Described on the planning application form as a ‘3m single storey rear extension dormers to roof and rear at roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2026 by A Hartley, LLB (Hons), Solicitor, MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal Ref: 6009858 19 Queensgate, Nelson, Lancashire BB9 0AT • 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 Haseeba Shazad against the decision of Pendle Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0171/HHO. • The development is described on the planning application form as a ‘3m single storey rear extension dormers to roof and rear at roof slopes’. - Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the front and rear dormer windows. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension only and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 19 Queensgate, Nelson, Lancashire, BB9 0AT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0171/HHO, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision; 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the single storey rear extension only: Plan 01 - Site & Location Plan; Plan 02 - Roof Plan Existing & Proposed; Plan 03 - Elevation Plan Existing & Proposed; Plan 04 - Layout Plan Existing & Proposed; Plan 05 - Roof Plan Existing & Proposed; Plan 06 - Layout Plan Existing & Proposed; Plan 07 - Layout Plan Proposed; Plan 08 - Layout Plan Existing and Plan 09 - Elevation Plan Existing & Proposed. 3) The external materials of the single storey rear extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised since the parties made their original submissions. The main parties have been invited to make further representations in relation to the Framework. Any representations received have been taken into consideration. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6009858 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, set back from the highway in an elevated position, within a residential area that includes dwellings of similar design. Other than the front dormer to the adjoining dwelling at 21 Queensgate (No 21), there are no front dormers on properties within the immediate surrounding area. 5. The proposal would introduce front and rear flat roof dormer windows, and a single storey rear extension. Front and Rear Dormer Windows 6. The proposed front dormer would be set back approximately 0.1m from the shared boundary with No 21 and approximately 0.6m from the front, and as such, would be at odds with the Pendle Design Principles (2009) (SPD) which requires dormers to be set back at least 0.5m from each side and 1m from the front. In addition, it states that dormers on front roof slopes are unlikely to be acceptable unless they are a feature of other similar houses in the locality. 7. The design of the front dormer would dominate the roof and create a top heavy, boxy appearance that would cause substantial harm to the host dwelling and be incongruous within the street scene. 8. My attention is drawn to the existing dormer window on the front elevation of No 21. I find that this is smaller, set back from the front elevation, and not typical within the street scene. Its presence does not justify the identified harm that would be caused by the appeal proposal and there would be even greater harm to the street scene from the combination of the proposal with this existing dormer. 9. Accordingly, I find that the proposed front dormer window would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene, and conflict with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan (Fourth Edition) (2025) (LP) and the SPD. 10. The proposed rear dormer would not be visible from public vantage points. I find that on its own, due to its rear position, it would not detract from the appearance of the host dwelling and would be acceptable within the street scene. However, I do not consider the rear dormer window element of the proposal to be clearly severable from the proposed front dormer. This is because the proposed internal layout at first floor would not then be achievable. I am therefore unable to grant planning permission for the rear dormer in isolation. Rear Extension 11. The appeal proposal includes a single storey rear extension with flat roof. I find this element of the appeal proposal to be clearly severable both physically and functionally from the aforementioned front and rear dormer windows. This rear extension would be subservient to the host dwelling and the modest dimensions in place of the current single storey conservatory would not detract from the overall design of the property or appear as an overwhelming addition. It would not be visible in the street scene. Appeal Decision 6009858 3 12. For the reasons given, the single storey rear extension element of the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such, this element would comply with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the LP and the SPD, which seek high quality design of a scale and character appropriate to its context and wider setting. Other Matters 13. The proposal would provide additional floorspace within the curtilage. Policy L2 of the Framework provides that substantial weight be given to this benefit. However, the Framework also states that such proposals should be consistent with the overall street scene. Insofar as the dormer windows element of the appeal proposal is concerned, given the substantial harm I have found to the street scene, it has not been necessary for me to afford substantial weight to the benefits of the additional floorspace in respect of this element of the proposal. 14. The dormer windows element of the proposal would provide additional living accommodation however these benefits would be small, largely personal to the appellant and would not outweigh the harm that I have found would be caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. 15. In respect of the single storey rear extension, as I find this to be consistent with the overall street scene, I have attached substantial weight to the benefit of this additional floorspace in accordance with Policy L2. 16. It is acknowledged that the proposal is not within a Conservation Area or subject to an Article 4 Direction, nevertheless development plan policies relating to character and appearance remain applicable. Conditions 17. The Council proposed a condition restricting hours of construction. However, the works to construct the single storey rear extension are of such a minor scale that I do not consider this to be reasonable or necessary in this case. I have attached a condition specifying the plans in the interests of certainty and a condition relating to materials in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 18. For the above reasons, having regard to all representations made, I conclude that the dormer windows element of the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and with the provisions of the Framework. As I have found the single storey rear extension element of the proposal acceptable and physically and functionally severable, I shall issue a split decision. 19. There are no material considerations that would justify determining the appeal otherwise. Therefore, insofar as the appeal relates to the single storey rear extension it should be allowed. Insofar as the appeal relates to the remainder of the appeal proposal, the appeal should be dismissed. A Hartley INSPECTOR