Construction first floor of side extension, built of existing ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 June 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008821 157 Clifton Drive, Blackpool, Lancashire FY4 1RU • 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 Mr Nathen Armstrong against the decision of Blackpool Council. • The application Ref is 26/0059. • The development proposed is construction first floor of side extension, built of existing ground floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: - the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, and; - the living conditions of the occupants of 155 Clifton Drive with specific regard to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 4. The appeal dwelling is a two-storey detached property with a hipped roof. The surrounding area comprises of two-storey detached and semi-detached properties that are generally similar in their form and design to the appeal dwelling. This design uniformity, as well as the spaces between dwellings, gives the area a local distinctiveness and sense of spaciousness which contributes positively to its character and appearance. 5. The proposed first floor side extension would be situated above the existing single storey side extension and would be flush against the common boundary shared with 155 Clifton Drive (No. 155). The Council’s Extending Your Home SPD (the SPD) provides guidance for side extensions. This includes stating that the loss of the visual gap at first floor level between properties should be avoided, and a minimum gap of 1 metre to the side boundary should be maintained. The appeal Appeal Decision 6008821 2 proposal fails to achieve this and would result in a ‘terracing effect’ if a similar extension were to be replicated at No. 155 which would be detrimental to the street scene’s open character. Although development up to the common boundary is already established through the existing single-storey side extension at the appeal site, a distinct separation is still maintained at first-floor level. The proposed development would result in the complete loss of this spacing on the appeal site, which would be uncharacteristic of the area. 6. To its merit the proposed extension would be clad in matching materials and fenestration to the existing dwelling as well as appearing as a subservient addition through virtue of its recessed ridge height. Also, the proposed development would not ‘unbalance’ the pair of properties as both the appeal dwelling and No. 155 are seen in the street scene as individuals through their detached design, regardless of their close proximity. Nonetheless, regardless of these benefits, the erosion of the space between the dwellings would be harmful to the spacious character and appearance of the area. 7. I acknowledge that the existing flat roofed single storey side element does not respond to the architectural composition of the dwelling or complies with guidance. However, the presence of this does not provide justification for development which would further harm the character and appearance of the area. 8. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and host dwelling. It would be contrary to Policy CS7 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1 (2016) (LP P1); Policies DM17 and DM20 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2 (2023) (LP P2). Together, and amongst other things, these seek for new developments to be of a high quality and to enhance the character and appearance of the local area. Extensions and alterations must also be well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the original building and adjoining properties. 9. The proposal would also fail to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and its aims to achieve well designed places. Living conditions 10. The appeal scheme would result in a long wall at first floor level against the shared boundary with No. 155 owing to the extent of the proposed development’s proximity. This, coupled with its height and blank, featureless appearance would dominate views from No. 155’s balcony. The proposed extension would result in a strong sense of enclosure when coupled with the existing effect from No.155’s side wall. This cumulative visual dominance would unacceptably reduce the quality of outlook for balcony users to the detriment of their living conditions. 11. The occupiers of No. 155 have not objected to the appeal scheme, but this would not obviate the need for an assessment as to its effects in the context of the main issues. I also acknowledge that the proposed development would not result in a loss of privacy or loss of sunlight for neighbouring occupants. However, these benefits do not outweigh the identified harm to outlook. Furthermore, whilst there would be limited visibility of the proposed development from inside No. 155 this would not mitigate the harm I have identified in regard to the impact upon No. 155’s balcony. Appeal Decision 6008821 3 12. The proposed development would therefore be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No.155 Clifton Drive with particular regard to outlook. It would be contrary to Policy CS7 of LP P1 and Policies DM17 and DM20 of LP P2. These seek, amongst other things, that the design of new development should ensure that the amenities of nearby residents are not adversely affected. 13. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework and its aim for developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. B Plenty INSPECTOR