Rossendale Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Rossendale?
See the selected examples’ stated conclusions on harmful extensions and an access proposal’s street-tree evidence.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 29 of 35
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 28
- of 29 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Rossendale LPA (53.693833, −2.267305). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Rossendale Borough Council appeal findings
Rossendale area-character decisions on extensions and access
The selected examples include allowed and dismissed decisions, but most extracts give only a conclusion rather than the analysis behind it.
Counted against appeals
Extensions held harmful
Roof and dormer harm
The extract states that the hip-to-gable roof extension and rear dormer would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Rear extension harm
The extract states that the single-storey rear extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Side extension harm
The extract states that the first-floor side extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
What supported no harm
Extensions caused no harm
The extract concludes that the proposed extensions would not harm the property’s or area’s character and appearance, without further reasons.
No tree-root damage evidence
For the replacement access, the Inspector found no other evidence of street-tree root damage or long-term health effects, then concluded no area-character harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify the claimed harm to area character and appearance?
- Does it explain why the extension is harmful, rather than just state that conclusion?
- If a street tree is involved, is root-damage evidence provided?
The replacement-access example also concerns a street tree, so it is an edge example for this theme. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
19 April 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor front extension, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area in general.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the existing property and the area in general.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
25 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
construction of new, replacement access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in my view, the proposed access would comply with the Vehicle Crossing Policy and there is no other evidence before me to suggest that it would damage the roots of this street tree or affect its long-term health. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have no harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy ENV1 of the Rossendale Local Plan (2021) which seeks to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the natural environment, biodiversity or in protecting existing landscape features. It would also comply with paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that existing trees are retained wherever possible.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
27 July 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a hip to gable roof extension with rear dormer.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed development would therefore result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy 23 of the Rossendale Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011), which requires, amongst other things, that all new developments are of the highest standard of design that respects and responds to local context, distinctiveness and character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
21 October 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies HS9 and ENV1 of the Rossendale Local Plan (2021); and to the Council’s Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties Supplementary Planning Document (2008), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
27 February 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘proposed first floor side extension’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies HS9 and ENV1 of the Rossendale Local Plan 2019-2036 (Adopted 2021). These policies require, amongst other matters, that extensions should consider the area’s character and appearance, and safeguard and enhance the built environment. It would also be contrary to guidance in the Council’s AERP SPD, which includes advice that extensions should not detract from the appearance of the street-scene or general character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, it would conflict with guidance at Section 12 of the Framework, which seeks generally to secure good design that contributes to the quality of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2