Proposed single storey rear kitchen extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2026 by J Buxton BA(Hons) DipArch ARB RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003288 35 Taylor Street, Brierfield, Lancashire BB9 5RY • 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 Mrs Mussarat Bano against the decision of Pendle Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/0480/HHO. • The development is a proposed single storey rear kitchen extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I note that the Council determined the application under the previous development plan. Since then, the Pendle Local Plan (2025) (PLP) has been adopted, and this now forms the statutory basis for decision-making. I am satisfied that no party would be unfairly prejudiced by my determination of the appeal giving full weight to the policies of the PLP. I make no further reference to the superseded development plan. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 37 Taylor Street (No. 37), with particular regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace house in a residential area and is typical of the surrounding terraces. It has an existing small single storey rear extension. The terrace is positioned on a slope, meaning that the appeal property is set lower than No. 37 which also has a small extension to the rear. 5. The proposal is for a single-storey rear kitchen extension with a flat roof. It would be positioned on the eastern side of the rear yard and would extend to the property’s rear boundary with the rear lane. Although the proposal would be set slightly lower than the ground level of the yard at No 37 it would extend the full length of the rear yard which would mean that it would be an imposing feature on the boundary and would dominate the outlook from the rear ground floor windows. 6. While the proposed kitchen extension may be a common form of addition to terraced properties in the local area, this does not in itself make the development acceptable. In this particular case, the specific relationship with the neighbouring property means that the extension would result in unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 37. Accordingly, despite its otherwise typical form, the proposal cannot be supported. Appeal Decision 6003288 2 7. In coming to my decision, I have had regard to the Pendle Design Principles SPD (2009), which advises that rear extensions should not appear unduly dominant and should be designed to avoid causing overshadowing and loss of outlook to neighbours. The SPD notes that single-storey extensions will generally be acceptable where they do not project more than 4 metres from the original rear elevation. Whilst I appreciate that these are guidelines I have not been presented with any substantive evidence which would lead me to deviate from these guidelines. 8. For these reasons, therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of No 37 with particular regard to outlook. Consequently, in this regard it would conflict with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan (2025), which seek to ensure that new development is well-designed and sympathetic to its surroundings, while protecting the character, appearance and amenity of existing places and residents. Other Matters 9. I have given careful consideration to the personal circumstances of the appellant who states that the extension is intended to provide additional space and a ground-floor WC for a disabled family member. However, it is unclear that this is the only way in which the adaptions could be made and I note that the WC and shower would only be able to be accessed from the yard and not directly from the house which casts some doubt on the suitability of the proposal for the stated need. 10. In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. The appeal is made for a single storey extension which the appellant states is to be occupied by a person or persons who because of age or disability, are persons which share a protected characteristic for the purposed of the PSED. In dismissing the appeal, I recognise that accommodation which may be suitable for persons with such a protected characteristics would not be forthcoming. However, in my view, the adverse impact of dismissing the appeal on those persons are proportionate to the adverse impacts that I have identified above. 11. The appellant refers to positive discussions with Officers at the Council regarding the design of the proposal. However, I am mindful that discussions with officers are not binding on any future decision the Council may make. This does not lead me away from my conclusion on the main issue in this case. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. J Buxton INSPECTOR