Appeal 6003221

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two-storey side extension at [site address] , [site address] , Barley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0588/HHO, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal property [site address] was delisted in 2024, and the appeal has been considered in the context of the current status of the building.

Before turning to the main issues, I note that the Council determined the application under the previous development plan. Since then, the Pendle Local Plan ([name]) was adopted in December 2025, and this now forms the statutory basis for decision-making. I have therefore assessed the appeal against the policies of this Plan, together with any other relevant material considerations.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal development on; • the character and appearance of [address] and the Whitehough Barley Conservation Area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5 [name] with particular regard to loss of privacy and outlook.

The appeal property, [site address] , was converted to a dwelling in 1988. Although it was previously listed, it was removed from the statutory list in 2024 as a result of alterations made during its conversion. Historically, the barn served the adjoining Whittakers cottage, a [name] listed building. Together the buildings lie to rear of the Whitehough Barley Conservation Area (CA) and are notable as part of a cluster of traditional cottages, barns and farm buildings, which sit within the Forest of Bowland National Landscape.

The buildings within the CA are grouped together in the valley, and from the main road only glimpsed views of the appeal barn and the adjacent listed building are available through vegetation. As you move through the settlement towards the appeal site your views of these buildings are also limited by the presence of other dwellings and outbuildings, meaning that the range is not viewed as a linear feature, until you are in close proximity. A public right of way (PROW) FP1308027 passes directly to the front and along the western end of the dwelling, providing the most immediate public vantage points from which the appeal property and the listed building are appreciated. From the west, the property is also visible from PROW FP138076 which runs along the property boundary to the west and when walking along Narrowgates towards the settlement. I observed on my site visit that consistent rooflines along the ranges are a feature of the CA when viewed from a distance.

[site address] contributes positively to the setting of [address] which is a coursed rubble stone building with large quoins and a stone slate roof. The original cottage dates from the late 17th to early 18th century. Its significance is its simple vernacular form and historic relationship with the attached former barn and the wider farm buildings within the CA. The listing also includes reference to the only cruck truss in a domestic building in the area, this is an internal feature and is therefore not affected by the proposed development.

The proposed 2-storey extension reflects the linear form of the appeal barn, and as it is shorter in length, reads as a subservient addition. Its proposed position at the south-western end of the building ensures it would not impact on the important view of [address] from within the CA. Although the extension would be seen in the context of the listed building, the setting has already been affected by the alterations made during the barn’s earlier conversion and the proposal would not further reduce the ability to appreciate the cottage’s historic qualities.

The front elevation would sit comfortably alongside the existing range, with matching detailing and materials. There is a difference of opinion in the evidence as to whether the extension should be subordinate in height to the appeal property, in this case the historic agricultural character of the building groups within the CA supports the use of uniform ridge heights. On that basis, I am satisfied that the proposed height is appropriate and does not undermine the character of the barn or [address].

The rear façade of the existing barn contains a mix of traditional and modern larger glazing. The proposed extension would also incorporate timber and glass elements. Although a contemporary intervention, this element would only be experienced in the context of the listed building via restricted views from the PROWs and therefore the effect of the proposals would not detract from the listed building. Similarly, the side elevation is not read in conjunction with the listed building, it includes 3 no. windows of a similar design to those on the current building and would therefore have no harmful effect.

S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In this case, the proposed extension is sympathetic in form, materials and scale. It would read as a continuation of the existing barn rather than as an encroachment on the listed cottage. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the significance of the listed building and its setting, resulting in no harm for the purposes of the S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or national policy.

During my site visit I observed the existing range and the CA from a number of vantage points including [site address] , Narrowgates and the PROWs that run adjacent to the boundary and through the appeal site. The appeal property lies to the rear of the CA settlement. As you approach the buildings are partially screened by other properties and outbuildings. The proposed extension would be screened in a similar way, and therefore the effect of the extension from within the CA would be limited. As a result, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character or appearance of the CA or its overall setting.

The experience of the PROW FP1308027 to the building’s frontage would alter to some degree. However, as previously described, the extension would be in keeping with the appearance of the existing barn. As such, this change would not undermine the character of the route or the wider CA.

The rear and south-western elevations of the proposals would be visible from both the PROW within the site FP1308027 and along the boundary FP1303076, as well as when approaching the settlement along Narrowgates. From these locations the extension would be seen against the backdrop of the existing barn and the wider CA. By replicating the height and massing of the original barn, the extension would blend with the historic setting and would not appear out of context with its historic surroundings. As such, its visibility in these wider views would not result in harm to the conservation area.

I have also had regard to the Council’s Conservation Area Design and Development Guidance SPD (2008) which provides useful guidance on the design principles expected locally. Taken together, the proposal sits comfortably within the expectations of the SPD. It respects the building’s original character, preserves its simple agricultural form, and avoids the types of external alteration that the policy identifies as harmful. In doing so, it maintains both the significance of [address] and its contribution to the character and appearance of the Whitehough Conservation Area.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.

