1 is not directly relevant to the specifics of this proposal. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/E2340/D/24/3352572
The Design Principles: Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (SPD) advises that front porches with matching material and a pitched roof will be acceptable if extending no more than 1.25 metres forwards. This proposal would exceed these dimensions and include some alternative materials. It therefore falls to be considered against the specific design guidelines. I am satisfied that the style, design, materials and scale respect the character of the house and are not out of keeping in this residential area. The guidelines advise that small porches and canopies of a satisfactory design and materials, projecting in front of the building line, will normally be permitted. I am satisfied that this proposal is not overly large given its height and its depth in comparison to the depth of the frontage forecourt. It retains sufficient space for parking in front of it. Whilst the extension may be larger than anticipated by the SPD as suggested by the council, I am satisfied that it generally meets its design aspirations.
Policy CNDP3 of the Colne Neighbourhood Development Plan 2022-2030 (2023) requires that the design of new development should be informed by and retain and enhance the defining characteristics of the Settlement Focus Area of Colne (as set out in the Colne Neighbourhood Development Plan Design Code) within which it is located. The property lies within the Settlement Focus Area D: Northern suburban residential area. The council have not identified the conflict that results with this policy or the design code. I have not found that the proposal conflicts with its objectives.
The proposal similarly does not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 as it is likely to function well and adds to the overall quality of the area.
Although there have been concerns raised about this development setting a precedent, I am not satisfied that, given the character of this area, that other well designed porches, built in good quality materials, would result in harm to the character or appearance of this particular area or indeed the wider Settlement Focus Area. [name] have had regard to the council’s concerns and the limited disparity with the SPD, I have not found these matters to weigh significantly against the proposal. I therefore allow the appeal.
As the building works are complete and the porch is of a high standard with regard to materials, there is no need for conditions relating to the commencement of development or the materials to be used. I have made reference to the details of the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 341No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 January 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3352572
- Application reference
- 24/0128/HHO
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Pendle Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000122
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 25 September 2024
- Valid date
- 7 October 2024
- Start date
- 29 October 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 2 January 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 62335
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21