Front and rear dormers on roof slopes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 July 2026 by J Hobbs MRTPI MCD BSc (hons) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009883 34 Barrowford Road, Colne, Lancashire BB8 9QE • 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 Akhnooq Anwar against the decision of Pendle Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0160/HHO. • The development proposed is front and rear dormers on roof slopes. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is an end of terrace dwelling. Several of the dwellings along this section of Barrowford Road include dormer extensions or rooflights. There are a few front dormers which are modest in size. There is no consistency to their design, but all are modest in scale and massing. There are also multiple rear dormer extensions, again they are of a varying design, but they are often much larger than the front dormers. 4. The proposed front dormer would be set down from the ridge and in from the side elevations. Nonetheless, it would extend to almost the entire width of the house and the ridge of its pitched roof would just be below the ridge of the main house. Accordingly, it would not appear as a modest or proportionate addition to the appeal property. Due to its scale and massing, the proposed front dormer would appear as a dominating feature within the roofscape, especially when viewed alongside other modest front dormers. Further, the proposed dormer would be contrary to the Design Principles SPD1, specifically where it advises that the front wall of a dormer should normally be set back at least 1m from the front elevation. 5. Due to the appeal properties position at the end of a terraced block, its rear elevation is highly visible from public areas. Similar to the proposed front dormer, the proposed rear dormer would extend to almost the entire width and height of the roof. Although the proposed rear dormer would significantly increase the massing of the roof, large rear roof extensions are seen elsewhere in the area. As such, the proposed rear dormer would not cause harm. 1 Local Development Framework for Pendle, Design Principles, Supplementary Planning Document, December 2009 Appeal Decision 6009883 2 6. The proposed materials of the dormers would not match the existing roof. This would further increase the visual prominence of the proposed dormers and would cause harm. However, if I were allowing the appeal, I would have attached a condition requiring details of the external finishes of the proposed dormers to be submitted to and agreed by the Council. This would ensure that the proposed external finishes do not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The appeal property is not within a conservation area nor is it in proximity to a listed building. Therefore, restrictive policies regarding heritage assets do not apply. Moreover, the Council has not imposed an Article 4 direction restricting certain permitted development rights in this area. Nevertheless, this does not alter my assessment on the acceptability of the proposed development. 8. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan, Fourth Edition (2021-2040), December 2025 (LP). These policies indicate that proposals for residential extensions will be supported where the proposal is proportionate to the original dwelling, amongst other matters. The proposed development would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework where it indicates that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 9. The proposed development would improve the amount of internal living space. This would provide a very limited improvement to the local housing stock. There would also be economic benefits associated with the construction of the extension. However, these benefits would not outweigh the identified harm. 10. Within their Planning Appeal Statement, the Appellant has referred to policies ENV1, ENV2 and LIV5. Based on the commentary within the Colne Neighbourhood Development Plan 2022-2030, June 2023 these appear to be policies within a development plan document that was superseded by the LP. As such, potential compliance with these policies would not outweigh the identified policy conflict. 11. The proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, and the provision of light. This would be expected of any development. As such, it is a neutral factor which neither weighs in favour nor against the proposed development. Conclusion 12. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. J Hobbs INSPECTOR