Appeal 6001874

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This application is attached as a separate decision.

The Council has adopted the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition 2021-2040 (2025) (LP) since making its decision. Consequently, the Policy referenced within the reason for refusal has been superseded. I am required to determine this appeal on the basis of the development plan which is in force at the time of my decision. Therefore, the main parties were given the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the comments made in relation to this matter.

The reason for refusal refers to “the adjoining property at number 2”. This is an error as the proposed extension relates to [address], and the adjoining properties are [address] and [address]. The Council has confirmed that the reason for refusal should have stated [address], and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant was invited to comment on this matter and has expressed concerns regarding the clarity of the decision. However, when the committee report and decision notice are read together (including the description of the site, references to the position of neighbouring windows, land levels, and the identified relationship between the properties), I am satisfied that it was sufficiently clear which adjoining property the Council intended to cite in the reason for refusal. The error in the decision notice does not alter my understanding of the Council’s case or the issues in dispute.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that a single-storey rear extension had been largely built. I noted that there were differences between that development and the plans before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have based my decision on the drawings and information provided with the appeal, not what has been built on site.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to outlook.

The proposal relates to a mid-terraced dwelling located within a primarily residential area. Owing to the local topography, the adjoining property at [address] (No. 4) sits at a lower level than the appeal site. It also differs in orientation from the main terrace, with its principal elevation facing [address]. It has a window which would face towards the extension, which I understand serves a habitable room. From the evidence before me, this window serves as the sole outlook for that room. The separation distance between this window and the extension would be minimal. No. 4 also has a living room window facing towards the back alley. This is positioned slightly behind the rear building line of [address], and the extension would be in close proximity to that window.

Given these relationships, and the combination of the extension’s siting, depth and height, the proposal would substantially increase the sense of enclosure experienced from No. 4 and occupiers would feel unduly hemmed in. The proximity, height and massing of the proposal would create an overbearing relationship, and the extension would appear unduly dominant when viewed from No. 4.

The appellant asserts that the extension would be consistent with the street and there are similar extensions nearby. [name] noted on my site visit that some surrounding terraces had a consistent pattern of single-storey rear extensions, this was not the case along this side of [address]. The nearby rear extensions vary in their relationship to adjoining properties, including differences in separation distances between windows and extensions, boundary wall heights, and overall scale and massing of the extension. I also do not have full details of the circumstances that led to those extensions being approved, and the evidence before me does not demonstrate that they have set a precedent. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 4, with particular reference to outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the LP. These collectively require development to achieve high quality design and to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on immediate neighbours, including through overbearing impacts.

It would also conflict with the Council’s Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document (2009) which states that rear extensions should be designed to avoid causing loss of outlook or appearing unduly dominant to neighbours.

The appellant has raised various other matters, including concerns that the Council’s refusal was flawed. [name] acknowledge that the objection comment was withdrawn, this is not in itself an indication that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.

The appellant also refers to an alleged lack of evidence to support the reason for refusal, such as the absence of a BRE daylight/sunlight assessment or overshadowing study. However, such assessments are generally used to consider loss of light and overshadowing, rather than effects on outlook. Although rear extensions can be built under permitted development rights, the extension before me would not fall within permitted development tolerances. The appellant also refers to the personal and financial impact of the planning refusal. My costs decision addresses whether the Council has behaved unreasonably, and the other matters raised do not alter my conclusions on the planning merits of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal does not succeed.