Rear dormer at 4 Brookhouse Gardens, Blackburn

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a flat-roof rear dormer with grey cladding at a semi-detached house.

“Proposed development: Full Planning Application (Retrospective) for Erection of rear dormer (Retrospective)”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The property is at the end of a domestic cul-de-sac, on lower land than its neighbour, with a business-centre car park behind.

“The application site relates to a semi-detached property at the end of a domestic cul de sac off Whalley Range, within the urban boundary of Blackburn. The application property sits on lower land than the adjoining property (2 Brookhouse Gardens) meaning the whole house, including ridge height, is notably lower than the adjoining property. The rear elevation faces onto the Brookhouse Business centre car park, which accommodates a number of commercial units.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered the estate’s dwellings and a detached shed with a replacement boundary wall.

“10/93/1653 – Erection of 21 Dwellings on Enamel Street area (Site 1) and 19 Dwellings on Freme Street area (Site 2) Address: Sites at Enamel Street and Freme Street, Off Whalley Range, Blackburn - Approved.”

“10/20/0491 - Erection of detached shed to rear and replacement of existing timber boundary fence with a 2m high boundary wall – Approved.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the dormer acceptable in planning terms and compliant with relevant policies.

“This proposal relates to an application for retrospective planning consent for a flat roof rear dormer extension. Two objections were received, which are addressed later in this report.”

“Assessment of the application finds that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms and complies with the relevant planning policies. Therefore, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, the proposal is considered acceptable and recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Design and neighbour effects

The dormer was considered acceptable in visual design and residential amenity terms, with no material detrimental impact on neighbours.

“The rear of the property is also only visible from the Brookhouse Business Centre car park to the rear and is not visible in the wider street scene. The dormer does not look out of keeping in its local context, and flat roof dormers are generally permitted on rear elevations in any case. The rear elevation of the dormer is set back 200mm from the house eaves point, and it does not exceed the height of the highest part of the existing house roof.”

“Neighbour amenity 3.8.1 Policy DM02 of the Local Plan states that all development proposals should secure a satisfactory level of amenity and safety for surrounding uses and for occupants or users of the development itself, with reference to noise, vibration, odour, light, dust, other pollution or nuisance, privacy / overlooking, and the relationship between buildings. Those requirements are reinforced by the Residential Design Guide SPD.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Neighbours were notified and two objections were received, raising concerns about amenity, design, plans, ownership and procedure.

“The planning application was received by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on 10 th July 2025. 4 neighbours were notified about the proposed development by letter on 14th July 2025.”

“Two letters of objection were subsequently received from neighbours, which are summarised in Para 3.9 of this report. The full representations (redacted where appropriate) are in Section 9 of this report.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Neighbours alleged encroachment, inaccurate drawings, party-wall and structural problems, loss of daylight, overbearing effects and procedural defects.

“Further Objection - Mr & [the objector], 2 Brookhouse Gardens, Blackburn. Received: 07.08.2025 Dear I write to formally object to the retrospective planning application at 4 Brookhouse Gardens Ref 10/25/0713 on the following planning grounds: Endoscopic inspection and External survey by Richard G Johnson LTD (Party Wall Expert) and M2 Construction LTD have confirmed Steel, Cladding and Guttering Encroachment, pressure on the parapet and Cavity intrusions.”

“Neighbouring Harm The dormer causes overbearing impact, Visual intrusion, and loss of natural daylight to our garden area and creates avisible structural distortion to the parapet line. Structural and Design Harm The dormer’s construction lacks professional weatherproofing, relies on silicone sealing, and introduces long term structural deformation. It disrupts the visual rhythm of this estate and exceeds acceptable bulk and massing guidelines. 5.5.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and an agent spoke, and the applicant was identified for the item.

Committee decision

The committee approved the retrospective application under the planning legislation, subject to conditions and an amended approved-plan condition.

“RESOLVED – Approved subject to the conditions highlighted in the Director’s Report and the amendment condition in the Update Report:”

“Unless explicitly required by condition within this consent, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the proposals as detailed on the following drawings: Location Plan 04:/BH/BB/01: Issue 1; Revision 5: Proposed Plans and Elevations (scale 1:50 and 1:100 @ A1), dated October 2025 04:/BH/BB/01: Issue 2; Revision 1: Zoomed in Rear Elevation (scale 1:20 @ A1), dated October 2025 04:/BH/BB/01: Issue 2; Revision 1: Zoomed in Roof Plan…”

Minutes