Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by Richard Gilbert BA (Hons) MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008128 341 Brunshaw Road, Burnley, Lancashire BB10 3HX • 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 Alexis Carroll against the decision of Burnley Borough Council. • The application Ref is HOU/2026/0014. • The development proposed is a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 343 Brunshaw Road, with particular regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey house. It is situated amongst a row of similar dwellings that share a common size and layout. They are oriented along a linear building line and set behind driveways with broadly even spacing between each pair. Single storey bay windows that are positioned below wide canopies also feature consistently upon principal elevations on this side of the street. Whilst terraced properties are located opposite, the character and appearance of the area is one of rhythm and regularity that fits with the straight trajectory of Brunshaw Road. 4. The appeal proposal involves the erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension. A detached garage would be demolished to facilitate the proposal. During the course of the application, the proposal was amended so that the principal elevation and roof ridge would be set back and down from the associated elements of the main dwelling. Despite these alterations, the mass of the proposal would be substantial. Its ground floor, though flush with the bay window, would be much larger in size and would project beyond most of the principal elevation. When considered alongside the first floor above, the side extension would dominate the façade of the host dwelling and imbalance its proportions relative to Appeal Decision 6008128 2 its neighbours. It would therefore appear harmfully incongruent despite its matching materials and the space created by the demolished garage. 5. The set back at the first floor would not be of sufficient depth to meaningfully reduce the overall bulk and massing of the side extension. Due to its limited depth, it would result in only a marginal reduction in ridge height. Consequently, these design measures would do little to lessen the scale of the side extension, with the height difference between it and the appeal property being negligible and therefore likely to be imperceptible within the street scene. The harm to the character and appearance of the area that would result stems from the failure of the appeal proposal to follow the subservient design approach advocated in the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD). 6. Whilst the ground floor element seeks to replicate the design of the canopy roof, it would not be a true canopy. It would not overhang the elevation nor reproduce a shadowing effect. For these reasons it is not a design feature that the appeal property would share with its neighbours, and it would further contribute to the incongruity of the extension in the streetscene. 7. The appellant has cited the presence of various other extensions to properties nearby and I have viewed those that have been suggested to me. The extensions to these dwellings are not comparable in either style or form to the appeal proposal. Furthermore, whilst they may not have the set back advised by the SPD, I do not know the exact circumstances of how and when they came into being, and therefore I am unable to draw meaningful parallels between them and the appeal scheme. Moreover, they are too few in number and too far apart to change the character and appearance of the area to the extent that the appeal proposal would complement the streetscene. Accordingly, their presence does not persuade me to reach an alternative conclusion on this main issue and does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found, which I have determined on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence before me. 8. I conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. Conflict therefore arises with Policies SP5 and HS5 of Burnley’s Local Plan (2018) (BLP). These policies seek, amongst other things, development of an appropriate type and scale, that has respect for its townscape setting and is subordinate to the existing building to allow the form of the original building to be clearly understood. The Council states that the proposal would be contrary to Policy SP4 of the BLP. However, as this policy relates to where new development should be located in the borough it is not relevant to this issue. Living Conditions 9. The Council states that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbours contrary to Policy HS4 of the BLP. However, as this policy relates to new housing developments, I have assessed the scheme against policy HS5 which relates to house extensions. 10. The rear of the appeal property sits at a lower level than at the front and is laid out symmetrically to its adjoining neighbour, 343 Brunshaw Road (No.343). They both feature two-storey projecting wings that are set away from the shared boundary. In this space, No.343 possesses a set of French doors that provide access and Appeal Decision 6008128 3 outlook from a habitable room onto its raised terrace. The wings include a single- storey lean-to that projects further into the garden. 11. The proposed single storey rear extension would encompass the projecting wing of the appeal property and tie into the roof pitch of the lean-to. As the extension rises in height towards the main rear wall of the host dwelling, its side wall would appear particularly tall. The close proximity of this wall to the shared boundary would create an overbearing effect that would restrict the outlook available to the occupiers of the affected room whilst diminishing the level of daylight that would otherwise permeate their living space. 12. The harm that would result from the proposal is substantiated by its contravention of the 45 degree rule prescribed by the SPD. Whilst a similar extension may be able to be constructed under permitted development rights, it would not project as far as the appeal scheme. It would therefore align closer to the 45 degree angle and would be less harmful than the appeal proposal in terms of its impact on living conditions. As a result, I attach limited weight to this fallback position in favour of the appeal. 13. Considering the above, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 343 Brunshaw Road, with particular regard to outlook and daylight. It would subsequently conflict with Policy HS5 of the BLP which seeks to protect the living conditions of neighbours, including in relation to outlook and daylight. Other Considerations 14. In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have also had due 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. 15. In this instance, the appeal is made to provide additional living space to allow the appellant to provide care and support for a close relative whilst residing as a single family unit. However, in my view, the adverse impacts of dismissing the appeal on the person with protected characteristics of age and disability, are proportionate to the adverse impacts that I have identified above, and it has not been demonstrated to me that the same outcome could not be reached by a less harmful scheme. 16. I have also noted that separation distances to surrounding properties are a disputed matter, however they are not a consideration that is applicable to the main issues in this instance. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Richard Gilbert INSPECTOR