In considering the effect of the proposal on the CA, the statutory duty requires that any impact be weighed against the harm it would have on the heritage asset. For the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not result in harm for the purposes of Section 72(1).

In light of my findings above, the proposed extension would not be harmful to [address] or the CA and is in accordance with the overarching aims of Policies Policy SP11, DM18, DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition (2021–2040), which seek to protect and enhance Pendle’s natural, historic and built environment by ensuring development is sensitively designed, well-integrated, and appropriate to its landscape and heritage context.

No. 5 [name] is found to the south of the appeal site and sits at a lower level than that of the barn, as a result the outlook between the existing ground and first floors is not direct. During my site visit I observed that the ground floor windows and glazed doors of No. [address] due to the level difference between the properties, an existing outbuilding and the existing separating boundary wall. As such the effect of the extension in this regard is minimal.

The first floor of the northern elevation of No. 5 looks out towards the appeal site; the building has two gables which face in this direction. Significantly the part of this dwelling closest to the boundary has three windows within the eastern gable which are not primary windows and are opaque. The proximity of these windows to the proposed development and the oblique angle of their position means in any event their outlook faces towards the existing barn and not the extension, thus the impact of the proposal here is acceptable. The window within the western gable is within a dual aspect room and would look out towards the proposed extension, again this view is slightly oblique, and the proposed extension would not extend to obstruct the view at first floor therefore this would be a suitable relationship.

Reduced separation distances are typical within a rural hamlet, and the relationship between No 5 and the proposed extension would not result in an unacceptable sense of overbearing. To address concerns regarding views from the extension the appellant is prepared to accept a condition for opaque glazing on the southern elevation, this would further control the privacy of No 5 and is therefore a suitable measure.

In light of my findings above, the proposed extension would not be harmful to the living conditions of No. 5 [name] and is that it is in accordance with the overarching aims of Policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan Fourth Edition (2021–2040) which among other things require proposals to be well-considered, sympathetic to their surroundings, and designed in a way that maintains heritage qualities.

There is a minor inconsistency between the parties within the evidence base regarding the calculated increase in volume. This is a minimal discrepancy and has not been determinative in my assessment of the scheme.

The site is located within a National Landscape and the [name], where Paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. The Development in the [name] similarly seeks extensions that respect landscape character and avoid intrusive or isolated forms of development. In this case, the proposed extension remains within the existing residential curtilage and continues the linear form of the dwelling as part of an established cluster of buildings. Although it increases the property’s footprint and massing, it would be perceived as part of this group rather than introducing a new or isolated feature in the wider landscape. Accordingly, the proposal would not result in unacceptable landscape or visual impact and would meet with expectations of the Development in the [name].

The appellant has confirmed that the public right of way would not be affected by the proposed extension and, in any event, any alteration to its route or status would need to be pursued through the appropriate legal process. The submitted plans indicate that the footpath would remain unobstructed, and any temporary disruption during construction can be managed through standard procedures via a separate legal process.

The narrow width and condition of the access track are acknowledged. Construction will temporarily increase vehicle movements, but such effects are short-term and can be controlled through an appropriate condition. The long-term use of the lane would be unchanged, as the proposal does not intensify residential activity. No new dwelling or additional units are proposed, so any permanent impact on the lane would be negligible.

I acknowledge the existing surface-water issues. The extension does not introduce a level of built form that would materially alter drainage patterns and run-off can be managed through modern construction methods. There is no evidence that the proposal would worsen flooding on neighbouring land or the bridleway.

Concerns about the drainage network are noted. However, the proposal does not increase foul drainage demand, so no impact on system capacity is expected.

The culvert’s presence is acknowledged. The plans do not show the extension being built over it or within an area that would affect its operation. Any need for protection or diversion can be addressed through Building Regulations. There is no evidence that the culvert’s position would increase flood.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit, plans and materials conditions are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty.

Due to the access to the front of the property also passing in front of [address] a condition for a Construction management plan which controls site activities is necessary and reasonable in the interests of public amenity.

A condition to provide obscure glazing is also necessary and reasonable in the interests of privacy.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: • Plan 01 – Location Plan • Plan 04 – Amended Elevation Plan – Proposed ([name] A2.3A) • Plan 05 – Amended Elevation Plan – Existing & Proposed ([name] A2.1A) • Plan 06 – Amended Layout Plan – Existing & Proposed ([name] A1.2A) • Plan 07 – Elevation Plan – Existing & Proposed ([name] A3.2) • Plan 08 – Volume Plan – Existing & Proposed ([name] A3.1) • Plan 10 – Elevation Plan – Existing & Proposed ([name] A2.2) • Plan 13 – Site Plan – Proposed ([name] A1.1) • Plan 14 – Site Plan – Existing ([name] A1.0)

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor windows on the south-eastern elevation have been fitted with obscure glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. The obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. wheel washing facilities; v. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vi. delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.