Demolish existing conservatory and erect two storey extension to side of dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2026 by J M Tweddle BSc(Hons) MSc(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002192 3 Gill Street, Nelson, Lancs BB9 7UD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Bernard Variyam against the decision of Pendle Borough Council. • The application Ref. is 25/0561/HHO. • The development proposed is described as demolish existing conservatory and erect two storey extension to side of dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 37 Surrey Road, with regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two story semi-detached dwelling at 3 Gill Street. The proposal would see the existing conservatory removed and replaced with a two storey side extension that would also extend beyond the rear elevation by approximately 1 metre. 4. To maintain acceptable living conditions for neighbouring residents, the Local Planning Authority’s Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (the SPD) requires a minimum distance of 12 metres between a principal window to a habitable room in one property and a two storey blank wall of a neighbouring property. Whilst this is only supplementary planning guidance, this is a reasonable requirement to ensure that adequate levels of outlook, and thereby living conditions, are maintained for residents. 5. The SPD does not explicitly cite a kitchen as being a habitable room. Nevertheless, given the amount of time occupiers are likely to spend in a kitchen to prepare meals and drinks throughout the day, it is reasonable to consider this as a habitable room for the purposes of applying the SPD guidance. 6. The nearest window at the neighbouring property, No. 37 Surrey Road, serves a kitchen as part of a single storey extension. This window is positioned at a right angle to the rear elevation of the appeal property. Given its proximity to the rear elevation, the outlook from this window is already limited by the imposing two storey rear elevation of the appeal property and its existing single storey rear extension, which dominate the outlook. 7. The development would introduce a two storey blank elevation within approximately 10 metres of this window. Whilst this elevation would only be about Appeal Decision 6002192 2 1 metre in width, it would further restrict the already limited outlook from the neighbouring kitchen window. In doing so, the development would create a harmful sense of enclosure and overbearing effect that would diminish the neighbouring occupier’s enjoyment of their property and would therefore be harmful to their living conditions. 8. The current occupiers of No.37 Surrey Road have raised no objection to the development. Nevertheless, the policy context, and accompanying SPD guidance, seeks to protect the living conditions of both existing and future occupiers. 9. For these reasons, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 37 Surrey Road, with regard to outlook. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan for Pendle Core Strategy 2011- 2030 and the associated provisions for the National Planning Policy Framework, which together seek to achieve the highest possible standards of design, and to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. The development would also fail to meet the required standards for residential accommodation as set out in the SPD which seek to protect outlook and avoid overbearing effects. Conclusion 10. The development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 11. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should fail. J M Tweddle INSPECTOR